Monday, August 15, 2022

Unprecedented

The unprecedented raid on the former president of the United States is such a big news story, it’s totally eclipsing the promise of an additional army of 87,000 IRS agents—far more than necessary to audit every household making over $400,000. That’s a big and horrendous story. But this attack on President Trump is even more shocking. We talked about it here last week. But of course there’s more to learn about it every day.


the vague and general warrant, from here

 

Another Possible Motive

Attorney Robert Barnes has been giving his take on the Mar-a-Lago raid since that Monday afternoon, a week ago now. And as news comes out, he finds his take is still accurate. As he explains it, there are two basic narratives—on the Trump side; the FBI/DOJ side is something else altogether. These two narratives are trying to figure out what the FBI and DOJ are really up to. Barnes lays out the basic narrative first, and then his take:

The dominant narrative, this is an attempt by the Biden Justice Department to take Trump off of the 2024 election calendar by convicting him of a crime that removes—that has, as a consequence, the inability to hold federal office, and that it was based on Trump having documents he was not entitled to have, either because the archivist was entitled to them under the Presidential Records Act or that they were defense related documents and thus could not be in his private custody.

That’s basically the narrative we looked at here last Thursday. I should add that an additional scenario he doesn’t detail, and I don’t buy into either, is that they were fishing for incriminating evidence related to January 6th. The reason they weren’t fishing for that is that they already know there isn’t any; Trump did not cause what happened at the capitol that day, nor was what happened an insurrection. But, as I said Thursday, their show inquiry is failing, so they’re moving on to the next attack.


Viva Frei (left) and Robert Barnes on their law vlog Sunday night livestream
screenshot from here

Here's Barnes’s take on their motive:

My theory was different. My theory was that this was a Deep State raid, that this was a raid not intended for the purposes of any kind of criminal prosecution or punishment, for the primary reason that the any criminal charge would require disclosure of what documents they were really, truly seeking…. Before Trump left, he asked all the agencies which documents they really wanted to keep classified. And there was speculation at the time that they basically gave him their Deep State, deep secret wish list to remain secret. And he declassified them but didn't publish them; he just took them with him. And that it would be potential insurance against indictment, insurance against assassination, insurance against other political threats that he knew he was going to be facing after leaving the presidency, particularly if he sought election again in 2024, and that they were paranoid about what was in those documents.

And so they were willing to risk the massive political blowback from an unprecedented raid of a former president and future presidential candidate’s personal residence for the purposes of getting those documents.

If I was right, what I predicted at the time was that when—this is before the warrant was released—that when the warrant is released, you'll find it to be very vague and very uncertain as to what exactly it’s seeking. It will be very elastic in what criminal statutes it claims there's probable cause of. That it will be notoriously overbroad in what it is seeking, and that they will be very bland and generic in their inventory. They won't list in detail what exactly they took, because they don't want anyone to know what exactly they were looking for. And that we would find out they would have kept the lawyers from overseeing it and anyone else in Trump world. They would ask cameras to be turned off, so nobody could know what it was they were actually seeking; that the goal wasn't to actually get these documents and restore them to their lawful owner, but to destroy them permanently and fully in the hopes that they were the only copies that existed.

It's not clear they have found such documents. They searched for a long time, you know, over 12 hours, then seized everything that was kind of there anyway. Apparently Trump had told them he kept the super secret documents in the safe. They had a safecracker there. They opened the safe, and the safe was empty, you know, Geraldo Rivera/Al Capone style.

Trump seemed unfazed and unbothered by what took place. That was outrageous and offensive, what took place. And he brought that to the court of public opinion. But he personally, by everybody who has talked to him since then, is not rattled and saw this coming at some level, understood the Deep State war that he's in the middle of—and has been ever since his candidacy rose to prominence in 2016.

In short, they are after evidence of Deep State wrongdoing—which is likely to begin to come out after the November midterm election, as soon as there is a shift in power in the House and hopefully the Senate. Such exposures will be easier and more complete with a return of Trump or a non-Deep-State Republican to the White House, but the threat to their power is much more immediate than keeping Trump from running in 2024.

What Barnes predicted turned out to be true: their warrant was vague and broad—which is not a legal warrant for a criminal investigation. Barnes lays out what we should have seen in a legal investigation, compared to what we saw:

The constitutional requirement is three-fold. There has to be probable cause of a crime for which there is specific evidence in the place that you're asking to be searched, and you can only request that which is evidence in support thereof. That's probable cause.

The second aspect is presentment, which means that when you get to the place you're going to search, you give the warrant to the person who you're—who has custody over the property, so that they can make sure you actually comply with what the warrant states and don't execute what's called a general warrant, which we'll get to in a minute.

Then the third aspect is particularity. This is the requirement that you specify individually which documents you're seeking and how probable cause exists both for the crime and for that document being evidence of the crime. Unlike civil discovery, which is under a general rule that if it could lead to discovery in America, you can request and get the information. That's not the case in a criminal search warrant context. You have to have particularity. You have to meet probable cause that both the crime exists and probable cause that the document you're asking to search and seize is evidence of that crime. What you cannot do is say, “I want to search your whole house and see if maybe there's some evidence of some kind of crime there.” That's what's not allowed.

