More on Twitter/Democrat collusion

Featured

Musk fires James Baker, the former FBI right-hand to Comey who pushed “Russia collusion,” over suppressing the Hunter Biden story in Twitter

The New York Post exposes the next chapter in the Twitter collusion saga by reporting on the firing of James Baker.

Elon Musk has fired Twitter’s deputy general counsel, James Baker, over his alleged suppression of internal documents about blocking The Post’s Hunter Biden laptop exposé.

“In light of concerns about Baker’s possible role in suppression of information important to the public dialogue, he was exited from Twitter today,” Musk tweeted Tuesday.

Musk added that he questioned Baker before his firing about the events surrounding the laptop suppression scandal and that the lawyer’s explanation was “unconvincing.” 

Baker, a former top FBI lawyer, was discovered to be secretly vetting the internal Twitter documents before they could be reviewed by journalists, leading to a delay in the release of more material related to the company’s censorship scandal. 

“On Friday, the first installment of the Twitter files was published here. We expected to publish more over the weekend. Many wondered why there was a delay,” independent journalist Matt Taibbi tweeted on Tuesday.

“We can now tell you part of the reason why. On Tuesday, Twitter Deputy General Counsel (and former FBI General Counsel) Jim Baker was fired. Among the reasons? Vetting the first batch of ‘Twitter Files’ – without knowledge of new management,” Taibbi added.

Taibbi further revealed that former Wall Street Journal and New York Times writer Bari Weiss is also involved in reviewing the social media giant’s internal documents related to The Post’s Hunter Biden story and that it is was her who discovered Baker’s involvement, which Musk was unaware of, according to Taibbi.

(Read more at the New York Post)

Someone get the New York Times a Life Alert pendant

Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

All the New York Times can occupy itself with is a review of the “media conversation” surrounding the release of information by Musk. And most of this is a condemnation of Matt Taibbi (the only liberal who seems to be intent on actually also being a real journalist).

Musk says Twitter suppressed free speech under orders from government

The Epoch Times outlines Elon Musk’s argument that Twitter conspired to violate the First Amendment.

Elon Musk suggested that Twitter was acting under government orders to suppress free speech, with his remarks coming hot on the heels of the release of a trove of documents that lift the lid on some of the social media platform’s censorship machinations around the 2020 presidential election. “Twitter acting by itself to suppress free speech is not a 1st amendment violation, but acting under orders from the government to suppress free speech, with no judicial review, is,” Musk said in a tweet late Friday. Musk’s remarks came in the context of Friday’s unveiling of a series of internal Twitter communications that give insight into steps taken by staff at the social media platform around suppressing the New York Post’s explosive Hunter Biden laptop story.

(Read more at The Epoch Times)

It was not just Biden’s FBI that recently worked to suppress the free flow of information at Twitter. Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs got tweets removed from Twitter

BizPacReview lays out the scene where Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (aka corrupt governor-elect Katie Hobbs) got tweets removed from Twitter.

As Americans are wrapping their heads around the implications of Elon Musk’s “Twitter Files,” a leaked internal email reveals that Arizona Governor-elect and current Secretary of State Katie Hobbs allegedly colluded with Twitter’s old guard by flagging accounts she determined were spreading election “misinformation.”

In an email dated January 7, 2021, the communications director for the Office of the Arizona Secretary of State reportedly emailed the Center for Internet Security (CIS), a 501 nonprofit that claims to be “leading the global community to secure our ever-changing connected world,” to say, “I am flagging this twitter account for your review.”

The subject line read, “Election Related Misinformation” and two people at the Secretary of State’s office were copied on the request.

Additionally, the Daily Wire reports, the email went to “an unknown employee at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, a branch under the federal government’s Department of Homeland Security.”

The email was forwarded to an employee at Twitter along with a note saying, “Please see this report below from the Arizona SOS office. Please let me know if you have any questions.”

The dutiful Twitter employee reportedly emailed back, thanking the sender and saying, “We will escalate.”

A follow-up email reads, “Both Tweets have been removed from the service.”

(Read more at BizPacReview and see dueling tweets from BPR, Kari Lake, and Katie Hobbs)

Oddly, the apologists on the left say the government was not involved

As demonstrated by the 27 January 2021 article in The Atlantic, the left has no problem with trying to dissuade us of government’s involvement in this censorship. Rather, they would have us believe it all stems from company fiat.

There is a rich historical irony to the fact that today, conservatives are the ones who argue most forcefully that the decisions by private companies to “deplatform” certain speakers threaten what President Donald Trump described in 2020 as the “bedrock” American right to freedom of speech. Until very recently, this was an argument made almost exclusively by those on the left.

The decision by Twitter, Facebook, and a host of other social-media outlets to ban Trump from their platforms after the January 6 attack on the Capitol intensified conservatives’ long-standing concerns that the powerful tech industry is violating their free-speech rights. Trump encouraged and amplified these arguments when he issued a (largely symbolic) executive order in May 2020 declaring that “free speech is the bedrock of American democracy,” and insisted that “in a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey.”*

The deplatforming of the president appeared to many conservatives to offer vivid proof that these companies are just as dangerous to freedom of speech as Trump had claimed. Steve Daines, a Republican senator from Montana, took to Twitter to attack “Big Tech” for “censoring [Trump] and the free speech of American citizens.” Trump’s trade adviser, Peter Navarro, claimed that the platforms’ decision to restrict speech “threatened our democracy.” And on the floor of the Capitol building, newly sworn-in Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia wore a mask bearing a single word—censored—in stark white letters. Many liberals, meanwhile, insisted that the decision to deplatform the president had nothing to do with freedom of speech, at least not as protected by the First Amendment.

