Wednesday, June 2, 2021

Byron York's Daily Memo: Second thoughts about voting for Joe Biden

Byron York's Daily Memo: Second thoughts about voting for Joe Biden

Welcome to Byron York's Daily Memo newsletter.

Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up here to receive the newsletter.

SECOND THOUGHTS ABOUT VOTING FOR JOE BIDEN. It was well known during the presidential campaign that many Biden voters were happier about voting against Donald Trump than voting for Joe Biden. A Monmouth University poll taken a couple of weeks after the election found that 57 percent of Biden voters reported being happy with his victory, while 73 percent said they were happy that Trump lost. So a significant number of them voted more against Trump than for Biden.

That sense of ambivalence about Biden has lasted into his presidency. A new Fox News poll asked the question, "Are you satisfied with how you voted in the 2020 presidential election, or do you wish you had voted differently?" Ninety-one percent of Biden voters said they were satisfied. Among Democrats, 89 percent said they were satisfied. Of people who call themselves liberals, 85 percent were satisfied. While those numbers are high, they are still lower than the last two winning candidates in the early months of their presidencies. In April 2017, 97 percent of Trump voters said they were satisfied with their vote, while in April 2009, 93 percent of Obama voters said they were satisfied.

There appears to be a growing concern among some voters that Biden is not governing the way he campaigned. During his run for the White House, Biden presented himself as a "centrist," and much media coverage happily went along. But once in office, Biden has pushed massive spending proposals to remake America. He has not uttered a word of protest when admiring media commentators compared him to Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, Democrats who succeeded in passing massive proposals to remake America.

In short, Biden is pushing more change than some of his voters want. The change they wanted was to get rid of Trump, not elect a new FDR.

The Fox News poll asked, "Do you think Joe Biden's positions on the issues are too liberal, too conservative, or just about right? Back in December, before Biden was sworn in, 36 percent said his positions were too liberal. Now, 46 percent say so. In December, 15 percent said Biden's positions were too conservative; now, ten percent say so. In both polls, about 40 percent said Biden's positions were just about right. But the bottom line is the number of voters who believe Biden is too liberal is growing.

Fox also asked voters whether they thought the Biden administration's spending proposals are "intended to jumpstart the economy" or "intended to transform the country with liberal social policies." Forty-four percent said jumpstart the economy, while 47 percent said enact liberal social policies.

Biden's overall job approval remains fairly high -- 54 percent in the Fox poll, the same as in April. But his performance during his first few months in office has been judged in large part by his handling of the COVID pandemic, which was easing even before he was sworn in. Biden's only big legislative success so far was sold as a COVID relief bill, even though it was much more than that. And of course, dealing with the pandemic was one of the main reasons, if not the main reason, voters chose Biden.

But now, Biden is moving on to bigger plans, sometimes described as an effort to "rebuild America." Which leads to a question: Does America really need to be rebuilt? Biden's agenda, a liberal wish-list of big spending on social services, a government-wide emphasis on "equity," and even consideration of a plan to pack the Supreme Court, likely goes beyond what many of his voters bargained for. Look for an increasing number of voters to say they're having second thoughts about their choice last November.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/byron-yorks-daily-memo-second-thoughts-about-voting-for-joe-biden

Another Left-Wing Hoax About Trump Blows Up

Another Left-Wing Hoax About Trump Blows Up

Michael Reynolds/Pool via AP

The Left and the media long suspected that the Department of Justice memo upon which former Attorney General William Barr based his decision not to prosecute then-president Donald Trump for obstruction of justice contained a “smoking gun” that would prove Trump guilty and discredit Barr’s conclusions.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson apparently put that theory to rest when she ordered the release of part of the memo that dealt with how Barr reached that decision. Barr relied on advice from several sources, including the Office of Legal Counsel. The OLC recommended against prosecuting Trump, not only because there are constitutional issues with prosecuting a president for obstruction, but also because even if Trump were a private citizen, there wouldn’t be enough evidence to charge him.

Recall that Special Counsel Robert Mueller left the decision on charging Trump with obstruction to the attorney general. After listening to many opinions, Barr said there wasn’t enough evidence to justify an indictment.

