Looking to when there will be nobody to speak for me .

Article by Rick Marshall in "The American Thinker"

First they came for Republicans, and I did not speak out — because politics are my own business.

Then they came for conservatives, and I did not speak out — because I am a moderate.

Then they came for "right-wingers," and I did not speak out — because I certainly was not one of those.

Then they came for racists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a racist.

Then they came for homophobes, and I did not speak out — because I was not a hater.

Then they came for Evangelicals and conservative Catholics, and I did not speak out — because I was not that exact sort of Christian.

Then they came for home-schoolers, and I did not speak out — because my kids went to public schools.

Then they came after the Second Amendment, and I did not speak out — because I did not own a gun.

Then they came after books and movies, and I did not speak out — because I had books and DVDs at home.

Then they came after displaying the flag, and I did not speak out — because I know I'm a loyal American; I don't need to prove it.

Then they censored speakers and sermons, and I did not speak out — because I was secure in my beliefs.

Then they called religion "hate speech," and I did not speak out — because faith is something I consider private.

Then they came for my conscience because other attacks were not working.  They tried to make me think I was prejudiced, that my heritage was hateful, that my race is inferior.  And I did not speak out — because it is all nonsense.

Then they banned speakers on college campuses, and I did not speak out — because I was not in college anymore.

Then they came for babies, killing them in the third trimester, even right after birth, and forcing citizens, even nuns, to pay for the operations, and I did not speak out — because I did not want to be thought of as mean to pregnant women.

Then they attacked people, throwing bottles and rocks when they shared their opinions, and I did not speak out — because if people were stupid enough to take risks, that was their own fault.

Then they tried to rig elections and frame politicians, and I did not speak out — because "these things happen in politics."

Then they formed a virtual monopoly over news on TV and in print, and I did not speak out — because I have learned to read what I choose and watch what I want.

Then they tried to impeach a president, and myriad lies were uncovered about it, but I did not speak out — because his own administration hardly went after the scoundrels.

Then they came after veterans and patriots, but I did not speak out — because I respected vets in my own way.

Then they came after police, saying they were brutal monsters, and I did not speak out — because I "support our men in blue."  You can see my bumper strip if you don't believe me.

Then they rioted in streets and looted stores, and I did not speak out — because I was not one of those poor shop-owners or old folks.

Then they defaced statues and pulled them down, and I did not speak out — because I agreed with my neighbors that it was horrible, just horrible.

Then they freely attacked cops, torched their cars, and occupied police stations, and I did not speak out — because those are not things I would do!

Then they despoiled monuments and public buildings, even memorials to civil rights leaders and the Virgin Mary and Jesus, spray-painting obscenities everywhere, and I did not speak out — because, well, young people and disadvantaged folks have to vent.

Then they came with "health rules" to regiment society, keep kids from school, and freeze the economy, and I did not speak out — because I was still doing OK, me and my family.

Then they came for my kids and neighbors, by politics and the media, telling them what they should approve and what to feel guilty about, and I did not speak out — because I will stick to my own opinions.

Then they came after democracy, rigging polls and votes, insisting on government controls and massive taxes and crazy rules and regulations, and I did not speak out — because, well, there's always the next election.

Then they came after the unions and other groups, and I did not speak out — because I was not a union member.

Then they came with "official vandalism": government-ordered graffiti on signs and slogans on streets, and I did not speak out — because I thought maybe someday they would ease up.

Then they came after school boards and teachers, after librarians, after pastors and priests, and I did not speak out — because I was not a student or a religious nut, you know.

Then there were riots and vandalism in my own town and neighborhood, and I did not speak out — because I was told to be "accepting."

Then my town hall was set on fire, local cops were attacked, and mobs smashed my car in the driveway and tried to break into my house, and I did not speak out — because there was nobody left who would listen to what I had to say.

Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me or defend me.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/07/looking_to_when_there_will_be_nobody_to_speak_for_me.html#ixzz6TcPQi1M0

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

Tie police hands, and you will see lots of citizens with AR-15s

Article by Silvio Canto in "The American Thinker"

We learned that some people in Minneapolis have begun to protect their streets, as we see in this report:

Minneapolis residents have begun patrolling their own neighborhoods after violent crime across the city surged in the aftermath of George Floyd's death in late May.

The patrols, some armed, are part of a largely grassroots efforts to protect neighborhoods, businesses, and residents from rioters and criminals. Some groups have constructed barriers at the entrance to their neighborhoods and control who can enter, according to the Wall Street Journal.

All of this reminds me of the people defending their town against the James gang in the famous Northfield, Minnesota bank robbery of 1876.  In other words, the people couldn't rely on the authorities and protected themselves.  They blocked the exits, and Jesse James was lucky to get out alive.  By all accounts, it was the beginning of the end for the James Gang.

In this case, the people of Minneapolis would rather rely on the police.  In fact, they love their police as most people in the country do.  Unfortunately, irresponsible leadership has tied the police's hands and left the citizens vulnerable to criminals.

