When we learned of the interview that Lester Holt had with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, our own Mr. Morrissey raised a few pertinent questions regarding just how much truth was being revealed. You’ll recall that Lynch’s original story was that she and President Bill Clinton only talked about “golf and grandchildren” during their infamous meeting on the Tarmac in 2016. But when talking to Holt, she expanded on that a bit, saying they also discussed, “issues of the day” such as Brexit.

Here was Ed’s rather polite analysis of that claim.

Until now, we’ve mainly heard that the conversation stuck to stories about grandchildren and personal topics. Bear in mind that the issues of the day in June 2016 mainly concerned the election season that was underway. We know by now that the FBI and DoJ had grown concerned over potential Russian interference in the process and had begun a probe into that as well. The news of the DNC hack broke on June 14th; the tarmac meeting took place around two weeks later. Wouldn’t any of that been among the “issues of the day” on the minds of the Clintons? And wouldn’t that have been of much more interest than Brexit?

All due respect to Ed for the restraint he was exhibiting, but I’m not sure such restraint is actually called for here. The Washington Times also took note of Lynch’s rather lame reflections on the meeting where she expressed, “regrets” meeting Mr. Clinton, given the appearance of impropriety it caused during Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign.

I wouldn’t have even selected this story for additional coverage here if it weren’t for the fact that I don’t think we need to be pussyfooting around what Lynch is doing here (if you’ll pardon the phrase). The fact is that we will never know beyond a shadow of a doubt what went on or exactly what was said during that meeting on the plane. Presumably, there was nobody else allowed in the meeting nor was there any recording of it or we might have heard about it by now. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t apply a bit of common sense and point out a situation where the emperor obviously isn’t wearing any clothes.

Based on what we do know and what was claimed by both parties involved, the only logical conclusion is that this woman is a liar. There. I said it. She’s lying through her teeth. There is simply no way on Earth that Lynch and the former President could have had such a secret, off the record conversation and not have been aware that it would be of tremendous interest to the public if word ever leaked out. There was also no reason that they needed to have such a conversation about “grandchildren and golf” given the high tension surrounding both of them at the time.

What’s most insulting here is the way that Lynch can shrug off the obvious and simply smirk at the nation, knowing that she will never be definitively exposed. And she has to know it. Captain Louis Renault would be more believable saying that he had no idea about gambling going on in the casino. If the Justice Department during that era had a better track record of being completely transparent and nonpartisan, perhaps… just perhaps.. we might allow some wiggle room here. But they weren’t. Anyone recall when the embezzlement charges against Huma Abedin were unceremoniously tossed into the recycling bin with the AG citing “prosecutorial discretion?”

No, I can’t definitively prove that Loretta Lynch was lying about that meeting. Nobody can. But I also am under no obligation to take her word or that of President Bill “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” Clinton about what happened that day. She hasn’t earned that amount of blind faith from the public and I’m not buying it.

Look for the union label.

Oklahoma’s teachers have just completed the first week of a statewide “walkout,” with no resolution in sight. (It’s a “walkout,” not a “strike,” as public-employee strikes are illegal in Oklahoma.)

Ironically, the state’s teachers had won much of what they wanted before the walkout even began. On Friday, March 23, the Oklahoma Education Association (OEA), the state’s largest teachers union, issued an ambitious list of demands: a $10,000 pay raise for teachers; $5,000 raise for school-support personnel; $200 million over three years in additional local-school funding; a 5 percent cost-of-living increase for retirees; and $500 million over three years to “fully staff state agencies” and raise state employee pay by $7,500 a year. In OEA’s estimation, this total package would cost more than $1.4 billion over three years.

In response, on Thursday, March 29 the Oklahoma legislature enacted a new teacher-pay scale that boosted average teacher pay by $6,100 — or 16 percent. This represented a remarkable win for teachers: In 2016, Oklahoma’s average teacher salary of $45,276 ranked 49th nationally, according to the National Education Association (NEA). The raise was funded via new taxes on gas, tobacco, and oil production, along with a new limit on income-tax deductions.

