Chuck Norris: Similarities between the 1st U.S. chief justice and Amy Coney Barrett

 

 

John Jay

 

Article written by Chuck Norris (yes that Chuck Norris) in WND

 

Similarities between the 1st U.S. chief justice and Amy Coney Barrett

With the U.S. Senate Confirmation Hearings slated to begin before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and run through Thursday, for President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett, I thought it would be a good time to reflect again upon America's Revolutionary history and one of my favorite U.S. Supreme Court justices. In fact, he was the very first justice appointed to the highest court in the land by none other than our first president and general of the Revolutionary Army, George Washington, who considered him a close ally. You'll even find surprising similarities between Judge Amy Barrett and him.

John Jay was born in 1745 and grew up in Rye, New York. In 1764, he graduated from King's College in New York (today's Columbia University) before entering the legal profession. He read law in a New York law firm and then was admitted to the bar in 1768. That's when Jay entered into what would become a very distinguished history of public service.

The Supreme Court Historical Society explained: "Jay served as a delegate to both the First and Second Continental Congresses [1774-1776; 1778-1779], and was elected President of the Continental Congress in 1778 [-1779]. He also served in the New York State militia."

As if that wasn't impressive enough, Jay also helped write the New York State constitution (1777) and authored the first manual on military discipline (1777), served as chief justice of New York Supreme Court (1777-78) and he was appointed minister to Spain (1779).

The website for George Washington's estate, Mount Vernon, summarized Jay's other major contributions to our early republic:

Along with Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, he negotiated the Treaty of Paris in 1783, which ended the conflict between Great Britain and the new United States of America. Under the Articles of Confederation, Jay served as the Secretary for Foreign Affairs between 1784 and 1789. He favored a stronger federal government [than created by the Articles of Confederation] and wrote some [five] of the Federalist Papers alongside [Alexander] Hamilton and [James] Madison in support of the new Constitution." (Those three coauthors and the Federalist Papers were hugely instrumental in securing the ratification of the federal Constitution.)

In 1786, when the United States possessed a weak government functioning under the Articles of Confederation, Jay warned Washington that the population 'will be led, by the insecurity of property, the losing of confidence in their rulers, and the want of public faith and rectitude, to consider the charms of liberty imaginary and delusive' and would embrace 'almost any change that may promise them quiet and security.' Washington responded in agreement, writing Jay, 'Your sentiments, that our affairs are drawing rapidly to a crisis, accord with my own.'

It's no surprise that, in 1789, George Washington appointed Jay to be the first chief justice of the Supreme Court, a position he held until 1795, when he was elected as governor of New York (1795-1801), declining a reappointment as chief justice by America's second president, John Adams.

Mount Vernon goes on to explain just how close of comrades Washington and Jay were, even as chief justice: "Issues left over from the end of the American Revolution, including the continuing presence of British troops in the Old Northwest, the lack of American payments to British creditors for debts incurred during the Revolution, and British seizures of American vessels trading as neutrals with revolutionary France caused significant strife between England and the United States in the later years of Washington's presidency. To settle matters, [President] Washington sent Jay to London in May of 1794 [while chief justice!] to work out a solution that would avoid armed conflict between the two nations. The resulting agreement, popularly known as Jay's Treaty, secured the exit of British troops from the Old Northwest and granted Britain most-favored-nation status ensuring that the best trade deal any other nation received from the United States would also be applied to British goods."

As far as Jay's regard for all humanity, back in 1785, Jay founded the New York Manumission Society, which promoted the gradual abolition of slavery and release of slaves of African descent within the state of New York. (Alexander Hamilton also joined.) And, in 1799, as governor of New York, Jay helped pass a gradual emancipation law that led to the eventual end of slavery in New York in 1827.

Sadly, most historical treatises end Jay's service to his country with his retirement in 1801, when Thomas Jefferson became president. In fact, even Mount Vernon simply concluded: "Jay left the governorship of New York in 1801 to go into retirement, and passed away in 1829" (at the age of 83). But like most others, they overlooked what would have been regarded by Jay as his crowning service achievement.

So, what did Jay do with the last 28 years of his life?

 At Wallbuilders.com, religious historian David Barton is only one of few on the entire internet who documented: "John Jay was a strong Christian, serving both as vice-president of the American Bible Society (1816-21) and its president (1821-27), and he was a member of American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions."

 

John Jay signed this membership certificate as president of the American Bible Society.

The website of the new Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., further elaborated: "John Jay's contributions to the founding of the United States is significant! But did you know that under his leadership as president of the American Bible Society, he extended the influence of the Bible into Latin America and guided the organization as they increased their capability to produce more than 600,000 Bibles per year?"

Jay's veneration for the Bible was so great that in a letter to his eldest son, he wrote: "The Bible is the best of all books. … Continue therefore to read it, and to regulate your life by its precepts." As an Anglican (then Episcopalian after the Revolution), he even expounded on his biblical view of war.

When only a year into his retirement his beloved wife died, Jay used the Bible to encourage his children that her death wasn't the end. On May 28, 1802, he wrote these words to his children about her passing: "Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? … Behold I show you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed. … Death is swallowed up in victory. (1 Corinthians 15)."

On May 17, 1829, John Jay himself was near death after a life of serving his country. As recorded by his son, Judge William Jay, John Jay was asked if he had any words for his children, to which he responded: "They have the Book."