Two things have come out of all this spectacle.  First, people in Democrat-run cities have learned that their leaders won't defend them.  And second, the 2nd Amendment is here to stay

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/07/tie_the_polices_hands_and_you_will_see_lots_of_citizens_with_ar15s.html#ixzz6TcLCdxDu

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

America’s New China Policy Comes Down To Two Words: Induce Change

The United States finally has an administration willing to secure America's freedom from the Chinese Communist Party — whatever it takes.

by Helen Raleigh Senior Contributor at The Federalist

Two days after the United States ordered China to close its consulate at Houston within 72 hours, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo clarified the Trump administration’s foreign policy on China in a major speech on July 23. Because shutting down a country’s diplomatic mission is a very serious and provocative step, many wonder if the Sino-U.S. relationship is in freefall and what that could mean for the rest of the world. So Pompeo’s speech couldn’t have come at a better time.

A noteworthy aspect of Pompeo’s speech was its criticism of America’s failed engagement-oriented policy toward Communist China during the last four decades.

Pompeo proclaimed:

The truth is that our policies — and those of other free nations — resurrected China’s failing economy, only to see Beijing bite the international hands that were feeding it. We opened our arms to Chinese citizens, only to see the Chinese Communist Party exploit our free and open society. China sent propagandists into our press conferences, our research centers, our high-schools, our colleges, and even into our PTA meetings …

We gave the Chinese Communist Party and the regime itself special economic treatment, only to see the CCP insist on silence over its human rights abuses as the price of admission for Western companies entering China.

Despite the U.S. political divide, there is wide agreement that Pompeo’s assessment is spot-on. The Western world’s engagement-focused foreign policy toward China failed to help transform China into a more free and open society. Instead, it only enriched and empowered the Chinese Communist Party to become increasingly authoritarian at home and hostile to freedom across the globe.

A Pivot Toward Reality

So if past policies failed, what is the Trump administration’s policy, and what result the administration hopes to achieve? According to Pompeo, the Trump administration’s new China policy is rooted in practicality. This begins with treating the CCP as who they are, not whom we wish them to be.

Pompeo pointed out: “We have to keep in mind that the CCP regime is a Marxist-Leninist regime. General Secretary Xi Jinping is a true believer in a bankrupt totalitarian ideology.” Therefore, “America can no longer ignore the fundamental political and ideological differences between our countries, just as the CCP has never ignored them.” Pompeo also revised President Reagan’s famous phrase, “Trust but verify” to “Distrust and verify” when dealing with the CCP.

The Trump administration’s new China policy can be summarized in two words: induce change. To achieve this goal, the administration is taking two approaches simultaneously.

On one hand, it’s setting clear expectations of what the Sino-U.S. relationship should be — balanced, fair, and reciprocal. On the other hand, it’s confronting the CCP head-on, whether it’s about the South China Sea, human rights violations in Xinjiang and Hong Kong, the trade imbalance, or years of technology theft and political influence campaigns planted by the CCP within the United States.

This explains why the administration rolled out several policies in recent weeks, including imposing sanctions against the CCP officials and employees of Chinese technology companies. The order to close China’s consulate in Houston is the most drastic step the Trump administration has taken so far.

All Chinese People Aren’t the Communist Party

While the administration is taking a more confrontational approach against the CCP, Pompeo made a clear and necessary distinction between the CCP and the 1.4 billion Chinese people. As Pompeo put it, “Communists always lie, but the biggest lie is that the Chinese Communist Party speaks for 1.4 billion people who are surveilled, oppressed, and scared to speak out.” The right approach for the United States is to “engage and empower the Chinese people — a dynamic, freedom-loving people who are completely distinct from the Chinese Communist Party.”

Pompeo has been leading by example. He met with Uyghur activists, Hong Kong dissidents, and survivors of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre. In an extraordinary move, Pompeo recognized two Chinese dissents and asked them to stand up during his speech. They were Wang Dan, a student leader of the 1989 Tiananmen Square pro-democracy protests, and Wei Jingsheng, a democracy activist since the 1970s.

While calling for Chinese people to help transform the CCP’s behavior, Pompeo also recognized that “changing the CCP’s behavior cannot be the mission of the Chinese people alone.” He asked all free nations to work with the United States to defend freedom.

In an interview with Richard Nixon Foundation CEO Hugh Hewitt, when Pompeo was asked if he was demanding other free nations to choose between the United States and China, Pompeo responded that he asked other nations to choose between freedom and tyranny. If free nations fail to act now, Pompeo painted a dark picture for us: “If we bend the knee now, our children’s children may be at the mercy of the Chinese Communist Party.” He ended his speech by quoting President Nixon, who said “the world cannot be safe until China changes.”