RecommendedRobert Mueller Goes from Savior of the Republic to Bumbling Fool in the Course of 5 Hours

The parts of the memo released so far call into question Mueller’s decision not to exonerate Trump himself. Perhaps Mueller was hoping that Barr’s DOJ would find a way to prosecute the president where he could not.

Washington Post:

The Justice Department filing is likely to both fuel and frustrate Trump’s biggest critics, particularly Democrats who have long argued that Barr stage-managed an exoneration of Trump after Mueller submitted a 448-page report into his findings about his investigation into whether the 2016 Trump campaign conspired with Russia to interfere in the election, and whether Trump tried to obstruct that investigation.

The central document at issue is a March 2019 memo written by two senior Justice Department officials arguing that aside from important constitutional reasons not to accuse the president of a crime, the evidence gathered by Mueller did not rise to the level of a prosecutable case, even if Trump were not president.

Judge Jackson had earlier issued a blistering assessment of Barr’s “disingenuousness” about what was in the memo and the series of events that led to his decision. Jackson ordered the entire memo released.

But now the Biden DOJ has stepped in and is appealing Jackson’s ruling.

“In retrospect, the government acknowledges that its briefs could have been clearer, and it deeply regrets the confusion that caused. But the government’s counsel and declarants did not intend to mislead the Court,” the Justice Department lawyers wrote in asking that the rest of the memo be kept secret.

Indeed, the OLC memo was fairly clear in its conclusions that “certain of the conduct examined by the Special Counsel could not, as a matter of law, support an obstruction charge under the circumstances. Accordingly, were there no constitutional barrier, we would recommend, under the Principles of Federal Prosecution, that you decline to commence such a prosecution.”

Recommended (From 2019)The Case for Obstruction in the Mueller Report May Not Be as Strong as the MSM Thinks It Is

Ed Morrissey agrees that Barr has credibility problems but that there’s nothing “unethical” about Barr consulting with OLC.

Hot Air:

Even if there are credibility issues arising from the way Barr and the DoJ described the decision process (and there are), there is nothing unethical or even unusual about consultations with the OLC on legal points and policies. Had Barr been consulting with Mueller all along without disclosing it, that might have been a problem for the credibility of Mueller’s report. This, however, appears to be in line with the OLC’s purpose — as an advisory board, not an independent watchdog. Like so many of the supposed gotchas in the Russia-collusion quest, this one winds up as nothing much more than a process issue.

The Left is mostly quiet about the release of this memo. It’s not quite the bombshell they were looking for. The bottom line is that legally, Trump could not be prosecuted even if he wasn’t president. That’s not going down very well on the Left today.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2021/05/25/another-left-wing-hoax-about-trump-blows-up-n1449498

Tuesday, June 1, 2021

Tim Scott won’t wear your left-wing label (DP: Please give this lengthy piece on Tim Scott it's due; save and read it all)

 Tim Scott won’t wear your left-wing label

by Salena Zito, National Political Reporter |

NORTH CHARLESTON, South Carolina — All that is left of the lot where Sen. Tim Scott’s house stood on Meeting Street Road is a desolate field filled with dirt, gravel, and mounds of weed-choked grass. The poverty and crime rates in this neighborhood are consistently higher than the national averages. Some people, says Scott, call it a “nobody zone.”

But Scott, the first black senator from the South since Reconstruction, once called it home.

It was here that he lived with his grandfather, mother, and brother on the wrong side of the poverty line after his parents separated. Five family members shared two bedrooms; Scott shared a bed with his brother.

In an interview with the Washington Examiner, the rising Republican star, now talked of as a future presidential candidate, said the property where he grew up is an example of “the beauty of America,” where “in the most insignificant places from the outside, there’s always significance on the inside.”

America helps write such stories. “Always has, always will. So, when I think about the story behind that empty lot today, and I have lots of pictures of what it looked like when I was there, I think about high-potential people living in places where most people don’t visit.”

Scott’s story is a characteristic American narrative of redemption. “It’s the story that even though you fall or find yourself in a tough situation, it’s not the end of your story.” Scott’s story has already seen him become the first African American to serve in both the House and the Senate.

Scott is clearly the author of his own story. It’s not derivative, and it doesn’t fit into the hackneyed narrative provided by the Left for racial minorities. Scott’s originality and refusal to be stereotyped rankle his left-wing critics and confound much of the political media, which see America as a land not of opportunity but of oppression, a place where a man’s politics should be determined by his skin color or his class.