As Bill Federer so aptly cited, in his Last Will and Testament, Jay wrote:

Unto Him who is the Author and Giver of all good, I render sincere and humble thanks for His merciful and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by his beloved Son. He has been pleased to bless me with excellent parents, with a virtuous wife, and with worthy children.

His protection has accompanied me through many eventful years, faithfully employed in the service of my country; and his providence has not only conducted me to this tranquil situation, but also given me abundant reason to be contented and thankful.

Blessed be His Holy Name. While my children lament my departure, let them recollect that in doing them good, I was only the agent of their Heavenly Father, and that He never withdraws His care and consolations from those who diligently seek Him.

In the early days of the Revolution, when the war between England and the U.S. even exacerbated the divisive history of Catholicism and Anglicanism, Jay initially struggled to accept and even fought against Catholics occupying elected positions. However, eventually he (as well as the other founders) succumbed to the Sixth Amendment (Clause 3) of the Constitution, which states there are to be no religious tests for federal offices.

That didn't mean they couldn't exercise their political and religious preferences. John Jay became so passionate on the role of religion and faith in life and politics, on Oct. 12, 1816, he stated, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." (Can you imagine any politician stating that today, let alone one like Jay with the history and participation in creating our republic, its Constitution and Bill of Rights?)

So, contrary to all those who today decry Judge Amy Coney Barrett's Catholic faith and her pro-life beliefs, the first U.S. Chief Justice, John Jay, would say her faith is an advantage not disadvantage to her judicial posts. Jay and the other founders and framers didn't see the First Amendment as a block to exercise their faith but a block to stop government from prohibiting their free exercise thereof, whether in their communities or the corridors of Congress.

Like John Adams and George Washington, in his Farewell Address (1796), Jay also expressed his belief that the moral tenets of Christianity were necessary for good government: "No human society has ever been able to maintain both order and freedom, both cohesiveness and liberty apart from the moral precepts of the Christian Religion. Should our Republic ever forget this fundamental precept of governance, we will then, be surely doomed."

A treatise published by the Cambridge University Press described Jay's faith and practice this way: "His religious faith has been described by political and legal historians as being a new light 'Christian enthusiast' and falling among 'the most orthodox Christians.' Jay's own statements about his faith are consistent with those descriptions. The impact of Jay's faith on his public service and policy positions generally has not been mentioned, other than his belief in a 'great plan of Providence.' However, that impact was express in his antislavery, pro-Native American, peacemaking, just war, natural law, religious freedom, and other beliefs and actions."

Speaking of high values for all human life, I don't have access to John Jay's specific views on life in the womb, but I've written a former column on the fact that all of America's Founding Fathers, including those who are often wrongly regarded as the most liberal, like Franklin and Jefferson, fought to protect life from the womb to the tomb.

In his book, "Abortion: What the Founding Fathers Thought of It," Dr. Duane L. Ostler, a veteran lawyer and prolific author who received his Ph.D. in legal history, explained: "[Benjamin] Franklin wrote two short rebuttals [of abortion] under the fictitious names of Celia Shortface and Martha Careful who were incensed at [another Philadelphia printer Samuel] Keimer's having discussed abortion openly as if it were a commonly accepted practice approved by the majority. These writings directly contradict the Roe court's assertion that abortion was commonly acceptable in that day."

As a legal and constitutional student and scholar, John Jay would have been familiar if not consulted William Blackstone's widely read Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769). Blackstone's discussion of the quickening observes: "Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb … this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor. …"

Blackstone's commentary conveys striking reminiscence of – and gives foundation for – the opening words in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

As Thomas Jefferson stated, it is the highest purpose of government to protect every human's rights for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is still true from the womb to the tomb.

There's no doubt that Chief Justice John Jay and Judge Amy Coney Barrett share much in common, as they do with many others on the highest court in the land. Private beliefs and values never stopped justices from being impartial and unbiased in their rulings. In fact, maybe we overlook the betterment that their differences not only represent varying slices of America but also create e pluribus unum even among the highest court in that land.

As the White House reported, I believe Sen. Ted Cruz was accurate in stating, as did a number of other senators and leaders: "Judge Barrett is well-qualified to serve on the United States Supreme Court. Having confirmed her to the circuit court in 2017 with bipartisan support, the Senate has already undertaken a thorough and rigorous review of her record."

The White House added, "A dedicated wife and mother of seven, Judge Barrett would also bring a new and important perspective to the Court. Here are just a few examples of how:

• Judge Barrett would be the first mother of school-aged children to become a Supreme Court justice. She would also become only the fifth woman ever to serve on the Court.
• As the mother of a child with special needs, she fully understands the issues and concerns that confront our nation's most vulnerable.
• Judge Barrett would be the only current justice to have earned a law degree from a school other than Harvard or Yale – having graduated at the top of her class from Notre Dame Law School in Indiana.
• She would become one of only two sitting justices to have been born and raised in the South, having grown up in Louisiana before attending college in Tennessee. 

 "Amy is more than a stellar scholar and judge; she is also a profoundly devoted mother," President Trump said. "Her family is a core part of who Amy is."

https://www.wnd.com/2020/10/similarities-1st-u-s-chief-justice-amy-coney-barrett/

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

 

Article by Sally Zelikovsky in The American Thinker

Déjà Vu for the Jews of New York

New York's Orthodox Jews are taking civil disobedience to new heights as they burn their masks in protest against state crackdowns on religious gatherings — just as the Jewish New Year and Day of Atonement wind down and the harvest celebration of Sukkot begins.  This is an intensely spiritual period for families and communities who would normally gather to pray and celebrate, but not in the year 5781.  This year, history repeats itself as Mayor de Blasio and Governor Cuomo blame Jews for spreading a deadly plague.   