Pompeo’s speech was part of the Trump administration’s pressure campaign in an attempt to induce a change of behaviors from the CCP. The day after his speech, Beijing ordered the closure of the U.S. consulate in Chengdu. Chengdu is one of the megacities in southwest China and the capital city of Sichuan. The city’s location is strategically important because it covers another megacity, Chongqing, and the ethnically diverse provinces of Sichuan, Yunnan, Guizhou, and Tibet.

The closure of the U.S. consulate in Chengdu serves two purposes. One is to show that Beijing is willing to take a stand against the United States. The second is to further isolate sensitive regions such as Tibet from outside influence, especially from America.

Beijing’s retaliation underscores the difficulty of trying to induce CCP’s behavior change and the cost of such confrontation. Because of past policy failures to address the CCP’s aggression when the cost was relatively low, any pushback against Beijing’s aggression now will generate a significant price tag. But, if nothing else, one thing is now certain: The United States finally has an administration that is willing to secure America’s freedom from the CCP — whatever it takes.

U.S. to withdraw about 12,000 troops from Germany but nearly half to stay in Europe

OAN Newsroom

U.S. to withdraw about 12,000
troops from Germany but
nearly half to stay in Europe

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump walks from Marine One to the South Portico of the White House following a day trip to North Carolina, in Washington, U.S., July 27, 2020. REUTERS/Tom Brenner

By Phil Stewart and Idrees Ali

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. military on Wednesday unveiled plans to withdraw about 12,000 troops from Germany, in fallout from President Donald Trump’s long-simmering feud with Berlin but said it will keep nearly half of those forces in Europe to address tension with Russia.

Trump announced his intention last month to cut by about a third the 36,000-strong U.S. troop contingent in Germany, faulting the close U.S. ally for failing to meet NATO’s defense spending target and accusing it of taking advantage of the United States on trade.

“We don’t want to be the suckers any more,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Wednesday about the decision. “We’re reducing the force because they’re not paying their bills; it’s very simple.”

Defense Secretary Mark Esper has not portrayed the pullout in those terms and said the military’s plan would prevent the troop movements from undermining NATO and its efforts to deter Russian intervention, following Moscow’s 2014 annexation of the Crimean Peninsula.

In remarks likely to irk Moscow, Esper said some U.S. troops would reposition to the Black Sea region and some could temporarily deploy in waves to the Baltics.

Other forces leaving Germany would permanently move to Italy and the U.S. military’s European headquarters would relocate from Stuttgart, Germany, to Belgium.

In total, just under 6,000 troops of the 12,000 leaving Germany are expected to remain in Europe. Many of the other forces will be based in the United States but will rotate into Europe for temporary deployments without their families.

“I’m telling you that this is going to accomplish what the president said with regard to getting us down to a lower number in Europe, and it meets his other objectives I outlined with regards to the strategic piece,” Esper said.

IRE IN GERMANY, GLEE IN BALTICS

U.S. officials stressed that only a relatively small number of advanced units would move anytime soon. The rest of the troop movements would take years to fully implement, in part given the potentially billions of dollars in additional cost.

Still, the moves out of Germany represent a remarkable rebuke to one of the closest U.S. military allies and trading partners, while two beneficiaries, Italy and Belgium, are low-spending alliance members, according to NATO data.

Norbert Roettgen, chairman of the German parliament’s foreign affairs committee and an ally of Chancellor Angela Merkel, said the troop withdrawal from Germany “will weaken the (NATO) alliance.”

But NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg struck an upbeat tone in a statement, saying allies had been briefed by the United States. Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda told Reuters that his country was ready to accept more American soldiers.

“I value very favorably the news that the U.S. mentioned possibility of moving some troops to the Baltic countries,” Nauseda said.

U.S. Republican Senator Mitt Romney, who has been critical of Trump, said the plan to remove troops from Germany was a “grave error.” “It is a slap in the face at a friend and ally,” Romney said in a statement.

If he is elected president in November, Democrat Joe Biden will review the Republican incumbent’s decision to withdraw the troops from Germany, a top Biden aide told Reuters earlier this month.

Since World War Two, the U.S. military has considered Germany to be one of its most strategic locations overseas, and it serves as a critical logistics hub for troop movements not just within Europe, but to the Middle East, Africa and beyond.

Following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, however, the number of U.S. troops in Germany has been steadily reduced from some 200,000.

(Reporting by Phil Stewart and Idrees Ali; Additional reporting by Alexandra Alper, Robin Emmott, Andrius Sytas and Michael Nienaber; Editing by Chris Reese, Jonathan Oatis and Lisa Shumaker)

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

Dems Attempt To Derail Biden-Burisma Probe, GOP Blast Back

Congressional Democrats are waging a full-fledged disinformation campaign to derail the Biden Burisma probe with less than 100 days until Nov. 3.

Tristan Justice reporting for The Federalist

Congressional Democrats are waging a full-fledged disinformation campaign to derail the Biden Burisma probe led by Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa on the Finance Committee and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Earlier this month, top Democrat lawmakers demanded an FBI briefingaccusing the Russians of providing information to Senate Republicans for their years-long investigation into the Biden family’s multiple conflicts of interest at the upper echelons of government. The investigation began in 2017, long before former Vice President Joe Biden launched a 2020 campaign for the presidency in 2019.