That was the general warrants that the British were given prior to the American Revolution, which allowed the army basically to come in, and the colonial authorities, to come in and ransack your home—raid and ransack your home in search if maybe they’d find something. They could search anything, and they could seize anything, in the hopes that maybe it would be evidence of some sort of crime. That’s why we imposed the particularity, presentment, and probable cause preconditions for the execution of the search warrant.

Everything about this “criminal search warrant,” then, is bogus. Its vague and general, and the crimes they have hinted at are not possible crimes for the former president to have committed.

Other weird things about the warrant: they needed a separate, additional warrant to break into the safe, which they just happened to have a safecracker on hand to break into (it was empty). And the unprecedented gall of doing this at a former president’s residence is increased when you know that—it was supposedly urgent, but they waited three days before getting a judge to sign it—a judge who recused himself from a Trump case just six weeks ago, admitting he could not be unbiased. Hmm.

We learned today that they are fighting the request to publish what was in the affidavit requesting the search warrant—the statement of suspected crime and the reason the particular items to be searched would be evidence of such crime. However, such information might not be made public until there is an indictment. And in this case, since there is not likely to be an indictment, we may not get to see it for some time.

The reason there is not likely to be an indictment is that they do not want it known what they were searching for—which has nothing to do with any criminal lawbreaking of President Trump, because they know he didn’t do any.

One surprising thing Barnes said Sunday night was that he thought they didn’t think word would get out about the raid:

I don't think they thought this would ever become public knowledge. They went in with plainclothes. It did not leak at all until Trump himself told everybody about it. That means the Deep State didn't leak it in advance, like they do cases where they want the world to know about it.

They probably thought Trump would be too embarrassed by the fact of the raid to publicly disclose it, not understanding that Trump understands this game very well—or  well enough at this point. And so he was—Trump is the one saying, “These nuts are raiding my house; they're ransacking Melania's closet.”

Plainclothes or not, 30 FBI agents showing up anywhere is likely to raise attention. They’re doing something that egregious, and they think Trump will be embarrassed to let the world know? And yet, these are desperate times for the ones on the verge of losing their power.

  

They Can’t Be Trusted

On the Will Cain podcast today, about 20 minutes in, he talks why we should not believe the government in this case.  He says,


Will Cain on his August 15 podcast
screenshot from here

For 6 years Donald Trump has been the subject of an attack by many American people and many institutions, from the media to the national security state apparatus, who believe that he is illegitimate. That has been consistent. And that brings us to our final category: the credibility of these institutions. We’ve talked about this in the past. If there are many people that believe that Donald Trump is illegitimate, there are perhaps more who believe that the institutions of the United States are now illegitimate. And why would they believe that? Why would they have such little faith? Why would the believe the FBI, the DOJ, the media have no credibility? It might be because of this, over the past six years.

1.      The Russia collusion hoax.

2.      The Steele dossier hooker story.

3.      Russia paying bounties on US soldiers in Afghanistan.

4.      Trump calling neo-Nazis, supposedly, “very fine people.”

5.      Trump suggesting drinking, injesting, injecting bleach to fight COVID.

6.      Trump overfed koi fish in Japan.

7.      Trump cleared protesters with teargas for a Bible photo op.

8.      Hunter’s laptop was Russian disinformation.

9.      Elections were fair, because no court found major fraud.

10.   January 6 was an insurrection to overthrow the government

11.   Trump tried to grab the steering wheel of the Beast—he leaned over the Secret Service and grabbed the steering wheel of the Beast.

All of these stories are false. Cain points out that each one was debunked. (I had to look up the one about the koi fish; I hadn’t heard that one.) A lot of people still don’t know those are all lies. But a lot of us do. Cain adds, for those of us who recognize all these past lies, “We’re just going to jump on the bandwagon and believe that Donald Trump stole the nuclear codes?” I don’t think so.

By the way, nuclear codes are changed daily. Former President Trump doesn’t have them. I don’t know who’s making that up—the Washington Post story claimed it was about documents related to nuclear weapons—but there’s a scary pattern of these enemies of freedom doing whatever they’re accusing the other side of doing.

 

Attorney/Client Privilege

Over the weekend it came out that, among the documents seized by the FBI in last Monday’s raid were attorney/client privilege documents. That is, correspondence between Trump and his counsel, which the FBI had no business taking. They cannot use them against him, and they should not be able to view them; they are private. It’s a constitutional right.

What should happen isn’t what is happening. What should happen is that, as soon as it was noticed that the FBI had “accidentally” seized documents were attorney/client privilege documents, they should have arranged for them to be returned. That could have been done simply and directly by returning them. Or, to ensure security of the documents, they could have had a court-appointed person, called a special master.

But they did not do that. Instead they appointed a “filter team” of FBI agents going over the documents to decide which they should be reviewing and which they shouldn’t. Then they still wouldn’t return them; they’d send them on to a “tank team” of FBI agents, another level up, for review. It’s a fox guarding the henhouse scenario. As Jay Sekulow asks in his ACLJ broadcast, “Does anybody believe these are not being reviewed by the FBI?”

That’s multiple sets of eyes. They saw the documents when they were deciding what to box up and take from Mar-a-Lago. With anything but a general warrant, they would have recognized these as “do not take.” They had many hours at Mar-a-Lago to see them and make that decision; they took them. Then they went through them somewhere, enough to recognize they were attorney-client privilege documents, because they identified the boxes that contain them: A-13, A-14, A-26, A-33, A-43, and one labeled “set of documents.” Then there’s the “filter team,” followed by the “tank team”—all of these various FBI officials.