When the Black Death was ravaging Medieval Europe with tornadic ferocity, the Jews were scapegoated for causing its spread by "poisoning the well."  Hitler said Jews were dirty, spread disease, and contaminated the purity of the Aryan race.  Millions were massacred in tsar-ordered pogroms for the blood libel of using Christian blood to make matzah. 

But today, Jews are standing up to Hizzoner and Il Duce Cuomo, who justify their order closing schools and nonessential businesses, banning mass gatherings, and restricting worship to a maximum of ten people, by accusing Jews in certain New York ZIP codes of ignoring guidelines and causing a spike in COVID cases because of their religious observance and close-knit community.

These insular Jewish neighborhoods are done being pawns in the Democrats' election game.  If Democrat-sponsored riots and violence can endure for months, why not peaceful protests by religious groups strong-armed by state and municipal authorities?  These communities recognize the creep of totalitarianism.  They know that the jump is short from government edicts restricting assembly and work to mandatory patches or masks to papers certifying they are COVID-free, to something unspeakably execrable. 

In addition to Title VII and Religious Freedom Restoration Act violations, the Constitution thankfully is on their side. 

In 1900, San Francisco's leaders singled out the Chinese community for spreading the Bubonic Plague, despite a lack of evidence.  This was an inglorious time of intense anti-Chinese discrimination.  By attributing blame to them because of squalid living conditions and questionable hygiene, authorities were able to justify travel restrictions, mandatory vaccinations, and a quarantine around Chinatown.  Sound familiar? 

The federal district court found the quarantine unconstitutional, but the Board of Health ignored this finding and further expanded the quarantine around Chinatown while excluding non-Chinese establishments.  Chinese residents endured even worse living conditions, destitution, and starvation.  But one grocer named Jew Ho had had enough and filed suit in the Northern District of California, understandably peeved that his non-Chinese neighbors could move freely and conduct business while he remained quarantined. 

In Jew Ho v. Williamson, Republican Judge William W. Morrow stood up to this rank bigotry and again found the Chinatown quarantine unconstitutional.  He relied on the 1886 Supreme Court case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins.  Under a local ordinance in Yick, Chinese laundries were denied licenses because they were constructed of wood, not brick, and were therefore a fire risk.  Because everyone knew that Chinese laundries were wooden and non-Chinese laundries were brick, denying the licenses was just a pretext for discriminating against the Chinese laundries.  The Supreme Court concluded that while the ordinance itself was facially neutral, if "applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand," such that, in practice, it discriminates "between persons in similar circumstances," it violates the Equal Protection Clause (emphasis added).

In Jew Ho, Judge Morrow reaffirmed that states have police powers to impose quarantines but cannot apply such measures in an unequal, discriminatory way.  Because San Francisco enforced its quarantine ordinance strictly against the Chinese in Chinatown, and not against others in the city who were also sick, this was an unequal application of the law in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.  For a brief discussion by Prof. Victoria Sutton on discriminatory administration of facially neutral rules, click here.  For a deeper analysis of these cases, see Victoria Sutton's Biosecurity Law & Policy (Vargas, 2014) and Marilyn Chase's riveting The Barbary Plague: The Black Death in Victorian San Francisco.

Thus, applying Jew Ho to New York's "Jewish problem," the Empire State may exercise its police powers to protect the public against COVID-19 but cannot single out one group based on religion or race, especially when other non-Jews are infected throughout the city and state. 

Generally, a state must have a compelling reason to deprive us of our fundamental rights — like the rights to assemble and worship — or to impose burdens on "suspect classes" of people — by race, religion, sex, etc.  Any burden on individual rights must be narrowly tailored.

While the Cuomo–de Blasio orders aren't a quarantine per se as in Jew Ho, confining people to home for anything but the most essential, denying them the right to congregate and gather, and closing their schools is effectively...a quarantine.  New York could claim a compelling interest in using quarantines to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and could limit First Amendment freedoms to achieve that goal, but only if narrowly tailored.  Thus, restricting the First Amendment rights of Jews to assemble, worship, and speak, but not those of other affected groups, clearly overreaches and unconstitutionally infringes on First Amendment freedoms and violates Equal Protection guarantees.  To correct this and be narrowly tailored, New York should quarantine only those who are infected and infectious until they test negative and are no longer shedding virus.  That would be a reasonable imposition on our rights; not the disparate treatment we see leveled against New York's Jews.

Why do Jewish gatherings and schools spread the virus in a way that threatens public health, but others don't, like mass BLM, Antifa, and transgender demonstrations, not to mention large crowds taking public transportation, shopping, outdoor markets, religious gatherings by other groups, and other schools?  The Fabulous Il Duce Boys don't understand that a mere increase in cases does not a hot zone make, especially in the absence of details regarding symptoms, hospitalizations, responses to treatment, and recoveries versus deaths.  Nor does it justify liberty-squelching measures against one group when thousands of non-Jewish New Yorkers are also infected.