“America is not a racist country,” Scott bluntly and bravely declared to millions of television viewers who watched him deliver the Republican response to President Joe Biden’s first speech to Congress. “It’s backwards to fight discrimination with different types of discrimination. And it’s wrong to try to use our painful past to dishonestly shut down debates in the present.”

It was an incendiary truth and, of course, lit the Left on fire.

“That’s absurd,” former Labor Secretary Robert Reich said of Scott’s assertion. Other detractors went further. “Tim Scott complained about being called an Uncle Tom and then 60 seconds later said America is not a racist country,” said former MSNBC host Toure Neblett, apparently seeing Scott as a race-traitor. For laughs, ABC host Jimmy Kimmel portrayed Scott as a brainless servant of white Republicans on his show after the speech.

The Left’s hidebound idea that the opinions of the country’s racial minorities are preset by white elites makes Scott incomprehensible to many of his detractors. It also makes him dangerous to them and to the way they see the world. Washington Post “fact-checker” Glenn Kessler published a bizarre column insinuating that, because other families were poorer than Scott’s, the senator was being misleading when he talked about his family going in two generations from picking cotton to serving in Congress.

This strange episode would have been impossible if not for the common left-of-center bewilderment that Scott isn’t who Democrats think he should be.

So, who is he?

The Politician 

Scott struggled with academics in high school, but he did have a notable breakthrough: He won his junior year race for student vice president. Then, he won again when he ran in his senior year for student president.

It was the last nonpartisan election in which he competed.

It was while he was in high school that he met John Moniz, a Citadel graduate and Air Force veteran who owned a Chick-fil-A restaurant across from the Northwoods mall movie theater where the teenage Scott worked. The two struck up a friendship, and Scott flourished under Moniz’s guidance. When Moniz died suddenly in 1985, Scott was devastated. “Over the course of three or four years, John transformed my way of thinking, which changed my life,” Scott wrote in a 2010 op-ed about mentorship for the Post and Courier. “It was interesting because the lessons that John was teaching me were maybe simple lessons, but they were profound lessons."

"He taught me that if you want to receive, you have to first give. Embedded in that conversation, I came to realize, was the concept that my mother was teaching me about individual responsibility.”

College for Scott was a tussle between football and faith. Faith won. Yet politics for him was always part of that. In 1994, he won a seat on the Charleston County Council. He ran again a short time later for state senator and lost, which made him consider becoming a religious minister. But Scott quickly found that he didn’t have to choose between faith and politics, and he moved forward by building a life built on both. He wound up serving on the county council for 13 years and eventually won a state legislative House seat in 2008.

After briefly considering a run for lieutenant governor, he instead ran for Congress in 2010, after the GOP incumbent Henry Brown abruptly retired. The contest pitted him against Carroll Campbell, son of a popular former governor, and Paul Thurmond, son of the famous Sen. Strom Thurmond.

He won and rode into Washington, D.C., on the Tea Party wave. Fellow South Carolinian Trey Gowdy recalls that even among the high number of new freshman Republicans, everyone knew Scott was at a higher level than the rest.

“He was the Elvis Presley of our class and could have been easily without opposition the freshman class president but didn’t want to run,” Gowdy told the Washington Examiner.

Although Gowdy is from the same state as Scott, they had not met before freshman orientation in Washington. But Gowdy already knew who Scott was.

“I was sitting there, reading my hometown newspaper, Spartanburg Herald-Journal, and it said there was going to be a lieutenant governor’s debate at Wofford College, which is a really good small liberal arts school in my hometown,” Gowdy explained.

He looked to see who was crazy and dumb enough to run for a part-time job that paid little and saw Scott’s name on the list. When he picked up the newspaper the next day, he read that Scott hadn’t bothered to show up for the debate. “I thought, well, heck, that guy’s got no future in politics. I mean, he can’t even show up."

Gowdy was quickly disabused when Scott ran instead for the House of Representatives “from the same district where the Civil War began.”

The two men quickly formed a bond. “I think he was looking for someone that he could talk to in confidence that didn’t want anything, and I was just looking for somebody whose accent I could understand.”

Gowdy said they met each evening despite Scott’s busy schedule and the curiosity he received from the press. It was soon clear that news media were interested in Scott not for his ideas but because of the color of his skin.