And remember, last Thursday DOJ Merrick Garland said it was wrong to question the FBI—which was something of a veiled threat toward anyone with common sense enough to question what this FBI is doing.


Law vlogger Robert Gouveia goes over the DOJ objection to 
warrant affidavit release, screenshot from here

We’ve never seen anything like this in America before—because the institutions that are clearly corrupt have never been this openly brazen before.

Again, I say they are desperate to maintain their power, at any cost, even at the cost of unveiling how corrupt they truly are. If they don’t succeed in maintaining their power in November, then it’s game over. So watch for more desperation in the next few months. It isn't going to be pretty. But it sure is unprecedented.

Thursday, August 11, 2022

We Agree; We Don't Want Authoritarian Rule

Can we agree on this? We don’t want to be under authoritarian rule. We don’t want a Big Brother, totalitarian tyranny.

For years now—since the noted descent on the escalator—opponents of Donald Trump have been describing him as a Hitler wannabe. A fascist. Racist, etc., to boot. They are afraid of him; he wants to control us all.

If you’ve been one of those, then it’s time for a paradigm shift. In his four years in office, I defy you to find an action that he took as president that was authoritarian.

He reduced regulation. He lowered inflation and unemployment rates. The economy thrived—except during the couple of quarters of 2020 when the economy shut down because of COVID-19. Note that the President did not shut the country down; that was done by local and state authorities, under the unauthoritative direction of deep state actors in the NIH, CDC, and WHO.

Did Trump deny the American people the use of oil and gas reserves? His successor has. Trump took us quickly to energy independence, with the largest resource supply of oil and gas in the world. Biden immediately shut that down, then went begging to Venezuela and Saudi Arabia—as if we couldn’t supply our own. And he drew down our strategic reserves—and sold them to the CCP, while Americans pay several dollars more per gallon at the pump.


image is screenshot from this Facts Matter video

Targeting Political Enemies

But the real sign of authoritarian rule is the targeting of political enemies. The Biden regime has quite a record of that—especially if you tag on the Obama/Biden years and the Deep State attacks during Trump’s presidency.

The “raid” seems to be a favorite authoritarian ploy—because it’s scary and pushy, and can be construed by media to be lawful.

Here are a few such stories:

·       Feds Reportedly Raid Project Veritas-Linked Apartments over Ashley Biden’s Diary” by Ben Feuerherd, New York Post, November 5, 2021. / This was when Project Veritas was given Ashley Biden’s diary, reportedly left in a hotel room. They couldn’t verify its authenticity and didn’t want to touch it. They tried returning it, and whoever it was refused. So they turned it over to police. After doing so, James O’Keefe and several Project-Veritas employees had their apartments raided, purportedly looking for the “stolen” diary. More likely this was to scare them, and maybe to do a fishing search for something that could be twisted against them. Even if they’d still held the diary—which they were known not to have—there was no need for a raid. The diary has since been verified as authentic.

·    FBI Raids Target Democrats’ Political Foes Instead of True Criminals” by Beth Whitehead, The Federalist, June 27, 2022.  This story talks about the FBI targeting a list of people: Roger Stone, Rudy Giuliani, James O’Keefe, and Jeff Clark. It says, “The FBI is now also engaging in raids on private homes of elderly Americans who peacefully attended the Capitol protest on Jan. 6, 2020. Compare this treatment to that of actual criminals affiliated with Democrats, such as Hunter Biden, Andy McCabe, Peter Strzok, and Michael Sussmann. The latter have seen no personal visit from the FBI since their crimes were committed or exposed.” They mention:

o   Stone’s home in January 2019

o   Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s home in April 2021, ostensibly searching for evidence that Giuliani broke the law regarding Ukraine. This was after Giuliani had offered twice to answer prosecutors’ questions. A year after the raid, Giuliani is still under investigation with no crimes charged against him nor the FBI willing to broadcast what they’re after. 

o   The FBI raided O’Keefe’s home and office under the allegation that O’Keefe had stolen Ashley Biden’s diary. Yet the diary was no longer in O’Keefe’s hands at the time, as he had turned it in to Florida police after evaluating its veracity. 

o   June 22, federal authorities searched the home of Jeff Clark, former assistant attorney general under Trump.

·       Alaska Couple Says FBI Raided Their Home with Guns Drawn, Interrogated Them in Search for Pelosi's Laptop” by Breck Dumas, The Blaze, April 30, 2022.  This was a case of mistaken identity. Again, a nighttime raid was way over-the-top unnecessary.

·       Why Were These Churches Raided by the FBI? HOPCC Churches and Seminaries Are Under Investigation for Fraud, Allegedly Targeting Veterans” by Collin Leonard, Deseret News, June 24, 2022. t I’m not defending these churches and their particular actions; it appears they may have been crossing the line into criminal activity. But the normal approach would have been through subpoena of documents, officially terminating their ability to use GI bill funds, and then pursue particular criminal claims. An FBI raid at three locations seems meant more to intimidate than to get evidence that could be obtained in no other way and was at risk of being destroyed.