Cuomo and de Blasio disparaged religious Jews, claiming that their large gatherings exceeded the 50-person outdoor limit and the 50-percent limit for indoors.  Their proof?  A picture of Chasidic Jews from 2006.  They labeled these events "super spreaders" with no evidence.  These two must prove that large gatherings of Orthodox Jews are the proximate cause for spreading COVID-19, resulting in massive casualties.  They must establish that the virus exclusively infects and spreads among Orthodox Jews inhabiting certain ZIP codes.  But they can't.  The science (ahem) doesn't support their fantasies.  Sorry, Guvna, Hizzona.  You lose.

When hysteria takes over and the fortunes of ignorant and bigoted politicians depend on fear, all groups take heed.  Whether Jew Ho or New York's Jews, the creep of totalitarianism doesn't care.  It just wants a victim to scapegoat and a couple of meshuggeneh leaders with the chutzpah to see it through.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/10/dj_vu_for_the_jews_of_new_york.html#ixzz6afcgUOXP

 

 

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

>

 

Article by Kevin A. in The American Thinker

 

In Defense of Columbus Day

On October 12, 1492, Christopher Columbus discovered the Americas and changed the course of world history forever.  In honor of this historic event, Columbus Day is observed in the United States, Latin America, Spain, and Italy.  In more recent years, however, there's been increasing opposition to Columbus Day in favor of Indigenous Peoples' Day.  According to the left's narrative, the arrival of Christopher Columbus in the New World marked the beginning of one of the largest genocides in human history.  But was it really?

It's true that many American Indians died after the Europeans discovered the Americas.  However, the vast majority of the native population, some 75 to 95 percent, were killed by Old World diseases to which they had no immunity.  While no less a tragedy, it does not constitute a genocide.  A genocide requires a calculated, deliberate intent to exterminate a whole group of people.  The Europeans were unaware that the natives didn't have immunity to Old World diseases, let alone how infectious diseases even worked.  Germ theory was not fully developed and accepted until the latter half of the nineteenth century.  It should also be noted that in the United States, at least, there was never a government policy for extermination.  On the contrary, you don't set up reservations and inoculate the people you are trying to exterminate.

With the call to abolish Columbus Day in favor of Indigenous Peoples' Day, there is the implication that American Indians were and are more virtuous, deserving, and noble than their European counterparts.  The left tends to romanticize American Indians while vilifying Europeans.  It's true there were atrocities and injustices done to the American Indians, but that's only one side of the story.  Guess what: nothing the Europeans did was at all different from what the natives themselves did.  American Indians also conquered other native peoples for their land and to acquire slaves.  Slavery was widely practiced in pre-Columbian America, just as it was practiced everywhere at the time.  According to the Standard Cross-Cultural Files, at least thirty-nine pre-Columbian societies in North America alone practiced slavery, and it was not at all different from the slavery practiced elsewhere.  Indian slave masters had complete control over their slaves, even to kill them if they desired.  It's a little known fact that in the nineteenth century, American Indians began to acquire black slaves.  In fact, the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole Indians took a number of black slaves with them as they were forcibly relocated to Oklahoma "Indian" Territory.  In short, American Indians had the same sins and vices as the Europeans, and even some they didn't have.

Nothing highlights this more than the Aztecs in what is today Mexico.  The Aztecs had an unrivaled occult bloodlust.  Some historians estimate that the Aztecs ritually sacrificed 50,000 people per year in a population area of four to five million.  That equated to sacrificing one percent of their total population annually.  Those ritually sacrificed were often captives taken from neighboring tribes.  The manner in which they were sacrificed was particularly barbaric.  Captives were taken to the top of a temple and laid upon a stone slab.  The priest would then take a sharp knife, plunge it into their chests, and rip out their still-beating hearts.  The bodies were then dismembered, the torso kicked down the temple steps, and the limbs were eaten.  The heads of the sacrificed were placed on a pole and kept as trophies.  Bernal Díaz del Castillo, who accompanied Hernán Cortés on his conquest of Mexico, witnessed more than one hundred thousand skulls stacked meticulously on top of one another, which Aztec texts, frescoes, and archeology have confirmed.  Most of the victims were men, but women and children were also sacrificed.  Women would also have their hearts ripped out, but more often they were slowly beheaded and skinned.  The priests would often wear these human skins while the sacrifices continued.  In one event, during the consecration of a new temple, an estimated 20,000 to 80,000 people were sacrificed over a four-day period.  That is the very definition of a genocide.

After the arrival of the Spanish conquistadors and ensuing conflicts, the Spanish witnessed some of their own being taken captive by the Aztecs.  The Spanish prisoners were stripped naked, brought to the temple, and forced to dance naked for an hour.  Afterward, the Aztec high priest sacrificed them alive, ripping out their hearts and dismembering them, as was commonly practiced.  When Cortés finally conquered the Aztecs, much of the slaughter that ensued was done by their Indian allies, who hated the Aztecs with a passion.  The conquistadors were certainly no saints, but not even the worst among them practiced human sacrifice or ate human flesh.  The Aztecs were not alone when it came to human sacrifice and cannibalism.  The Mayans, Incas, and other tribes had similar practices, including sacrificing children and infants.

When Columbus discovered the Americas, he encountered friendly natives, but he also encountered hostile natives.  Upon his second trip to the Americas, he encountered the Caribs, from which the word "Caribbean" is derived.  According to historian Samuel Eliot Morison, Columbus's search parties on Guadeloupe found a disturbing sight: "They found large cuts and joints of human flesh ... caponized Arawak boy captives who were being fattened for the griddle, and girl captives who were mainly used to produce babies, which the Caribs regarded as a particularly toothsome morsel."  The French explorer Florentine Giovanni da Verrazzano is said to have been eaten on the beaches of Guadeloupe by Caribs while his companions looked on from their ship in horror.