“Tim has this happy warrior approach in him similar to both Reagan and Jack Kemp where he can authentically show how conservatism can work for everyone. Take, for example, his work on the opportunity zones; it was the perfect legislative vehicle by which to express that, but while he was trying talking about educational opportunity and choice and poverty, the D.C. media likes to go talk to him about race-related issues,” Gowdy explained.

“He understands why they want to talk to him about race because he is the only black Republican senator, but, I mean, he also helped write the tax bill; why don’t they want to talk to him about that?”

The Antidote

The answer is, in part, because Scott is a living, breathing rebuke to the idea that America is a racist country. He exists outside the Left’s cultural narrative, in which black people are Democrats and left-wing. The media’s refusal to see anything but Scott’s skin color is an attempt to force him to fit the narrative. Scott is a threat to the activist media because the truth is contagious: When he stated that “America is not a racist country,” it was a powerful enough message, given its source, that it forced President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris to face it. They were asked for their reaction, which pinned them down. And rather than contradict him by saying that America was racist, they both agreed with Scott, implicitly contradicting the argument they had made throughout their path to the White House.

Scott is not new to the culture’s denial of black individuality. “As a kid growing up in poverty in South Carolina in ‘70, ‘71, ‘72, when my parents divorced, people sometimes see you as a statistic,” he said. “They talk about all these project kids. … So, people see you as a statistic and not really as an individual. And to me, one of the greatest cravings of the soul is individual significance.”

In 2017, HuffPost writer Andy Ostroy tweeted that Scott was given a front-row seat during Donald Trump’s tax reform press event as a ploy to exploit the color of his skin.

“What a shocker,” wrote Ostroy. “There’s ONE black person there and sure enough they have him standing right next to the mic like a manipulated prop. Way to go @SenatorTimScott.”

Scott, who played an integral role in putting the bill together, was having none of it and responded: “Uh probably because I helped write the bill for the past year, have multiple provisions included, got multiple Senators on board over the last week and have worked on tax reform my entire time in Congress. But if you’d rather just see my skin color, pls feel free.”

Scott gave an emotional speech on the Senate floor that same year after Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, referred to his police reform bill as “token” legislation.

“To call this a token process hurts my soul for my country, for our people,” Scott said of Durbin’s response to the Justice Act, which would have made lynching a federal hate crime, incentivized police departments to ban chokeholds, and included emergency grant programs for body cameras.

For Scott, Kessler’s column in the Washington Post was a perfect example of racism from white elites who insist on black ideological and intellectual conformity: “To write a story that questions whether or not my grandfather had to pick cotton when he was a kid, a black kid in 1928 on a farm? OK. And your family are founding executives of the Royal Dutch Shell petroleum company? You’re writing about my family, and you’re raising questions unnecessarily? My reaction to that was not as good as it could be.”

Scott has been navigating the issue of race since childhood. “When you’re 7 years old and you’re in a single-parent household and you’re one of very few black kids in your classroom in your school, people will label you, and that label sticks,” he said. “Kids, particularly, have a way of making the outsider feel like they are outside. And so, I wore that label. … Being good at sports will make you more cool than other things, so you become a jock, and that’s a label, too, and so I wore that label. When you are poor and you have three or four pairs of pants, and you got to wear them every week and you got holes in your shoes, so you put a little cardboard in the bottom of them and people make fun of you, you wear that label,” he said.

The Contender 

Scott is up for reelection in 2022 for the Senate seat he has held since 2013, when then-Gov. Nikki Haley appointed him to replace Republican Sen. Jim DeMint. He has pledged to serve only two six-year terms, which naturally raises the question of what comes next, and presents the possibility of a run for president. The noise about this next step has increased sharply since he gave his widely acclaimed speech last month.

Scott is undeniably on the minds of Republican voters as they consider 2024 and beyond. If Donald Trump doesn’t run, the field of contenders is wide open, and it might be the perfect time for Scott to step forward. He would be a formidable candidate in both the primaries and general, not least because it would force the nation to scrutinize the repeated assertion of racism among the GOP’s blue-collar voters. A Scott candidacy would also scramble preconceived notions of modern conservative politics propagated by the media.