·       FBI Raids Home of Retired Texas Couple Who Attended Jan. 6 Capitol Rally” by Darlene McCormick Sanchez, The Epoch Times, June 25, 2022. Another case of mistaken identity. Startled homeowners hearing alarms in the pre-dawn got their guns out. A flash-bang was tossed into the home, upsetting the dogs. This was a year and a half after the January 6th incident; the retired couple had attended the rally but had not gone beyond the capitol steps. What danger were they to the country on this date, at that hour? It’s fortunate no one was killed or injured.     

There's a whole "List of FBI Controversies" on Wikipedia, worth exploring.

Let’s add in that the administration has declared “domestic terrorists” to be the greatest threat to the nation—and domestic terrorists are redefined as people like us, who are normal, patriotic, good citizens. The NASB first suggested parents who spoke up at school board meetings were domestic terrorist threats—and the DOJ went along with that declaration, without evidence of a single threat.

Recently Senator Ted Cruz challenged FBI Director Christopher Wray about a document leaked to Project Veritas showing symbols associated with domestic terrorists, which included the Betsy Ross flag, the Gadsden flag, the Liberty Tree, the Gonzalez battle flag which reads “Come and Take It,” Revolutionary War imagery, and “Other Commonly Referenced Historical Imagery and Quotes.”  Wray, who heads the FBI, claimed ignorance of any memo regarding associating these symbols with domestic terrorism. (There’s a good body language analysis of this exchange here.)


FBI document leaked to Project Veritas,
identifying symbols of domestic terrorism

 

In case you only listen to broadcast and cable media, maybe you’re unaware that messages not aligned with the regime are not allowed on those platforms. And they are censored on public forums. You ought to be aware that Twitter took down President Trump’s account—including his tweet requesting that protestors on January 6th needed to go home, because we needed to maintain peace (not because his Tweets inflamed his followers, but because they verified that he didn’t).

Differing views—including factual statements using government data—relating to election fraud, COVID-19 and its vaccines and other protocol or questions of origin, and anything else not approved get cautioned, censored, shadow-banned on Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube. It is a common “cost of doing business” on these platforms for conservatives to self-censor, use code wording, or otherwise tiptoe around vague "community standards" to avoid being shut down.

 

The Raid

This raid on President Trump’s home was a step too far.

Let’s clear up some legal details. First, the President is entitled to his personal documents. It is a matter of discussion between him and the National Archives as to whom should hold an original or copy of various things. Those discussions were ongoing, as expected. There were not any classified documents the President wasn’t entitled to. It isn’t illegal for him to possess them. He didn’t “steal” or “destroy, spindle, or mutilate” anything. If the National Archives wanted something, they needed to ask and negotiate—which apparently they have been doing.

There was no need of “an informant close to Trump” leaking news that the documents were at his Mar-a-Lago residence; the National Archives already knew that. They had been to the location where the documents were being stored and had recommended an additional lock on the location, for security—which was placed there. That additional lock was broken by the FBI in the raid. 

If this were some other case in which a former government employee had classified documents, or was keeping documents in an unsafe location that could lead to their being compromised, then there would be procedures for that. These would include a subpoena, possibly an arrest—although that would much more likely take place through lawyer negotiations and court hearings, not through an FBI raid using dozens of agents.

If there were a case in which documents were at risk of imminent destruction, ostensibly making an FBI surprise visit necessary, it still would not take an armed brigade.

But it would require a warrant. And the warrant would have to be shown immediately—and a copy would be made available to the subject of the investigation and his legal representation. Reports are that, during the 12-hour search, Trump lawyers were flashed the subpoena from ten feet away, and they were not allowed to keep a copy.

Tom Fitten of Judicial Watch, among others, has requested a copy of the warrant through a Freedom of Information Act request. So far, however, there has been no detailed information about what was being sought or what was taken. They may respond by Monday.


Judicial Watch FOIA request to see the warrant.
taken as a screenshot from here

In the service of a legal search warrant, anything taken by officials would be itemized, and a receipt given. This also did not happen. That means it is impossible to know what Trump had in his possession that they took—or, possibly, what they said he had. In other words, they have put themselves in the position of planting items among his possessions, so we cannot trust chain of custody of evidence. Again, whatever they claim he had or didn’t have shouldn’t matter, because the former president is entitled to his documents, regardless of classification. He committed no crime; the government may have.

There is speculation about what the FBI was after—which they even went through Melania Trump’s closet to search for. Some speculate it must have something to do with January 6th. I doubt that. The most plausible reason is to find a way to keep Trump from running again. There is a statement in law (federal code section 2071) that a person convicted of mishandling classified documents (as Hillary Clinton clearly did) would not be allowed to run for any future public office. Nice try, but that law does not apply to the President of the United States; the documents are his. Former presidents fill their presidential libraries with such materials. The president can declassify at will. Classified materials may be kept and safeguarded by the National Archives as well—or copies.

What is important to the nation is the preservation of documents. And what we can’t be certain of is that a federal agency this reckless concerning the law would want to preserve documents, rather than destroy anything that might be embarrassing for the regime. There’s a strong possibility that Donald Trump has documents that could take down a great many Deep State players. And they want to stop that at all costs.

 

Why They Did It

In short, they have never hated Trump because he is an authoritarian, or racist, or any other epithet they have thrown at him. They have hated him because he is a threat to their way of doing business—their power mongering.