Yet, teachers were not placated — and on Monday, April 2, they started the walkout. The next day, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin signed a $2.9 billion appropriations bill for education funding in fiscal year 2019 — a 19.7 percent boost in spending over the current fiscal year, which ends June 30. The legislation includes $353.5 million for teacher pay (funding the $6,100 average raise); $52 million for support personnel pay; $50 million for textbooks and general state aid; and $24.7 million for health-care benefits. Fallin signed additional legislation providing a $1,250 annual pay bump for school-support personnel and tiered raises for state employees ranging from $750 to $2,000.

Still, the walkout continues, with teachers seeking additional concessions. Their stance has garnered widespread support and glowing media coverage. And while the sympathy is easy to understand, it should be noted that, after the 16 percent boost, average teacher pay in Oklahoma will next year exceed the state’s median household income of $50,943.

Indeed, the new average teacher salary of $51,376 will vault Oklahoma into the very middle (29th) of NEA’s teacher-salary rankings, with Texas the only bordering state with higher average salary — by about one percent. Add the fact that Oklahoma boasts the third lowest cost of living in the U.S, and it’s fair to say that Oklahoma’s teachers will now be reasonably well-compensated relative to their peers across the country.

Keep reading…

This past week, Diogenes Pinzon made an appearance in a Brooklyn criminal court proceeding involving charges of domestic violence against his girlfriend. Upon leaving the courthouse, undercover ICE agents nabbed Pinzon and took him into custody, not for beating up the woman in question, but because he is an illegal alien with an outstanding deportation order. Does anything in that brief synopsis strike you as unusual or irregular under normal law enforcement protocol?

While you might find it completely normal, that was hardly the case with Democratic Congresswoman Nydia Velasquez. She immediately took to Twitter to bemoan the situation. Rather than worrying about the woman who had allegedly been robbed and beaten by her boyfriend, Velasquez was upset that ICE had arrested the alleged perpetrator.

Extremely concerning to hear that ICE agents targeted an undocumented immigrant just outside Brooklyn Criminal Court this morning. Such actions by ICE have no place in our City & I will be monitoring the situation carefully. https://t.co/i3xxxm5oSu

— Rep. Nydia Velazquez (@NydiaVelazquez) April 6, 2018

I guess Pinzon’s girlfriend isn’t entitled to a #MeToo moment, eh?

What Valezquez was specifically complaining about was the fact that ICE had taken custody of Pinzon as he was leaving the courthouse. This is apparently “unfair” in her opinion, and will make it less likely that other illegal aliens will show up for court appearances if they suspect that ICE is lurking around the area. But there was far more to Pinzon’s story than one domestic violence charge. As Timothy Meads at Townhall explains, the congresswoman failed to note that the suspect has a rap sheet as long as his arm.

The illegal alien in question, Diogenes Pinzon, was in court challenging a domestic violence case. His girlfriend alleged that Pinzon had threatened and robbed her on May 25, 2017. Once the hearing was over, under cover ICE agents promptly arrested the illegal alien. He has also been arrested 14 previous times. It is unclear if he has ever actually been deported.

According to the New York Daily News, this arrest led to a protest of around 50 attorneys.

We should, in this case, rely on an old adage handed down from our parents. “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me FIFTEEN TIMES and there’s something seriously messed up going on around here.”

The complaint coming from Velazquez and the coalition of immigrant defense attorneys is actually a common one among supporters of illegal aliens and opponents of border security. They don’t believe that ICE should be allowed to make arrests in or around courthouses. But when you’re in New York City, ICE gets very little cooperation from local officials. Rather than being able to safely pick up illegals when they show up in jail, immigration officials are forced to go seek them out in the community, a process which can be far more dangerous.

Catching them coming out of the courthouse is actually one of the safest environments for an arrest, both in terms of protecting the ICE officers and the general public. Suspects have to pass through metal detectors and are subject to search when entering the courthouse so it’s highly unlikely that they have a weapon on them when they’re walking out. The same can’t be said if you have to catch up with them at home or out on the streets.

But even if we ignored all of that, there’s a more fundamental question to put to Congresswoman Velazquez. This guy is not only an illegal alien but he’s been arrested more than a dozen times for various crimes. At what point would you consider a person enough of a danger to society to ship them back to their native country?