Scott isn’t addressing the question of the presidency, yet. But Gowdy is.

“I absolutely think he should run, and I think he should run regardless of the outcome,” said Gowdy, adding that Scott could change the world even in a losing campaign. “I think his candidacy would be fantastic for the country.”

Gowdy said Scott takes nothing for granted, despite his popularity. “I mean, if Lindsey Graham had Tim’s poll numbers, well, first of all, he’d die of a heart attack due to excitement and joy,” he said. Gowdy recently looked at data on how Scott might do in a gubernatorial race. “So, we’re looking at it together, and his primary approval numbers were like 93. And I’m sitting there looking at him, and … I know what’s getting ready to happen. He wants to know who the 7 are, and what can he do to get things right with that 7%.”

The idea that Scott would make a White House run makes Gowdy emotional. “Because most Republicans are white,” he said, “I don’t think they have any real appreciation for what he goes through as a black conservative; I mean, you can call me “Uncle Trey” and that means nothing to me.” Gowdy was referring to Twitter’s decision to let “Uncle Tim” trend for 12 hours after Scott’s national speech.

“Most Republicans have no idea how painful that is. The easy thing for him to do would be to do what I did and check out and go do something else, make money for a living,” said Gowdy, who has retired from politics.

“And there he is, still in the fight, keeps his head down, not be part of these issues. So, I think what people don’t know, because they can’t know unless they see it through somebody else’s eyes, is just how difficult it is for a black man to be a Republican, at the level that he is in politics.”

Gowdy struggles to keep his composure, choking back tears. “And his love for the country, because there are certainly easier ways for ... I mean, as a United States senator, who would be on a half-dozen boards if he left tomorrow — that could forever take care of his mom. … And there he is continuing, and going to be on the ballot again.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/tim-scott-wont-wear-your-left-wing-label

Massive Consequences for Biden and the U.S. if It's Determined There Was a Wuhan Coronavirus Lab Leak

Massive Consequences for Biden and the U.S. if It's Determined There Was a Wuhan Coronavirus Lab Leak

(AP Photo/Health Protection Agency)

For the first time since the coronavirus began ravaging the world in early 2020, China is beginning to sweat.

Joe Biden’s recent call for a thorough intelligence review of what is known of the origins of Covid-19 is only the beginning. Biden wants a report in 90 days on whether or not to give credence to the lab-leak theory. The ramifications for the world are hugely significant. If it can be proven that Covid-19 escaped from a poorly run and maintained Wuhan Institute of Virology, China could be liable for trillions of dollars in damages in international courts. It may also become a pariah nation, being refused membership in international organizations, public and private.

Its credibility and its prestige would be reduced to third-world status. At a time when China is going for the brass ring of world leadership and unquestioned superpower status, discovering that China didn’t do more to stop the spread of the virus when it could have been contained would almost certainly set back those plans.

This is why China has continued the deceptions, evasions, and lies. The stakes are enormous. So it’s not surprising that China would hit back at Biden’s call for a definitive investigation into the origins of the coronavirus.

NBC News:

China on Thursday hit back at President Joe Biden’s call to redouble efforts to determine the origins of the coronavirus, and dismissed a theory that it may have leaked from a laboratory in its city of Wuhan as a “conspiracy.”

Chinese officials accused the U.S. of politicizing the pandemic and said that international experts had “repeatedly praised China’s open and transparent attitude” to Covid-19’s origins.

“Some people in the United States completely ignore facts and science,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian told reporters Thursday.

For a minute, I thought he sounded like Anthony Fauci.

“The extremely impossible statement of China’s ‘laboratory leak theory’ has been clearly documented in the report of the WHO Joint Investigation,” Zhao said Thursday.

The WHO “investigation” was so severely impeded by the Chinese Communist government as to make it useless as an “independent” investigation. Basing a denial on a report discredited by dozens of leading scientists and researchers does nothing for China’s credibility.

For Biden, the stakes are just as high. He and the Democrats echoed the Chinese “conspiracy theory” charge last year when Donald Trump first proposed the lab-leak theory. Biden has also rejoined the WHO, despite growing evidence that the world health body is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Communist Chinese.