YouTuber Mr. Reagan lays out a scenario, which he imagines happened some years back. A group of these players sat together in a room, white board at the ready, and brainstormed ways to take out Donald Trump. They tried the Russia hoax—it failed. They tried impeachment over that; it failed. And eventually proof came out that the Clinton campaign had paid for the whole hoax.

Mr. Reagan imagines a list of things they went down. Both impeachments (including one after he left office) failed to show any wrongdoing on Trump’s part. They had to steal the election, of course. And then they tried to set up something they could blame on Trump, such as an insurrection. How inconvenient for them that there wasn’t one. They had gone through the dry run in Michigan, with a hoax attempt at kidnapping Governor Whitmer. Every person on trial in that case was acquitted or granted a mistrial—and the defense was government entrapment. There were more FBI agents and informants than actors—and the plot would simply not have been considered without the urging of those government agents.

The Detroit FBI Field Manager was promoted to DC field manager just in time for the January 6th entrapment. (See the Revolver news story on that.) FBI agents and agent provocateurs instigated entering the capitol that day. Add to that, most of the crowd that did get agitated were provoked by Capitol Police, who shot them with rubber bullets, threw concussive grenades into the crowd, and beat nonviolent protesters. As more evidence comes out, it appears all six of the deaths that day were caused by the police, not the protesters. No police were killed; only protesters. (See the EpochTV documentary The Real Story of Jan. 6.)

Government business was continued as usual that same evening. People went home peacefully, as President Trump had asked them to do. And yet Biden calls it the worst attack on democracy in history—worse than Pearl Harbor or 9/11. The only way that is true is when you see the regime’s response (coupled with the election theft itself) as the regime’s attack on our constitutional republic.

After January 6th, people were rounded up—often experiencing violent raids at their peaceful homes in the pre-dawn darkness. People have been taken into custody and kept there, without trial, without rights, without access to counsel, in solitary confinement—often without charges—now going on a year and a half. For misdemeanor trespass charges.

I got sidetracked from Mr. Reagan’s list. Anyway, they have tried this false narrative that Trump caused an insurrection on January 6th, and the people aren’t buying it. Their Senate inquiry is going nowhere. More of their lies have come to light, rather than people getting convinced of Trump’s guilt. Mr. Reagan thinks that the very fact they have moved on down the list—and this raid was probably near the bottom—shows that they’re giving up on the insurrection lie.

This raid was unprecedented. You don’t raid a former president’s home and confiscate his belongings. It’s unthinkable outside a banana republic. 

Definition 2, from Dictionary.com

It obviously smacks of political weaponization of government law enforcement—which it is, whatever their stated reason on that warrant. The FBI is at fault. Director Wray has no explanation. The DOJ is at fault. What we can be certain of is that America dodged a bullet when the Republicans refused to allow Merrick Garland to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court in those last few months of the Obama administration. Garland clearly does not have the law or the best interests of the United States on his list of guiding principles. He’s about political vendettas and personal power mongering.

Under a president even slightly less weak than Biden, it’s hard to imagine this happening.

 

What Next

Is there something from that imagined white board list they haven’t gotten to yet? I don’t know. But their time is running out. This midterm election is critical. The raid this week was a Hail Mary pass. The thing about Hail Mary passes; they hardly ever work. That’s why football teams don’t do them all through the game—only when desperate.

If I were to guess at the next such desperate attempt, I would say they’ll try to keep the November midterm election from happening. Maybe because of riots. Maybe they’ll try to scare us about another pandemic. Maybe it will be something we haven’t even conceived of. Evil minds can be very inventive. All I know is, if they don’t keep their power now, good patriots have a chance to bring to light and clear the government and institutions of the evil cabal of tyrants. So they will pull out all the stops.

So, you Trump haters, if you have any actual concern about authoritarian rule: Wake up! The authoritarian, totalitarian, corrupt tyrants are the ones you put in power.

The rest of us are beyond our patience, waiting for you to wake up and see what’s been going on right in front of our eyes.

We’d like to be a country united—united against totalitarian tyranny. But we can’t unify with people who hate us and hate our freedoms and our Constitution. We can’t compromise like we’ve done in the past—live and let live. Because those tyrants aren’t letting us live.

We’ve agreed with you all along: authoritarian rule is wrong. We’re just not blind, as you have been, about where we see it.

What you’ll find, once you wake up, is that we won’t punish you for having been blind; we’ll just welcome you to the light of freedom. That’s the path to unity and peace.

 

Monday, August 8, 2022

Good News among the Bad

The nature of news is that it’s often bad. We’re so used to that, that sometimes we hardly notice the good news.

But last Friday Glenn Beck—often the self-admitted purveyor of doom and gloom—put out a list of good pieces of news over the past ¾ year or so. Most of these I was aware of, but a few had missed my notice. After his list, I’d like to add just a few more he didn’t include.

·        November 8, 2021  University of Austin announced, a new university dedicated to the unfettered pursuit of truth, an alternative to current “orthodox” views in education.

Commitment to open inquiry and civil discourse are required for
University of Austin staff and students.
image found here

·        November 19, 2021  Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty—despite the politicization, media lies, and best efforts of activists and mobs; self-defense is not murder.

·        December 7, 2021  Saule Omarova, a communist, withdraws Comptroller of the Currency nomination, after massive pushback (much from Glenn Beck’s audience).