More explicitly, the Biden campaign charged Johnson with being a Russian agent by serving as “party to a foreign influence operation against the United States” in a memo reviewed by NBC, the news operation the colluded with a foreign left-wing think tank in an attempt to de-platform The Federalist just a month ago.

While the letter addressed to the FBI this month signed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, and Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner fails to address the Johnson-led probe directly, two sources who reportedly reviewed a classified addendum say the Republican probe is a primary area of concern, according to Politico.

“We are gravely concerned, in particular, that Congress appears to be the target of a foreign interference campaign, which seeks to launder and amplify disinformation in order to influence congressional activity, public debate, and the presidential election in November,” Democrats wrote, charging Johnson’s investigation with using materials supplied by the Kremlin to undermine the upcoming presidential election now less than 100 days away.

Johnson denied the unfounded allegations coming from the Democrats who served as the lead perpetrators of the great Russia hoax accusing President Donald Trump and members of his campaign of the same charges. That culminated in a more than two-year special counsel investigation that found not one person on the Trump campaign, let alone Trump himself, was acting on behalf of the Russian government to subvert American interests in the 2016 election.

“They’re simply wrong,” Johnson told Politico. “And Schiff is the last person to talk.”

Republicans intimately familiar with the details of the Grassley-Johnson probe told The Federalist that all material reviewed by those conducting the investigation has originated from records within government agencies and the Democratic public relations firm Blue Star Strategies, in addition to current and former U.S. government officials. Republicans cited one exception, which related to a limited records request from former Ukrainian diplomat Andrii Telizhenko pertaining to contacts with Democratic National Committee contractors, meetings with the Obama White House, and work history with Blue Star Strategies, a Hunter Biden-linked firm that has been subpoenaed for important information.

“After months of Democrat-led attempts to derail and marginalize the committee’s work, the Biden campaign and Democrat leaders are now engaging in a coordinated disinformation campaign targeting our investigation,” said Johnson spokesperson Austin Altenburg. “Chairman Johnson will not be deterred in his efforts to find the truth and provide that information to the American people.”

Questions surrounding the Biden family’s suspicious overseas activities have circulated for much of the last half-decade. They intensified with greater media scrutiny in the wake of Joe Biden’s entrance into the crowded Democratic primary in April last year, along with the amplified spotlight that came from Democrats’ recent impeachment attempt.

While serving as the “public face” of the Obama White House’s policy towards Ukraine in 2014, then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, began raking in upwards of $50,000 a month on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company notorious for corruption. A Federalist analysis of Hunter Biden’s pay reveals he was being showered in excess compensation nearly double the salaries of the board members of exponentially larger corporations within the same industry. Biden possessed no prior experience in the energy industry.

Hunter Biden’s questionable foreign activity began earlier and extends to China, where the younger Biden boarded Air Force Two on a government trip to the east Asian adversary with his father and participated in a series of meetings with Chinese businessmen. What followed included a set of transactions that would benefit Hunter Biden’s firm, BHR. That included an approval for a business license in China and a joint acquisition of the Michigan motor company Henniges with a Chinese corporation, marking “The biggest Chinese investment into US automotive manufacturing assets to date.”

Still, congressional Democrats seeking to block Republican attempts to answer questions related to the arrangements sparks even more questions over what Democrats are attempting to hide.

❧

Two top Republican senators spearheading an investigation into the Biden family’s conflicts of interest while serving at the upper echelons of government blasted Democrats Tuesday for attempting to derail the Senate probe with fewer than 100 days until a presidential election.

Congressional Democrats, desperate to shut the three-year investigation down over fears that it might damage their presidential nominee’s chance to capture the White House this fall, have launched a disinformation campaignby accusing Senate Republicans of accepting help from the Russian government, a favorite tactic.

Earlier this month, Democrat leadership demanded an FBI briefing over claims of Russian intelligence guiding the investigation run by Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. It’s a charge Republicans intimately familiar with the matter vehemently protest. Republicans involved with the probe told The Federalist all information in this case over the last three years has come from U.S. agencies, and current or former U.S. officials, with one exception: a records request from a former Ukrainian consultant named Andrii Telizhenko with Blue Star Strategies, a Biden-linked firm.

“It is becoming increasingly clear that your interest in understanding ‘the national security and counterintelligence implications of foreign election interference’ is one-sided and highly political,” the pair of Republican senators wrote in a letter addressed to Democratic Sens. Gary Peters of Michigan and Ron Wyden of Oregon.

Grassley and Johnson went on to note that no such briefings were requested over the course of Democrats’ farcical investigations alleging President Trump to be a Russian agent. Those relied on actual Kremlin disinformation paid for the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, known as the Steele Dossier.

“The Steele Dossier is the very definition of election interference, yet we hear no objections from you,” the Republican senators noted.