CNN:

It now falls to the Biden administration to prove that it has the clout and willingness to track down the origin of the virus. There will be questions whether intelligence agencies, given the notorious difficulty of penetrating the Chinese security state, represent the best way of finding the truth. It is not yet clear whether China fully understands the origin of the virus. And the starting points of pandemics can be difficult to pinpoint.

“Many of us feel that it is more likely that this is a natural occurrence … where it goes from an animal reservoir to a human. But we don’t know 100% the answer to that,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, the government’s top infectious diseases expert, said at a White House Covid-19 briefing Tuesday.

At this point, Fauci may have reached the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. There are no indications in a close examination of the DNA of the virus that it was fiddled with or was a product of “gain-of-function” research. But the Wuhan lab in question had a miserable safety record, including ill-trained staff and poor record keeping. It is entirely possible that the reason researchers are having a hard time identifying where Covid-19 originated in the wild or a “wet market” is that it didn’t start there. It could very well turn out that some untrained lab tech made a critical error and released the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus by accident.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2021/05/27/the-massive-consequences-for-biden-and-the-u-s-of-proving-a-coronavirus-lab-leak-n1450190

GOP Congressmen Find Abandoned Wall Construction at the Border, Along With Something Far Worse

GOP Congressmen Find Abandoned Wall Construction at the Border, Along With Something Far Worse

Townhall Media/Julio Rosas

This week, our southern border was invaded. It was invaded by a delegation of members of Congress.

Unlike President Joe Biden and his vice president, who have yet to visit the border, Congressman Mike Garcia (R-Calif.) joined a group of his colleagues who traveled to the U.S. border with Mexico.

What the GOP delegation found there was disturbing.

At New Mexico’s southern border, Garcia and his colleagues saw miles of makeshift and ineffectual temporary fencing put in place after Biden halted the building of the border wall on his first day in office. Nearby and unused lay giant piles of fencing construction materials from the abandoned Trump-era physical barrier system that was meant to fortify the border.

“You can actually get through any part of this old fencing that was here,” Garcia said pointing to the temporary fencing in a Facebook video. “While they halted the construction, they left all the material behind and as you can see this is as porous as the border has ever been.”

Even worse than what the delegation saw in New Mexico was what they didn’t see in El Paso, Texas. The twelve members of Congress were refused access to the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC). EPIC is a governmental agency that provides “tactical intelligence to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies on a national scale” with an emphasis on the southwestern border. In other words, EPIC collects and shares data with agencies such as the DEA, ICE, and local law enforcement entities in order to “deter threats and protect our nation.”

Congress members are representatives of the American taxpayer and as such they have a Constitutional duty to oversee border security facilities like EPIC. After repeated requests, however, the entire GOP delegation was denied any access to the facility.

Why would members of Congress be denied access?

The planned GOP visit wasn’t a spontaneous request. “We’ve been trying to get in there for a couple of weeks,” Garcia said. In fact, in an interview with Fox News, Garcia claimed this partisan denial of access “is coming from the top. It’s coming from the White House.”

Delegation host Representative Brian Babin (R-Texas) added, “I can only imagine what is it that they are wanting to hide and not show the very representatives of the American people [who] have oversight over this facility, [who] fund it, and [who] authorize it. Why don’t they want us to see it?”

To make matters even more egregious, many of the members of the GOP delegation also sit on the House Appropriations Committee. This is the very committee responsible for appropriating funding for most functions of the federal government. How on earth can Congress be expected to ensure that our taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely and that our border is secure when the Biden administration won’t permit them to provide oversight?

What exactly is Joe Biden hiding? Representative Garcia has a theory:

You can make conjecture about why it is they don’t want us in there, but my opinion is they have data that they’re gathering in this intelligence center which is clearly indicating that our open borders are actually a more serious problem than the average American understands right now.

In the early days of the Biden administration, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki pledged that Biden was committed to bringing “transparency and truth back to government — to share the truth, even when it’s hard to hear.”

Where is that transparency at the border, Joe Biden?

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/gwendolynsims/2021/05/27/off-limits-gop-delegation-denied-access-at-border-facility-wheres-the-transparency-joe-biden-n1450278

Don's Tuesday Column

        THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson  Red Bluff Daily News   6/01/202

               “All gave some; some gave all”

It bears contemplation and pause for respect: The memory of the hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, pilots and Marines whose last breaths were given in defense of America. It has always been true that “people sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” While generally attributed to George Orwell, the sentiment stands as a stark reminder of the selfless sacrifice that accompanies what may be “the last full measure,” the giving of one’s life defending kin and country.