·        January 15, 2022  Glenn Youngkin inaugurated as Governor of Virginia, elected mainly by parents upset about schools.

·        January 28, 2022  Canadian truckers protest COVID-19 restrictions in Ottowa, and against authoritarianism. Their protest has had global reverberations—see farmers around the world now.

·        March 9, 2022  The RegionSmart bill died (because of Glenn Beck’s audience). RegionSmart had tried to enact a public/private partnership, a tri-state compact involving Mississippi, Arkansas, and Tennessee, that would have given enormous powers to unelected bureaucrats.

·        March 28, 2022  Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida signed the Parental Rights in Education bill—falsely called by the media the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, but in reality just prevented LGBT indoctrination before 3rd grade—proving you can succeed even when a mob is against you.

·        April 18, 2022  Florida judge voids Biden’s national mask mandate on public transportation.

·        May 6, 2022  An internal memo from PR firm Zeno Group is leaked, showing that folks on the inside are waking up to the fact that, if you go woke, you could go broke.

·        May 9, 2022  Vivek Ramaswamy announces financial firm, Strive, to compete with Blackrock, Vanguard, and State Street.

·        May 18, 2022  Elon Musk tweets about the ESG “scam,” saying it was weaponized by social justice warriors.

Glenn Beck lists various good news stories since last November.
screenshot from here

·        May 27, 2022  Top Gun Maverick opens in theaters, breaking Memorial Day box office records; it’s a patriotic, conservative-themed movie.

·        June 10, 2022  Politico reports conservative shareholders are pushing back, filing 52 proposals at major US companies, twice as many as in 2021. Proposals are often critical of ESG scoring.

·        Jun 11, 2022  Nebraska became the 25th state to sever ties with the NSBA (National School Board Association)—after the NSBA requested the administration use domestic terrorism laws to go after parents who disagreed with what is being done in schools.

·        June 21, 2022  The US Supreme Court rules that Maine’s education voucher program cannot exclude religious schools—a win for both school choice and freedom of religion.

·        June 23, 2022  The US Supreme Court rules in favor of gun rights, striking down New York’s concealed carry restrictions.

·        June 24, 2022  The US Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade and Casey in the Dobbs decision.

·        June 27, 2022  The US Supreme Court rules in favor of the right to pray at school football games, affirming the religious and free speech rights of school employees.

·        June 30, 2022  The US Supreme Court rules that the EPA does not have authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants—bigger than it appears, because it paves the way for lawsuits against government bureaucratic agencies that usurp lawmaking and enforcement functions.

·        July 28, 2022  West Virginia State Treasurer, Riley Moore, announces “Restricted Financial Institution List.” The state will no longer have banking contracts with Blackrock, Goldman-Sachs, JP Morgan-Chase, Morgan-Stanley, and Wells-Fargo. Other states have already passed bills divesting from pro-ESG institutions, and 22 more are actively pursuing such legislation. 

Glenn Beck finished his list, saying this:

These are just the highlights. The most important stories are the ones that don’t make the news—the victories that are in your community and your family. That’s where each of us make the most long-lasting influence.

I’m telling you all of this to remind you—and me—hold onto hope. Yes, there’s a great deal going wrong. But there is also so much going right. And it is up to us to keep that momentum going.

 

Now for more good news, although I’m not pinning down all the dates:

·        Soros-backed prosecutors who refuse to prosecute violent offenders, based on skin color or some other “equity” criteria are being ousted. The people ousted one in San Francisco. Governor DeSantis suspended the state attorney in Florida last week, when that official announced his refusal to uphold the state’s abortion laws, and other laws. 

·        Indiana was the first state to pass legislation banning abortion since Roe v. Wade was overturned.  What is called a “near total abortion ban” does, however, include exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother, severe permanent physical health risk to the mother, and fetal abnormalities that are incompatible with life.

·        The documentary 2000 Mules showed enough evidence of voter fraud to have changed the outcome of the election. Ahead of the November election, many states around the nation have increased their vigilance against such cheating. They know we’re watching. And a group of sheriffs are investigating election crimes as presented in 2000 Mules

·        While the government keeps trying to fearmonger about COVID-19, deaths from the latest variants are very low, and people now recognize that the so-called vaccine does not prevent illness or spread. Their current attempt to scare us about monkeypox is almost laughable, when the fact is it is almost totally avoidable by not attending gay orgies.

·        The January 6 inquiry has failed to produce any evidence, or even any convincing testimony, and people are tuning out; they know it’s a biased show trial only. Meanwhile, the Epoch Times has produced a documentary on January 6, “The Real Story of January 6,” that shows a clearer picture of what happened, and asks the questions that should be asked. 

·        The James Webb telescope has been producing some stunning images from deep space. 

Phantom Galaxy, as seen by the James Webb telescope
image from here

 There’s still a steady stream of really bad news. But one of these days the good news is going to overwhelm the bad—and it will be because good people did all the good around them that they could.

 

Thursday, August 4, 2022

Pregnancy Resource Centers Aren’t the Ones Faking Care

Elizabeth Warren recently pushed for legislation to shut down pregnancy resource centers in her state. She said:

In Massachusetts, right now, those crisis pregnancy centers that are there to fool people who are looking for pregnancy termination help outnumber true abortion clinics by 3 to 1. We need to shut them down here in Massachusetts. And we need to shut them down all around the country. 