The Biden campaign went one step further to shut down the Senate investigation that began in 2017, long before former Vice President Joe Biden launched a bid for the 2020 Democratic nomination in April of last year. Last week, the campaign released a memo charging Johnson of being a Russian asset “party to a foreign influence operation against the United States.”

“Biden’s campaign prefers to knowingly repeat false information so the liberal media will keep reporting on it,” Grassley and Johnson wrote. “Continuing to repeat false information, including apparently classified information, will not make the allegations true.”

For the first time, the two senators also addressed what happened during a March briefing that culminated in the cancellation of a subpoena vote requesting records from Telizhenko over discrepencies in staff notes, opting to subpoena the Democrat firm Blue Star Strategies instead. Still, the FBI gave the green light for the investigation to move forward.

“As you are fully aware, the FBI advised all of us during a March 2020 staff briefing that there was nothing to preclude the continuation of our investigation,” they wrote, blaming inaccuracies from Democrat staff notes for the discrepancies that led to the subpoena adjustment.

This is far from the first time Democrats have tried to delegitimize the GOP-led investigation. In February, Wyden oddly complained about government agencies complying with records requests that confirmed the presence of suspicious activity reports from the Treasury Department about Hunter Biden’s overseas businesses. At the time, Grassley and Johnson called it “strange that any senator would complain about Congress receiving responses to oversight requests in a timely manner.”

Read Tuesday’s full letter here.

It Is Resistance, Not Trump, That Needs To Learn To Accept Election Results

Given what they've put the country through since November 2016, the groups that need to be asked if they will accept an election loss in November 2020 are the media, Democratic politicians, and other Resistance activists.

Mollie Hemingway writing at The Federalist

The media and Democrats have returned to their pre-2016 election talking point that Donald Trump won’t accept election results. But after nearly four years of refusing to accept their defeat in the last presidential election, it is they and other members of the Resistance who must commit to accepting election results that don’t go their way.

The final 2016 debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump gave voters much to think about. That was the night Clinton admitted that she was willing to engage in a proxy war with Russia in Syria. For his part, Trump highlighted Clinton’s radical support of abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, a charge she could not deny.

But media coverage in the days that followed focused almost exclusively on Trump’s response to a question posed by moderator Chris Wallace, a Fox News host. Asked if he would “absolutely accept the result of this election,” Trump said — and you may want to sit down for this one — “I will look at it at the time.”

For context, Trump had been talking about election-rigging for months, made easier by the confirmation that Democrats had rigged their primary electionagainst Bernie Sanders for Clinton. During the GOP primary, Trump tended to complain about rigging in contests he lost.

In his debate answer, Trump expressed concern about how the media corruption might make the results unfair and about the lack of voter roll integrity. In the days prior to the debate, Clinton operatives had been caughtfavorably discussing vote fraud and instigating violence to shut down political events.

Seeking an anti-Trump narrative, the media agreed to make this the headline for the crucial next 72 hours of the closing days of the 2016 campaign.

It absolutely dominated print and TV news for the next three days.

“Trump’s Shocking Answer On Respecting Election Results Is The Only Debate Moment That Matters,” the Huffington Post’s Jonathan Cohn dutifully wrote. The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank wrote that with his answer, “the crater blew off, leaving a gaping caldera where Trump’s presidential campaign once stood.”

The New York Times’ Gail Collins said of Trump’s response that it was “The Debate in One Scary Answer.” The Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne’s piece was headlined, “Unable to Control Himself, Trump Confirms Everyone’s Worst Fears.” The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson said Trump “disqualified himself as a candidate for the nation’s highest office.”

The Atlantic’s Peter Beinart wrote, “Trump’s Worst Answer Will Also Be His Downfall.” Michael Cohen of the Boston Globe said that Trump “undermines the legitimacy of our democracy.” Doyle McManus of the Los Angeles Times wrote, “If Trump continues to tell his followers that the election system is ‘rigged’ and accuses Hillary Clinton of stealing the White House on Nov. 8, the result could be months of chaos and years of bitterness.”

Nate Silver said polls confirmed that Trump’s answer meant Clinton would “probably” win by an even bigger margin than she was already going to win by (she had a lead of about 7 percentage points over Trump going into the debate).

Cable news could talk about little other than Trump’s answer. It also got critical comments there. Charles Krauthammer said, “This was political suicide,” adding, “You don’t challenge the legitimacy of an election.”

Hillary Clinton was not asked whether she would accept a loss, an oversight that would soon prove significant.

Clinton Should Have Been Put On Record

Trump’s actual answers on the topic were more nuanced than his critics suggested. He said he would accept fair results but that he reserved the right to dispute any results he thought were unfair. For whatever it’s worth, the now-deranged “Morning Joe” program ran a montage of prominent Democrats and journalists routinely talking about election theft regarding prior elections, which made the media hysteria over the comments seem even more unhinged.