This is not to say that all American Indians were bloodthirsty man-eaters.  Just as in any society, there are good and bad people.  It's in no way intended to vilify all American Indians — only to highlight the left's one-sided argument against Columbus and Europeans in general.  Leftists conveniently ignore atrocities when committed by American Indians.  You will never hear them condemn genocides committed by the Aztecs or the barbaric practices of the Incas and Mayans.  These facts do not fit their narrative and must be disregarded.

You will also not hear about attacks upon white settlers.  During Pontiac's War, for instance, Indian warriors entered a schoolhouse, killed the schoolmaster, and then tomahawked and scalped eight children.  Contrary to popular belief, Europeans did not teach scalping to the American Indians.  Archeological evidence indicates that scalping already existed in pre-Columbian America.

Ultimately, the attack on Columbus Day is an attack on Western civilization itself.  But whether anyone likes it or not, Columbus discovered America and it changed history irrevocably.  Ignoring the past will not change events, nor does it make it any less historic.  If Columbus had not discovered America, or rediscovered, if you prefer, it's naïve to believe it would have remained sealed off from the rest of the world forever.  If it were not for Columbus or some other European, it would have been somebody else, possibly the Chinese.  Regardless, no matter who discovered the Americas, the outcome would have remained the same.  American Indians still would have died by the scores from diseases they had no immunity to, there still would have been a clash of civilizations, and they still would have lost.  It's an unfortunate but predictable outcome.  When a technologically advanced civilization comes into contact with a primitive stone-aged civilization, it never fares well for the latter.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/10/in_defense_of_columbus_day.html

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

New and Troubling Questions About Murder at Rally in Denver

Shipwreckedcrew reporting for RedState

In this story hours ago I wrote about the discovery of the left-wing protest connections of Denver murder suspect Matthew Dolloff, who shot and killed Lee Keltner, an attendee at the “Patriot Muster” pro-Trump rally.  For the last sentence of my story, I wrote “I suspect there will be more to this story as the next few days unfold.”

The only thing I got wrong was the “days” part.  There is a lot more to the story this morning.

First, Dolloff was not a licensed security guard.  The City of Denver has a municipal ordinance requiring anyone employed as a “security guard” to possess a city license authorizing the person to work in that capacity inside Denver city limits.  To get the license the applicant must complete the specified training.  If the applicant is to be armed as a security guard, he must undergo some additional training, and pass a firearms proficiency course.  If the security guard is going to work in a “plain clothes” capacity — as Dolloff was — he must undergo even more training before getting the license.  An official for the City of Denver licensing department responded to a news inquiry that they have no application or file for anyone named Matthew Dolloff as holding the necessary license issued by the City of Denver.

 

Second, Dolloff didn’t work for Pinkerton as claimed by “9News”, the NBC affiliate station in Denver who said they hired him to be security for their news crew at the protest.  A statement issued by Pinkerton on Sunday said they did not employ Dolloff, but that he worked for a contractor.  I’m not sure exactly what that means, but it could be that Pinkerton contracts with a local security company to provide manpower when Pinkerton has a contract in a location not close to one of their offices.  Or it could be that Pinkerton has licensed use of their name to independently owned companies, and those independent companies employ the individual security guards.

Third, at least one well-known field reporter for 9News — Kyle Clark — is identified by a BLM/Antifa website as being “one of us” in a Twitter comment saying the 9News reporter didn’t need security because they would protect him “Kyle is one of us.”  More on this below.

Fourth, there was a still photographer within 10 feet of the incident that led to Mr. Kelter’s murder, and she captured the entire sequence in a series of still photographs that have now been posted online in dozens of pieces of “analyses” of the shooting.  These still photographs show that in the 2-3 seconds before the fatal shot was fired, Mr. Kelter used his left hand to strike an open-handed blow with his palm to the right side of Dolloff’s face.  But the blow does not look unprovoked.  Mr. Keltner is carrying a mace canister in his right hand, and as the photographs shown below seem to demonstrate, Dolloff was reaching for the canister with his left hand at the same moment Keltner struck him with his left hand.  But there appear to be photos missing from the sequence — photographs that would show Dolloff drawing his firearm with his right hand.  Those photographs would be important in determining whether Dolloff drew his firearm in response to something Keltner did, or if he drew his firearm BEFORE Keltner did anything to prompt Dolloff to do so.

But before the shooting, the one seemingly near complete video of the incident also raises a series of questions about Dolloff’s presence, the presence of the 9News crew, the presence of the still photographer, AND serious questions about whether there were OTHER “security” agents present who have not yet been identified in the press.  From the video I have a suspicion about one who quickly departed the scene just seconds after the video.

Below is the video reposted.  After the video are some of my observations based on what I see, and questions I would have as a prosecutor trying to sort out the facts here.  If you haven’t seen this yet, be advised that it is graphic and ends with the shooting of Mr. Keltner.

As you can see, the video is almost entirely one individual wearing a “Black Guns Matter” shirt — I’m going to refer to him as “Mr. BGM” — standing off against a group of persons who were presumably there to attend the “Patriot Muster” rally.

At the start, the exchange does not seem agitated or escalated between Mr. BGM and three men standing shoulder-to-shoulder.  Mr. Keltner is the man in the middle, wearing the soft floppy hat.  He has Mr. Red on his right, and Mr. Tan Hat on his left.