Senator Warren is angry that pregnancy resource centers
are allowed to exist in her world, where she thinks the only
choice ought to be abortion. Screenshot from here.

Such centers may outnumber abortion clinics 3 to 1 in Massachusetts, but they’re 4 to 1 in most of the country. They are not, however, there to fool people looking for an abortion; they are there to help women facing an unexpected pregnancy—usually because they’re young, unmarried, and without resources, and they don’t know what to do.

There is only one answer at an abortion clinic: get an abortion.

At a pregnancy resource center there is medical help, pregnancy information, connection to government and private charity resources, help in deciding between choosing adoption or raising the child. They get resources either way—even on up through perinatal care and getting housing and baby clothing and supplies.

None of these choices is available at the place where they call themselves pro-choice.

This past Tuesday there was an issue on the ballot in Kentucky, a pro-life amendment, called “Value Them Both,” intended to clarify the state constitution—in which some judge “found” a right to abortion in 2019. The amendment would have meant the legislature could regulate abortion, now that the Dobbs decision gave that authority back to the states.

But the amendment failed. By about 17 percentage points. In a state that on the surface looks fairly conservative. Trump won the state by 15 points in 2020.

Pro-life spokesperson Mallory Carroll said:

The abortion lobby’s message to voters was rife with lies that ultimately drowned out the truth. Because of tonight’s results, Kansas could shortly become home to unrestricted abortion on demand—even late-term abortion without limits, paid for by taxpayers. The people and their elected legislators now have no recourse to use the tools of democracy to enact laws that reflect consensus.

The pro-abortion lobby has been gathering funding—including at taxpayer expense—for decades. They had millions to throw at this issue, the first on the ballot since the Dobbs decision.

Polling shows that nationwide most people want to severely limit abortion but worry about removing exemptions for the life of the mother, and also for victims of rape and incest. Since well before the SCOTUS ruling in June, the pro-abortion lobby has been claiming everything means forcing women to die and have no recourse regardless of circumstances—“It’s all A Handmaid’s Tale in real life!” they cry.

If you're wondering where your state now stands, check out the interactive map provided by the ACLJ.


for the ACLJ's interactive map on current abortion laws, go here

I can’t tell you exactly what lies were told in Kentucky, but I imagine they’re similar to lies being told in Texas. One is that women won’t get care for an ectopic pregnancy. Not true. Termination of that type of pregnancy has never been defined as an abortion—because the embryo is never implanted in the uterus; it cannot mature and become a baby, and is a high risk to the mother’s life. Nothing about outlawing abortion affects that.

There was a recent story of a woman whose baby died in utero, and she claimed that the doctors wouldn’t treat her until she had undergone multiple ultrasounds verifying that the child was not alive. And she was forced to keep carrying a dead fetus for two weeks. How can I say this without hurting someone’s feelings? She lied. That is not the procedure for a fetus that dies, and the procedure did not change after the Dobbs decision meant abortion was outlawed in Texas.

Once it is verified that there is no heartbeat, the baby is delivered, likely by C-section. This is not an abortion, because it does not terminate the life of the unborn baby, which has already died. Leaving a dead baby to degenerate within the mother could lead to serious consequences for the mother, possibly sepsis. Even in this story, simply having a second ultrasound to verify that there was no heartbeat was all that was needed; she could have come in the next day, and her doctor probably told her that. He probably mentioned nothing about the change in law after Dobbs—because there was no change. Anyway, at most it would be mere days before the procedure is done.

This was the unfortunate circumstance of a friend of mine just last month (post-Dobbs)—a mother of many children, who wanted the child, and who would never consider an abortion. She learned the child no longer had a heartbeat; she scheduled and had a C-section; she is in the process of healing both physically and emotionally. The family held a graveside service for the lost child—just as we had done for our child who had been born alive prematurely and lived only a few hours.

People are worried about the loss of choice for women who are victims of rape or incest—in other words, who did not choose the behavior that led to the pregnancy. I understand that. But it is already the exception in most states that outlaw abortion, and is an appropriate debate to have in the legislature. It’s not currently an exception in Texas—only life of the mother, I believe. And I think if we better informed and better supported women in that rare circumstance, people would clamor much less about it.

I’ve always been pro-life. Yet I have always assumed there would be exceptions made for the life of the mother—which in most cases means that the baby can’t survive either, so it is a matter of saving the mother’s life or no one’s. My Church actually makes exceptions for rape and incest, in addition to life of the mother. So I have been open to the conversation concerning those exceptions. I’ve been concerned that, as a society, we do not well support a woman who has suffered rape. We don’t even do a very good job of tracking down and bringing the rapist to justice. And I thought giving her no way out of propagating the seed of the rapist would lengthen and possibly intensify her trauma. I’m beginning to rethink that exception.

A friend of mine phone coaches women finding themselves pregnant and unable to support themselves, let alone a baby. She has been there, in crisis. I’ll briefly (and anonymously) tell her story, and what she taught me. She was fifteen and pregnant, with her 18-year-old alcoholic boyfriend. He offered no support. His mother pressured her to get an abortion; the woman had been a teen mom of two and knew how bad that was going to be.