The lengthier debate discussion was also full of interesting tidbits. After Trump’s initial response, Wallace pushed back:

WALLACE: But, sir, there is a tradition in this country — in fact, one of the prides of this country — is the peaceful transition of power and that no matter how hard-fought a campaign is, that at the end of the campaign that the loser concedes to the winner. Not saying that you’re necessarily going to be the loser or the winner, but that the loser concedes to the winner and that the country comes together in part for the good of the country. Are you saying you’re not prepared now to commit to that principle?

He was absolutely correct. No matter how hard-fought a contest, the losing side had been expected to accept defeat, set aside hard feelings, and give the victor time to put together a functioning government. After that was in place, the fights resumed.

Following Trump’s surprise victory, the Resistance obliterated that norm and tradition immediately. Instead of a peaceful transition of power, the country endured horrific riots, efforts to tamper with the Electoral College, the beginning of a high-level coup attempt based on fraudulent Clinton campaign claims about Trump’s supposed collusion with Russia, and a refusal of nearly 70 Democratic lawmakers to witness the inauguration.

Following the inauguration, the Resistance continued to ruthlessly fight Trump’s administration of government and to perpetuate the false and damaging Russia collusion conspiracy theory, leading to a sprawling special counsel investigation. When that ended in humiliating fashion for the Resistance with no evidence of collusion, they attempted to argue that Trump complaining about falsely being accused of being a traitor meant he had obstructed justice.

It went nowhere, particularly after the Special Counsel Robert Mueller revealed he had very little handle over the investigation he ostensibly led. The resistance immediately launched an impeachment plot over something most people can’t explain involving, perhaps, a phone call to Ukraine.

Whereas Trump was lambasted by the media in October 2016 for refusing to pre-emptively accept the integrity of results for an election that hadn’t yet occurred, the media in no way held Democrats accountable for slaughtering this tradition that Wallace accurately called “one of the prides of this country.” That was almost certainly related to most of the media joining the Resistance in their years-long temper tantrum.

Clinton herself said that claims of election rigging are “horrifying,” adding:

CLINTON: So that is not the way our democracy works. We’ve been around for 240 years. We’ve had free and fair elections. We’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them. And that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage during a general election.

Beginning immediately with her loss and for the next several years, Clinton would routinely claim the election had been “stolen” from her:

Wallace did an excellent job moderating the 2016 debate, but he later admitted he should have asked Clinton the same question he asked Trump.

4 Years In, Return To Election Acceptance Hysteria

Even after years of Clinton and other prominent Democrats falsely claiming that the 2016 election was stolen and otherwise refusing to accept the election results, the media are back to their old talking point:

This is all happening while prominent leftist voices are claiming that Trump is rigging the 2020 election. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman tweeted out an elaborate conspiracy theory that Trump could not win legitimately but might try to, well, steal the election. MSNBC’s John Heilemann said Trump is engaged in “a genuine attempt potentially through force to try to steal this election.”

It would be funny if it weren’t so infuriating. Actually, it’s still funny, as the satirical news site The Babylon Bee showed with their article, “‘Trump Might Not Accept The Results Of The 2020 Election,’ Says Movement That Still Hasn’t Accepted Results Of 2016 Election.”

Given what they’ve put the country through since November 2016, the groups that need to be asked if they will accept an election loss in November 2020 are the media, Democrat politicians, and other Resistance activists.

Arizona: Train catches fire after derailment - causing partial collapse of bridge

A train has caught fire after an apparent derailment which caused a bridge to partially collapse in Tempe Town Lake, Arizona.

 Flames could be seen running across the bridge after the incident occurred at around 6am local time.


Police chief Sylvia Moir shared pictures of the blaze on Twitter, reporting the train had derailed.
She said police officers and fire crew were working at the scene.

A Tempe Fire Department spokesperson said the incident involved a Union Pacific train that derailed, causing a partial bridge collapse over Tempe Town Lake, local media reported.

Around 90 firefighters from multiple departments attended the scene, ABC15 Arizona added.
Officials are reportedly working to determine what was in each of the train cars and if there could be further hazards.


No injuries have been reported so far.
Tempe Police said some streets in the area are restricted and nearby roads could be impacted due to smoke from the fire.
It is unknown what caused the derailment.

https://news.sky.com/story/arizona-train-catches-fire-after-derailment-causing-partial-collapse-of-bridge-12038594

Sound familiar? Allegations of campaign finance and ethics violations emerge against McCloskey prosecutor

Article by Ed Morrissey at "HotAir"

She made headlines by charging Mark and Patricia McCloskey for defending their property, but St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner might have legal problems of her own. Over the last two days, multiple allegations of ethics and campaign violations have erupted against Gardner, and not exactly from defenders of the McCloskeys. The CBS affiliate in St. Louis details a number of trips Gardner took, paid for in part by progressive political supporters, that she never disclosed. KMOV reports that Gardner’s junkets were “prolific and problematic,” at times interfering with her public duties (via Hot Air reader Edward T):

Sources tell News 4 Gardner is a frequent flyer. At times during her tenure as prosecutor, sources say, she has often been gone from her office a couple of times every month, jetting around on someone else’s dime.