“What is Biden hidin’?” is a theme widely applicable: Keeping Jan. 6 arrestees (not “rioters,” if the media rule against so labeling violent protesters applies) with no criminal record, under solitary confinement with no bail and gag orders—amounts to hiding injustice, trampling their right to defend themselves.


Keeping Capitol Hill security footage out of public view and defense attorneys’ hands suggests they’re hiding the recordings from Americans, and those incarcerated for protests and actions. That also conveniently allows the cherry-picked recordings of rowdy, violent breaches of police lines to be the official record of that days’ events, rather than the hundreds of thousands of peaceful rally attendees who did no wrong.


Proving the news media’s role in the hiding, we saw (in spite of attempts to divert our gaze) that there were not only violently-enforced restrictions by “antifa-blm-ers” on who could be called “press” covering their “riots” (by definition); but also, the news media helped spread the phony, “mostly peaceful” narrative. Never once were the nightly, organized attacks and attempted destruction of a Portland federal courthouse—as well as the literal burning of police stations, and attempted murder of cops—called “insurrection.” Jan. 6 was not sedition.


On the Southern border, there’s an invasion (show me a definition that refutes it)—an invasion that didn’t exist until the literal cancelling of border wall construction, the cancelling of stay-in-Mexico refugee policies, and the cancelling of deportation processes—the Biden/Harris policy is to ignore it, deny it, and hide it.


“This week, our southern border was invaded…by a delegation of members of Congress. Unlike President Joe Biden and his vice president, who have yet to visit the border, Congressman Mike Garcia (R-Calif.) joined a group of his colleagues who traveled to the U.S. border with Mexico. What the GOP delegation found there was disturbing.” 


“GOP Congressmen Find Abandoned Wall Construction at the Border, Along With Something Far Worse” (by Gwendolyn Sims, 5/27): Garcia and his colleagues found miles of makeshift and ineffectual temporary fencing, near giant piles of wall construction materials. Trump’s fence/wall defied attempts to walk through; Biden’s mess of makeshift fencing stops no one. More news media complicity in “hidin’ the story” of Biden/Harris’ de facto open border.


More Biden hidin’ ensued when the delegation attempted, but were refused, access to the El Paso (TX) Intelligence Center (EPIC), a government agency that provides “tactical intelligence (on the southern border) to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies on a national scale.” The weeks-long effort to view—by members of the House Appropriations Committee—EPIC’s facility fits a pattern: Hiding things that would reflect poorly on the Biden/Harris agenda, accomplishments and “transparency.”


“You can make conjecture about why it is they don’t want us in there, but my opinion is they have data that they’re gathering in this intelligence center which is clearly indicating that our open borders are actually a more serious problem than the average American understands right now.” (Rep. Garcia)


Last week, news media hid the story: “Another Left-Wing Hoax About Trump Blows Up” (by Rick Moran, pjmedia.com). To understand the gravity of this revelation, use the way-back machine to remember the outrage and spin that ensued over the “Mueller Report” in early 2019. I’ll restate the truth: Mueller and his dozens of Trump-hating, Hillary-loving lawyers spent as much as $40+ million in their “jihad” to find Donald Trump’s “collusion” with Russia, Putin or whoever—to “steal” the 2016 election.


They found literally nothing, although Democrat/media fanatics twisted words that weren’t in the Report to say otherwise. Their only claim to “impeachable” fame was the ambiguity of the Report’s “no evidence to prove Trump didn’t obstruct justice” claim, which has never been an actual legal position. When A.G. Bill Barr concluded “no obstruction” by Trump, the howling reached crescendos. To Trump-deranged Dems, Barr and the Report only said it “because Trump was the President”; ordinary Joe or Joan would be in the gray-bar-hotel.


Dems: “The DOJ memo that Barr used to pronounce ‘no obstruction’ had a ‘smoking gun’”; the impeachment articles charged “obstruction,” sucking some Republicans like Mitt Romney (R-Media) onto the not-so-high-ground of presuming guilt without evidence.