At the :07 mark, the person with the camera gets closer to the group, and you can now see Mr. BGM become irritated and turn belligerent, and shouts “Shoot me m****herf***er.

At :09, Mr. Tan Hat steps in between Mr. BGM and Mr. Keltner, and extends his arms out in both directions creating separation between them.  In response Mr. BGM says very menacingly “Don’t f****n touch me.  Touch me one more time and you’re going to get it.”

At this point, :10 on the video, you see someone who caught my interest — Mr. White, wearing a white shirt and red bandana, behind Mr. BGM.  Mr. White gives the impression that he is serving as backup for Mr. BGM. When Mr. Tan Hat gets between Mr. BGH and Mr. Keltner, pushing them away from each other — with Mr. BGM responding with a threat — Mr. White moves a couple steps closer behind Mr. BGM, coming within about five feet of him.

At the :16 mark, Mr. BGM is yelling at Mr. Keltner to “Mace me m****herf***er”, and Mr. White is immediately to his left and a step or two behind him as if he’s ready to get involved.  Mr. White then backs away towards the fence behind them as Mr. BGM continues to yell at challenge Mr. Keltner to use his mace on him.

As the exchange between Mr. BGM and Mr. Keltner continues to escalate, Mr. Tan Hat tries to stay positioned between them.  At :32-25 seconds you can’t see anyone in the frame of the video to the right side, but something over there gets Mr. Keltner’s attention as he first looks in that direction, and then walks in that direction, out of the frame of the video.

When I first watched the video, I thought Mr. White ended up as the shooter.  It wasn’t until I saw the still photographs that I realized that the shooter, Dolloff, was present the entire time just outside the frame of the video to the right of the argument being captured.  Also close to Dolloff is a Denver Post photographer wearing an orange vest and carrying a camera with a long lens.

At :37 seconds Mr. Keltner leaves the frame of the video.  Mr. BGM directs his attention to 3-4 persons still in the first group that he began the confrontation with.

At :43 the video starts to pan to the right and you can see Mr. Keltner taking a step back just before you hear the gunshot, and he falls directly onto his back.

At that point, the person with the camera loses momentary control in reaction to the gunshot, and the video ends one second later.

What is unknown at this point is what got Mr. Keltner’s attention and caused him to walk in Dolloff’s direction — away from Mr. BGM seven seconds before Dolloff shot him.

Michelle Malkin set out a very informative Tweet string on Sunday night about her experiences using Pinkerton as security for her book tour — all the different kinds of paperwork that SHOULD exist for the contractual relationship between 9News and Pinkerton.

But I suspect we’re going to find out that it doesn’t exist.  Here is my SUPPOSITION about that I THINK the facts might turn out to be:

Someone in the 9News team was given the task of obtaining security for the news crew covering the “Patriot Muster” rally.  That person did so and SAID they hired Pinkerton.  What they really did, however, was hire a local security firm that has — in the past — done contract work for Pinkerton.  I’m going to guess that we are going to find out that Dolloff knew one or more of the news crew separate from the security work — maybe thought left-wing protest activities.  As I noted above, Kyle Clark of 9News is described in a Tweet by the BLM/Antifa account “@Saytheirnames6” as “one of us”, and that he would not need security at a BLM/Antifa protest because they would protect him.

I SUSPECT we are going to learn that the 9News crew usually covers these protests from the BLM/Antifa side of the event — so they have security with them that is likely to be sympathetic, rather than antagonistic, towards the group they are going to intermingle with.  They had security to protect 9News from what they perceived would be the most threat to them — the “Patriot Muster” crowd.  The second person arrested – but released shortly after — was the 9News producer who was filming the confrontation between Mr. BGM and the group from behind Mr. BGM.

Michelle Malkin lives in Colorado, and she Tweeted that 9News is well-known for having extreme left-wing radicals in their newsroom.

Like I said — many more questions than answers.  Look for my story later on “self-defense” in Colorado and Dolloff’s predicament.

 

Article by Kurt Schlichter in Townhall

 

Flying the Flag Is a Secret Trump Handshake

Among the threats of persecution and death we face for supporting President Trump are some that are frankly hilarious. It’s one thing for libs to try to leverage fear to intimidate their patriotic opponents; it’s another thing to try it when they think that Kevlar is a hip Indonesian spice you sprinkle over your kale, and that SIG Sauer is a happening non-binary Swedish stand-up comic who doesn’t tell jokes because laughter is racist. We recently had Chris Hayes opine that, as soon as they install a Grandpa Badfinger regime – and even before Kamala can exercise Botox Nan’s new 25th Amendment option – we Trump supporters should be hauled before “some kind of truth and reconciliation commission” to confess and atone for our sin of refusing to genuflect before the garbage establishment. Keith Olbermann, who apparently still exists for some reason, wants to go one better and convict Trump supporters of political crimes. One can only assume that they will embark on the mission to arrest us with their tweets locked and loaded.

Now, if the fascist fantasies of pampered effete liberal male-identifying creatures provide amusement to those patriots whose response to being gathered up for political re-education and/or punishment would come in a rainbow of calibers, millimeters, and gauges, right now most people would prefer to avoid the hassle of overtly battling their neighbors over Trump. Sure, some of us enjoy taking to Twitter to provoke leftist idiots, but I repeat myself. Others delight in putting that bumper sticker on our ride, or sticking a Trump sign in our yard. But normal people generally eschew overt political activity if it’s going to be a pain in the Schumer and confine their patriotic demonstrations and riots to the ballot box.