Social media snaps show Gardner posing for pictures in Portugal, listening to conversations in New Haven, Connecticut, smiling with other prosecutors in Houston and linking arms in Selma, Alabama.

They are trips she apparently took in 2018 and 2019, but did not disclose on travel reports, as required by law.

Sources tell News 4 that some of the trips were paid for in full, or in part, by an organization called Fair and Just Prosecution, a group that professes to support progressive prosecutors. The organization has repeatedly applauded many of Gardner’s actions, including the charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey for brandishing guns in the Central West End last month.

Why not just report the trips? That might have given her political rivals some ammunition at election time. Unfortunately for Gardner, she provided them with more ammunition by allegedly violating campaign finance regulations. That accusation comes from Democrats supporting her primary rival, Mary Pat Carl. And it’s not the first time Gardner has done so — in fact, she’s on probation for a previous violation:

Fred Wessels, a former state representative and city alderman, filed a complaint July 21 with the Missouri Ethics Commission alleging Gardner violated probation of a 2019 ethics violation by failing to file within 48 hours a report disclosing a $78,000 in-kind donation from a political action committee based in Washington, D.C.

Wessels’ complaint claims Gardner “failed to report her contracts and payments to the media company who produced the video on her campaign page. That video is also on the circuit attorney website.” Wessels also complained Gardner’s campaign filed its April and July reports late.

Gardner ended up paying over $6,000 and consenting to probation in early 2019 after admitting to using campaign funds for personal expenses:

Missouri ethics regulators fined St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner $63,009 after officials said she used campaign funds for personal expenses and failed to accurately report numerous contributions and expenditures.

Gardner will have to pay only $6,314 to the agency if she cuts a check within 45 days, however, according to a consent order she signed on Dec. 28 with the Missouri Ethics Commission. …

Between April 2015 and July 2016, according to a 25-page consent order published Wednesday, Gardner used $2,855 in campaign funds to pay for housing costs. The order says the Missouri House reimbursed Gardner for the same costs.

The commission also said that, among other infractions, Gardner had failed to accurately report numerous contributions and expenditures.

If this sounds a bit familiar, it should. In Atlanta, the charges against the officers in the Rayshard Brooks shooting got filed by Fulton County DA Paul Howard before the investigation into the incident finished. It turns out that Howard faces a criminal investigation of his own over alleged corruption involving conversion of grant money into his own pockets, to the tune of almost $200K. Howard added more potential criminal charges down the road by apparently falsifying grand jury subpoenas in the Brooks case, for which Howard has offered at least three different and conflicting explanations.

Police have accused Howard of railroading the two officers in the Brooks case to distract from his own legal woes and to gin up popularity in the short run. One has to wonder whether Gardner is taking a page out of Howard’s playbook with the odd decision to charge the McCloskeys. Politically pandering prosecutors — and corruption — seem to be a problem with progressives these days.

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2020/07/29/hmmm-allegations-campaign-finance-ethics-violations-emerge-mccloskey-prosecutor/

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

Democrats and the Press Obsess over Conspiracy Trump Will Not Vacate White House

For a crowd that normally decries conspiracies and gaslighting they sure LOVE this tinfoil hat theory.

Brad Slager reporting for RedState

When Cenk Uygur came out with his wild declaration recently it was the kind of thing to induce the reflexive eye-roll. He sent out a tweet where he encouraged his followers to sign a petition where they would pledge to help forcibly evict former President Trump from office on January 21, 2021.

Even by conspiracy theory standards this is a layered level of paranoia. His scenario can only play out IF Trump loses the election, and IF he then refuses to vacate the West Wing, AND THEN IF the military refuses to do the job. It is an easily dismissed batch of hysterics, but then the very next day the Washington Post came out with an article that deeply explored this very same crackpot theory. The script was obviously sent out – go repeat this to the masses to gin up more resentment.

This delusional theory of President Trump chaining himself to the Resolute Desk is one that continues to percolate on the left, and it is not just nameless trolls on Reddit forwarding this to have fun. It continuously resurfaces in the press, as if a legitimate concern, and lately it is enthusiastically being repeated by Democrat politicians. Joe Biden mentioned he will use the military to remove Trump in required, and Nancy Pelosi induced cheers from her sycophants when she commented on Morning Joe that, if Trump refuses to leave, she’ll have the White House ”fumigated’’. 

What is consistent in all of this is that this is all smoke being generated with no heat. There is no basis behind this mad insistence on the scenario playing out, and if you look into the cause of it all the best explanation anyone can give is that Trump has never denied it when questioned. In his recent interview with Chris Wallace the President was non-committal when asked if he would accept the results of the election. “I have to see,” Trump said. “No, I’m not going to just say yes. I’m not going to say no.”