“Judge Amy Berman Jackson apparently put that theory to rest when she ordered the release of part of the memo that dealt with how Barr reached that decision. Barr relied on advice from several sources, including the Office of Legal Counsel. The OLC recommended against prosecuting Trump, not only because there are constitutional issues with prosecuting a president for obstruction, but also because even if Trump were a private citizen, there wouldn’t be enough evidence to charge him.” No obstruction, even if Trump were a private citizen.


Similar secrecy accompanies veiled attempts to inject “Critical Race Theory” or other so-called “anti-racist” propaganda into schools. “The racist revolutionary claptrap in these documents should be nowhere near a school classroom” (Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton). Such materials place the phrase “Make America Great Again” just below “lynching,” “hate crimes,” “the N-word,” and “racial slurs.” Teach American greatness, not lies about America’s history.

Former Seattle Police Chief: The Media Lied About Violence In CHOP Zone

Former Seattle Police Chief: The Media Lied About Violence In CHOP Zone

AP Photo/Ted S. Warren

Former Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best suggested that the media wasn’t honest about the “mostly peaceful protests” in Seattle’s “Capitol Hill Organized Protest” (CHOP zone), also briefly called the not-so-cool cool-sounding CHAZ, (Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone).

Best, who resigned after Seattle’s city council cut $3 million from the Seattle Police Dept. budget, made the following comments on Jerry Radcliffe’s “Reducing Crime” podcast.

“I would read stories about the peaceful protests. I go, ‘Well, part of it was peaceful.’ But I was standing 20 feet away from a hail of rocks. I was looking right at them hail down, feet from me. I was behind a telephone pole,” Best said.

RecommendedPolice Chief Carmen Best’s Resignation Email Shows She’s the Adult in the Room

Best went on to say that she was confused when reading about the interactions with rioters in the media because reporters claimed the violence was a peaceful protest and that protesters were treated unfairly and harshly by police who threw tear gas and used pepper spray on them. Best said that they did use such tactics, but that their use “wasn’t arbitrary.”

“But certainly, we were trying to look as non-threatening as possible, maybe not have the riot shields up. But once we know we’re going to be getting rocks and bottles thrown at us, I have a responsibility as a chief to make sure people have protecting gear. We can’t just leave them out there with soft hat and rocks are being thrown and whatever,” she said.

Chief Best talked about how she had to deal with a violent, armed, and seemingly leaderless CHOP zone that the press said was “mostly peaceful” in a time the Seattle mayor ironically referred to as the “Summer of Love.”

“But I’m telling you, the whole time, the officers and the people who were responding to that area knew it was a problem. And we had been saying, ‘Look, our response times are up. We’ve had rapes. We had robberies. We had assaults.” And I remember giving a press conference at some time along the way and holding up the reports, because every time I said something, people would say we were just making it up. I go, ‘No, I have police reports of real victims that you can look at to verify these things are happening.”

“I got to tell you, though, we were pretty clear. I just thought it was terrible and that we had a real problem and we need to get on this and figure this out.

Best resigned after the city council made the following cuts to the Seattle Police Department:

  • Cut 32 officers from patrol – $533,000
  • Reduced specialized units, including officers assigned to mounted unit, school resource officers, homeland security, harbor patrol, SWAT team – $250,000
  • Removed officers from Navigation Team, ensuring homeless neighbors are not retraumatized by armed patrol officers – $216,000
  • Reduced staff budget through recognizing expected attrition – $500,000
  • Reduced administrative costs, including salaries, community outreach, public affairs
  • Cut $56,000 from training and travel expenses
  • Cut recruitment and retention – $800,000
  • Transferred victim advocates from SPD to Human Services Department – $377,000 impact
  • Removed two sworn officer positions from the 911 Emergency Call Center

Chief Best joked on the podcast that she didn’t do every police job in Seattle before she retired but she did most, including working in “gangs, narcotics, robbery, chief of investigations, deputy chief, chief of police,” and even had fun posing as a prostitute decoy. “It was hilarious.”

RecommendedSeattle Mayor Finally Sends Police to Restore Law and Order to CHOP Antifastan

Chief Best, the first black female chief of Seattle, is just one of many chiefs to resign as a result of last year’s rioting after the death of George Floyd.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/kevindowneyjr/2021/05/27/former-seattle-police-chief-the-media-lied-about-violence-in-chop-zone-n1450324