But they still want to be heard without the annoyance of dealing with some man-bunned neighbor shrieking that a sign in their yard supporting DJT is “literal violence” that has his woke 8-year-old “literally shaking.” That’s why these folks rely on hidden signals to demonstrate their support for the greatest president since Ronald Reagan.

In many places where Trump is popular, like America, reports tell us that you see a lot of Trump signs. Other places, not so much. I live in Ted Lieu’s district – thank you for your thoughts and prayers – and you just don’t see a lot of Trump signage here. You do see some around, usually on houses with defensive obstacles and clear fields of fire, and it’s got to freak out the woke wine women, the frigid Karens, and the Volvo-driving soft boys who make up the vocal local left. 

Note that you do not see much Biden signage either, and what you do see is often associated with people who insist have yard signs that inform their neighbors about how hate has no home there, how black lives matter, and how they believe in science. This is presumably in opposition to all their neighbors who apparently rent out a room to hate, do not think black lives matter, and who refuse to believe in science. Remarkably every one of these luddites who hate science has power lines and cable running into their homes, which seems weird. Regardless, the properties of these liberal exhibitionists constitute maybe one homestead in a hundred. This lack of excitement seems to reflect how most Democrats are approaching this election with the same sense of grim necessity they approach their periodic colonoscopies. For a guy the CNN/MSNBC/Chet the Unicorn poll has 72 points ahead, there’s more enthusiasm at your average Calvinist wake. There is – and I swear this is true – a sign on a main throughfare here in Lieuville that reads “2020 BIDEN – ACCEPTABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.”

Can you feel the heat?

But while there is a paucity of posters and no surfeit of signs, there are plenty of American flags. Now, you always see a flag at a Trump sign house, but as Don Jr. observed, you never see a flag at a house with a Biden billboard. Liberals are to manifestations of patriotism as Dracula is to garlic. It’s the other, un-signed houses that are flying Old Glory that are interesting. What’s up with them? There’s no big patriotic holiday right now, unless people are getting into the Columbus Day spirit, and doing that usually takes the form of conquering North America. Yet there are a ton of flags flying. Why?

Because it’s a hidden signal, a secret handshake. If someone has a flag up, he’s down for Trump. Period. And no, I am not spilling the secret to liberals. Except for the occasional troll, no lib is ever going to read this. They are too busy drinking screw-top Trader Joe’s Chardonnay with their nose buried in a copy of Harry Potter and the Fifty Shades of White Fragility.

And there are other ways to send out the Trump bat signal. Like gay men on the down-low in old timey Hollywood would let slip that they were a “Friend of Dorothy,” there are a multitude of ways to show you are a Friend of Donald. 

You can wear clothes referring to your past or present service in the American military. My Army ballcaps and shirts get nods from folks who understand that military service is rarely the domain of people whose policy priorities include penalizing pronoun crimes. Likewise, when someone observes that “masks are stupid,” the chances are it’s a Trump supporter and not some Democrat sheep who delights in the total submission to authority that results in him sporting a piehole thong as he putters about alone in his Prius. Or when someone mentions “I don’t watch the mainstream media,” or that we need “law and order,” you know you are in the presence of a patriot.

Now, if Trump should lose and the Democrats take over the Senate, the oppression will increase. Like we have seen, they actually want to create a totalitarian dictatorship in conjunction with their tech pals and corporate lackies. So, all these tactics, techniques and procedures people are practicing now will come in handy if the Democrats get their wish for total power, at least until the inevitable backlash that will make the fussy likes of Chris Hayes and Keith Olbermann regret their choice to figuratively fire on Ft. Sumter again.

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2020/10/12/flying-the-flag-is-a-secret-trump-handshake-n2577828 

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

Utah high school student bullied, spat on for wearing hat in support of President Trump

 WEST JORDAN, Utah (KUTV) — Cellphone video shows a West Jordan High School student bullied and spat on for wearing a hat in support of President Trump.

 

15-year-old Braxton McElhaney is a sophomore at West Jordan High School. He said the confrontation happened on one of his first days back at school. He said he was taunted by other students and spit on because of what he was wearing.

Cellphone video taken inside the school captured the confrontation on Sept. 3.

"The two girls, they kept antagonizing me, calling me a racist, saying I look r-----ed, and calling me a white supremist, white privilege, because I was wearing my Trump hat,” McElhaney said.

 

 

He said two female students ripped his hat off, stomped on his glasses, threw his American flag face mask in the dumpster, and spit in his face. Braxton said he had to battle the urge to fight back, but kept calm.

Braxton's family says the school acted quickly to investigate. His mom, Meshyalah McElhaney, said she can barely get through watching the video.

It brings me to tears every time I watch it, and I can't believe that people who are on that side and try to push love and acceptance and toleration of other people, and then they are so against somebody who is just a patriot,” she said.

Braxton's father, Joe McElhaney, said this confrontation is part of a bigger picture of intolerance from both sides.

The way he was treated, the way that a lot of people are treated with all of this divide that we have going on in our country, it's ridiculous,” he said.

 

Braxton himself said he knows the what some people negatively associate with a MAGA hat, but he won't stop wearing it.

"If they were just to like sit down and talk with someone and learn about the other side and the other parties, then they would be a lot more understanding, and less hate form one side towards another,” Braxton said.