This non-answer hardly stands up as proof, and it falls very short of the echoed claim that Trump will refuse to leave the White House grounds. The irony, as many know, is this line of questioning matches that he faced ahead of the 2016 election, and then we promptly watched as Hilary Clinton refused to accept the results. In the wake of that result we have watched for four years as Democrats and the press have refused to accept Trump as the rightful winner of that election. From Russia collusion to calling to dissolve the Electoral College, the Democrats have consistently worked to delegitimize Trump’s election.

Part of this nutbaggery is gamesmanship. The push is one where the assumption is that Biden is already to be declared the winner. By assuming a Biden victory as a foregone conclusion they are straining to make it out to be the only logical vote for citizens to make. Another part is Trump has been questioning the legitimacy of mail-in voting, and this is held as a reason he will remain steadfast in the Oval Office.

In the Washington Post piece they declared boldly Trump’s claims of fraud being very real are baseless and not rooted on facts. Ironic that, given this is about a rootless claim of a presidential squatter in the White House. In this same piece there was no challenge at all offered to Biden’s quote that, ”This President is going to try to steal this election.’’ Therefore, if he wins it is de facto theft of office. 

This of course only means the end result of the election will be a contested mess — regardless the outcome. Imagine we end up with mail-in voting and Trump is reelected. Biden, the Democrats, and the press can contest that result in similar fashion as they have with 2016, and this time they can point to Trump’s own words saying the balloting was fraudulent. Fantastic.

It is very safe to make one assumption about the coming election — long after the polls close we are going to be dealing with the fallout, no matter the result.

Ban on Pepper Spray and Tear Gas Lead 100 Police Agencies to Withdraw from Agreements To Guard DNC Convention in Milwaukee

Shipwreckedcrew reporting for RedState

The Democrat Party national convention is set to take place August 17-20 in downtown Milwaukee.

But the recent “wave” of efforts by liberal politicians to tie the hands of police agencies in how they respond to violent protests and riots has led to approximately 100 law enforcement agencies to withdraw from agreements with the DNC to provide security for the event.  According to the Associated Press:

A citizen oversight commission last week directed Milwaukee’s police chief to publicly account for why the department used tear gas during protests in late May and early June after the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis and to change Milwaukee’s police policies to ban the use of tear gas and pepper spray. The Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission said in its order that Police Chief Alfonso Morales could be fired if he fails to comply.

The story continues:

Since the Milwaukee order was issued, more than 100 law enforcement agencies in Wisconsin and across the country decided against coming to Milwaukee, Morales told WTMJ-TV on Tuesday. They were concerned with directives placed on the police department, including not allowing tear gas or pepper spray, he said.

Since 1885, the City of Milwaukee has had a Board of Fire and Police Commissioners — one of the oldest police oversight agencies in the nation. The Commission was originally created to remove police services from the influences of politics. The Fire and Police Commission is responsible for setting employment standards, testing candidates for positions in the Fire and Police Departments, and appointing both chiefs. In 1911, the Commission’s authority was expanded to include all aspects of operational oversight of the Fire and Police Departments.

The Commission sets overall policy while the chief of each department manages daily operations and implements the Commission’s policy direction and goals.  The seven part-time civilian Commissioners and full-time Executive Director are appointed by the Mayor and must be approved by the Common Council. The Commissioners serve as the citizens’ voice in police and fire matters and as a means of ensuring more responsive and effective city government.

The current Commission has a lawyer, a President of a multi-cultural marketing company, a retired Milwaukee Fire Dept. Lt with 32 years experience, a pastor, an administrative law judge, a retired Milwaukee police officer who served mostly as a community liaison officer, and a department manager for the Milwaukee Housing Authority.

What better collection of training and experience could you ask for in addressing the property police tactics and strategies to deal with crowd-control problems attendant to the DNC convention?

The convention plan is to have something that is really just a “shell” of what would normally take place.  The estimate is that only about 300 people will actually attend in person, with most convention speeches being broadcast on live or taped video.  But authorities are preparing for a significant amount of protest activity since the event is likely to draw even more press coverage than in the past due to the unique circumstances, the sharp divisions between the parties, and the divisions within the party over Joe Biden’s nomination.

Once again the liberal politicians who control the institutions of the City of Milwaukee have a mistaken belief that the Antifa/BLM protesters will “spare” a Democrat-controlled city the violence and mob action that is happening in Portland and elsewhere.  These organizations are as much about the attention the violence brings to them as they are about any coherent political ideology.  They SEEK disarming the police — and the Milwaukee politicians are giving in to their demands.

These other jurisdictions do not want to send their officers into a situation where use of deadly force becomes their only tool to quell a riot and defend themselves.  Did the Milwaukee politicians give the Milwaukee Police Chief any tools to replace the ones they took from his department?  Of course they didn’t.

There are expectations that the withdrawals may continue and additional agencies will be added to those who have already pulled out.  Other agencies are experiencing protests in their own communities and deem it no longer advisable to send officers to Milwaukee when they might be needed at home.