My friend comes from a dysfunctional family, to say the least. Her parents had broken up when she was two. Her mother remarried when she was seven, to an abuser. My friend suffered sexual abuse from a series of abusers. She lacked protection and direction. The mother had taken them to church sporadically, so she had a surface knowledge of religion. My friend actually prayed, not really knowing who she was praying to, that she and her boyfriend could marry and have this family. But that wasn’t going to happen with this young man.

Not knowing what to do, she gave in to the pressure and went to an abortion clinic. Right away they put in a cervical dilator; she was supposed to go back the next day for the abortion. This insertion was painful, and it scared her. She went home and told her mother she was getting an abortion. Her mother was upset and to told her not to do it, and she agreed; she didn’t want to go through with it. She called her OB about the cervical dilator, to get it out, and was told it was probably too late; it would cause a miscarriage. Years later she learned this was not necessarily true, but she was a 15-year-old scared little girl, looking for help from adult experts who weren’t helping. She told her mom she had no choice now but to go through with it, and her mother told her not to come home if she did.

The boyfriend got drunk the night before and bailed on even taking her to the clinic. So her “friend” who had been having sex with her boyfriend behind her back ended up taking her. She remembers two vivid things about that clinic experience: the extremely sharp pain when her baby was dismembered and ripped from her; and the horrible sucking sounds and noise of the vacuum machine.

There were after effects. As she recalls,

Because I was still in the dark literally, a friend later took me to Planned Parenthood for birth control pills. They gave me a year’s worth of pills. The doctor didn’t know my medical history and probably didn’t care (and they failed to disclose the risks of the pill, that the WHO has it classified as a Class 1 Carcinogen, or how being abstinent could have really helped me emotionally and physically). I tried to tell myself that it was okay, but I knew deep down it was not okay—I was not okay. Physically, I worried if I would ever be able to have children. Had the abortion made me barren? Emotionally, I felt such shame and regret. Spiritually, I felt so ashamed that I thought God would never forgive me and I would be punished for the evil I committed. My boyfriend and I broke up, and I stuffed everything deep down inside and tried to pretend it didn’t happen, and no one spoke of it.

There’s more they don’t tell you at these places. She adds:

One of the things the pro-choice people never tell you is that when you become pregnant you are already a mom and that an abortion doesn’t take care of your problem; it actually stays with you the rest of your life. You are the mom of a dead child, and you can never undo that. Women that endure abortion suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. When you look at the symptoms—difficulty concentrating, depression, anger, anxiety, fear, being unable to sleep—numbing yourself with drugs and alcohol trying to forget the most horrible thing ever that has ever happened, it doesn’t work.

The abortion didn’t get rid of her problems. She continued drinking and doing drugs, and got pregnant again at 19; the father, again, was an abusive alcoholic. But this time when pressured to abort the baby, she knew she would never do that again. Off and on she hoped to form a family with the father, but again that wasn’t going to work, and she ended the contact. But having that baby girl, at age 20, gave her a new purpose in life, and led to her connection with God, which changed everything.

She thought that with a past like hers, she would probably never marry and have any more children. But good fortune came her way at 25. And she has spent the next couple of decades living a totally different family life than the one she grew up in.

I’m interested in the detail she told me about knowing she had this child that died, that should be in her life, or at least should be alive. There’s a hole there, and it is never filled. Because I have lost a child, I know what that feels like.

Hers was different from a rape case. But she has since had quite a lot of experience with rape victims. That missing child is what they experience after an abortion as well. What they have is the trauma of rape, and on top of that they experience the trauma of a dead child—that hole that is never filled. No one warns them. They get told, “Let’s just get rid of that problem for you.” But it doesn’t solve the problem; it adds another one that may be even more traumatic.

There was another story, told on Glenn Beck’s program back in May (May 4, 2022), by a black woman, Shemeka Michelle, who is pro-life but had had an abortion. Her story was that, while she had always been pro-life, she was with a man she should not have been with. They already had a child together, and he was not a good father, or provider, or protector. Before she succeeded in leaving him, she found herself pregnant again. His mother told her to go ahead with an abortion but not tell the father—because he was against abortion but would be as shiftless and irresponsible as he had ever been. She was about seven weeks pregnant. She asked the doctor what she would see on an ultrasound, and he told her she’d see nothing; it was just a clump of cells.


Shameka Michelle tells her story on the Glenn Beck Program, May 4, 2022
screenshot from here

She went on with her life, and then some years later was pregnant under better conditions, within a good marriage. She had an ultrasound at about that same point in the pregnancy. The happy technician showed her the baby, with heartbeat, and head and arms and legs. It should have been a happy life event—and it was. But it was also a shocking awareness that the baby she had aborted years before was not a clump of cells; it was a growing human being, like this one she was pregnant with.

She believes that if she had been told the truth the first time, she would not have had the abortion. And she believes—and data bears this out—most women, if they were shown a good quality ultrasound of their living baby, they would not abort. Knowing it is a baby, and not just a clump of cells, makes a huge difference to a pregnant woman.

Pro-abortionists do not care for women in difficult circumstances; they prey on them. And they are working hard to prevent anyone from having real choices.

Pregnancy Resource Centers, on the other hand, offer young women actual help and hope, without inflicting further trauma on them. We need more of these. 

While we're at it, we need more intact families that teach their children right from wrong. And we need more cultural support for young women—and young men—to stay committed to abstinence before marriage and complete fidelity within marriage. Age-old truths are still true.