 

 

In a statement to 2News the Jordan School District said the situation was immediately dealt with, and law enforcement have investigated. A spokesperson for the school district said they cannot comment on the discipline the students received because it is a police matter.

The West Jordan Police Department were not immediately available to comment. Braxton’s family said criminal charges are being filed.

The full statement from the Jordan School District:

Jordan School District does not tolerate or condone the type of behavior seen in this video. Our schools stand for respect and inclusion where all are free to learn and work in a safe, welcoming environment without judgment.

This situation was immediately investigated with the support and involvement of law enforcement. Swift, appropriate disciplinary action was taken following district protocol.”

 

https://kutv.com/news/local/utah-high-school-student-bullied-spat-on-for-wearing-hat-in-support-of-president-trump 

 

 

 

Sept jobs numbers best since Reagan-era, don't panic America

There is simply no historical parallel for the 

magnitude and speed of the current economic recovery

America woke up to the news Friday morning that President Trump and first lady Melania had been diagnosed with the coronavirus.

On a personal level, I am sure all our prayers and sympathies are with the president and first lady.

On an economic level, you know what that kind of breaking news means for Wall Street. With just a month to go before the election, investor uncertainty drove stocks down in morning trading.

The last jobs report before the November election was also released Friday. You may read elsewhere about an economic slowdown but September’s very positive jobs numbers actually confirm that we are still experiencing the most dynamic economic recovery in American history -- bar none.

Following the four best months for job growth since the government began tracking the data in 1939 -- 4.8 million jobs in June, 2.7 million in May, 1.7 million in July, 1.4 million in August -- the economy added an additional 661,000 jobs in September.

But for the four record-setting months that preceded it, September’s jobs numbers were the best since September of 1983 during the Reagan presidency. While this was a slowdown from four record-setting highs, keep in mind that the numbers slowed to a 37-year high.

There is simply no historical parallel for the magnitude and speed of the current economic recovery.

By comparison, the monthly high mark for job growth during the Obama-Biden recovery was 540,000 jobs in May of 2010.

In total, the U.S. economy has regained 11.4 million jobs or 55 percent of the 20.8 million jobs lost in April to the coronavirus – and that’s with many major states still at least partially shut down.

Just as encouraging, of the 25.4 million people who lost their jobs when the economy shut down, 14.2 million or 56 percent have rejoined the ranks of the employed driving the unemployment rate down from April’s 14.7 percent to 7.9 percent in September. Recall that in April the Congressional Budget Office was forecasting a third-quarter unemployment rate of 16 percent.

But the jobs numbers are not the only positive economic indicators. For example, according to the respected Institute for Supply Management monthly Manufacturing Report released Thursday “[e]onomic activity in the manufacturing sector grew in September, with the overall economy notching a fifth consecutive month of growth.”

While we don’t have the September numbers as yet, retail sales surpassed pre-pandemic levels back in July and continued to grow in August, increasing by 0.6 percent.

That number should stay positive. Released on Tuesday, the Conference Board’s consumer confidence numbers spiked to 101.8 in September, the highest number since the pandemic began and the largest month-to-month jump in 17 years.

That’s important because consumer spending accounts for about two-thirds of our gross domestic product. To date, the highest quarterly GDP growth number recorded since 1948 when the government began reporting the data was 13.8 percent in the fourth quarter of 1952.

The Federal Reserve bank of Atlanta’s GDPNow forecasting model is predicting GDP growth of an astounding 34.6 percent in the third quarter, which ended September 30th. That would be a historic high on the heels of a historic drop of 31.4 percent in the second quarter.

Speaking of historic drops and recoveries, According to the Federal Reserve Bank’s recent Flow of Funds report, the net worth of U.S. households and nonprofits jumped 6.8% to a record-high $118.96 trillion in the second quarter. That’s $378 billion more than at the end of 2019 as the stock market, home values and personal bank account values surged. The personal saving rate also hit a record 25.7% in the second quarter.

There is simply no historical parallel for the magnitude and speed of the current economic recovery.

In part, this is due to the programs congress and the president put in place to deal with the pandemic shutdowns and actions the president took through Executive Orders when Congress refused to act.

For example, the Paycheck Protection Program enabled thousands of businesses to avoid going under permanently by allowing them to go into hibernation during the strictest phase of the state and local lockdowns. In a remarkably short period of time, the PPP distributed more than half a trillion dollars in forgivable loans and saved more than 51 million jobs.

If Congress would do its job and pass the elements of an economic stimulus package on which the Democrats and Republicans agree, the recovery would be even stronger and more dynamic.

Our economic strength going into the pandemic shutdown also has been a significant factor in our emergence from it.

The latest U.S. Census Bureau data shows that in 2019 median household income increased by 6.8 percent to $68,700 — the largest one year increase on record going back to 1967. It was more growth in a single year ($4,379) than Obama/Biden produced during their entire 8-year term in office ($3,021).

The poverty rate also fell to 1.3 points to 10.5 percent, the largest one-year decline on record and a record low rate going back to 1959 when the government began reporting the data.

As a result, the economy lifted over 4.1 million people out of poverty, the largest yearly decrease since 1966. Just for comparison purposes, over the eight-year of Obama/Biden administration, the number of people living in poverty increased by 787,000.

We headed into the pandemic shutdown with the strongest labor market in modern times -- perhaps ever. President Trump acted immediately and aggressively to counter the economic impact of that shutdown.

As a result, we are at the beginning phase of a second Trump economic boom. But we’ll need a Trump win in November to keep that momentum going.