This is something of a reversal. Indeed, the idea that private actors, not just government officials, might threaten the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment, as well as the other rights protected by the Constitution, was first suggested by big-government liberals, whom contemporary conservatives love to hate. In the early 20th century, progressive legal scholars such as Felix Cohen and Robert Hale argued against the notion that the Constitution protects rights including freedom of speech from only government action. Private corporations wield tremendous power over individuals’ lives and fortunes, and to overlook that power when interpreting the meaning of constitutionally protected rights, Cohen and Hale believed, would make no sense.

(Read more at The Atlantic, but their verbosity primarily covers for their bias)

Their problem remains with the fact of things like FEC records

The apologists on the left for the Biden regime say the government was not involved in this suppression. Or rather, they gaslight us again, since their claims are directly contradicted by the declaration to the FEC by Yoel Roth, Twitter’s legal counsel. Who said (on page 25 of the document at paragraph 10):

Since 2018, I have had regular meetings with the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and industry peers
regarding election security.

Those (National Intelligence, Department of Homeland Security, and the FBI), to me, seem like divisions of government. It seems that other thinking individuals, like Elon Musk, might think the same.

Still, to further prove the point, paragraph 11 says:

During these weekly meetings, the federal law enforcement agencies communicated that they expected “hack-and-leak operations” by state actors might occur in the period shortly before the 2020 presidential election, likely in October. I was told in these meetings that the intelligence community expected that individuals associated with political campaigns would be subject to hacking attacks and that material obtained through those hacking attacks would likely be disseminated over social media platforms, including Twitter. These expectations of hack-and-leak operations were discussed throughout 2020. I also learned in these meetings that there were rumors that a hack-and-leak operation would involve Hunter Biden.

If (like the Democrat apologists) you seek to disprove government involvement in the suppression of free speech, “these weekly meeting” by “federal law enforcement agencies” communicating with groups under them who must do their bidding or face consequences, then you have to prove a negative. That is a near impossibility.

 

Liberal repression of the news (continued)


Biden’s social media defunds another company

Why has PayPal cancelled the Free Speech Union?

Britain’s Spectator allows an op-ed commentary on PayPal’s cancelation of the account of the Free Speech Union.

I thought one of the benefits of being cancelled – I lost five positions in quick succession at the beginning of 2018 – is that it immunises you from being cancelled again. After all, what more dirt could be thrown at me? The offence archaeologists did such a thorough job four years ago, sifting through everything I’d said or written dating back to 1987, that there was nothing left to dig up. But it turns out that was naive. Last week I got cancelled again.

The instrument of my downfall was PayPal, the technology company that supports online money transfers and operates as a payment processor for online businesses, auction sites and so on. At around 2 p.m. last Thursday I received an email from PayPal informing me that the company was ‘initiating closure’ of my personal account because I was ‘in violation’ of its ‘Acceptable Use Policy’. I looked up that policy and it covers a multitude of sins, but no clue was offered as to which one I’d committed. ‘If you have money in your PayPal balance, we’ll hold it for up to 180 days,’ it said. That was a bit annoying because I have over £600 in the account, but it wasn’t the end of the world. I mainly use it for receiving payments from European magazines I write for occasionally.

Then it got serious. Within a few minutes of contacting me, PayPal sent the same message to the Daily Sceptic, the news publishing website I’ve been running for two-and-a-half years, and the Free Speech Union, the organisation I set up in 2020 to defend people threatened with cancellation. In both cases, PayPal was shutting down the accounts for the same reason – breaching the Acceptable Use Policy. No further details. To give you a sense of how serious this is, about a quarter of the Daily Sceptic’s donor revenue is processed by PayPal and about a third of the Free Speech Union’s 9,500 members pay their dues via PayPal.

‘So what?’ you might think. Just email all those people and advise them to use a different payment processor. I’ll do that, obviously, but it’s inevitable that some won’t bother – some of them won’t even open the emails – and the resulting loss of revenue will be hugely disruptive. The Daily Sceptic has four people on the payroll and the Free Speech Union has 15 and they both operate on tight margins. I was relying on PayPal to deliver the service it promised to perform when I first signed up and which I’ve been paying for until now (1.5 per cent commission on every transaction). I had no idea it could just whisk the rug out from under you, with no notice and without having to provide any proper explanation. In my case, the excuse offered was obviously bogus. How could all three accounts be guilty of ‘violating’ the same policy within minutes of each other?

(Read more of the travails of being deplatformed from the Spectator)

From this, we know that this struggle has a global nature

This does not exist as a struggle between Democrats and Republicans. More possibly, it might consist of a struggle between socialists and freedom-minded people. It might also remain as a fight between the big-government people and the individualists. 

Biden’s election handlers seem to be up to their old tricks

Democrats “charity” voter-registration scheme

The Wall Street Journal shares an Op-Ed that points toward a nefarious bent within Democrat circles.

Senate Democrats plan to pass the Disclose Act, a bill they claim would force “dark money” groups into the light. Never mind the darkness that envelops their own epic voter-registration scam.

A New York Times article this week confirmed a political reality that Republicans have been slow to publicize: Democrats are openly abusing charities to stack voter rolls in their favor. The Times story was ostensibly about “voter registration” groups worried that donors weren’t giving enough to “democracy-related” programs this midterm cycle. Read closely and you notice the story is entirely about Democrats, confirming a longstanding scheme by which foundations and private donors funnel tax-exempt dollars into “charities” that microtarget and register Democratic voters.

(Read more at the Wall Street Journal)

And, according to Joe, we can trust Democrats to not cheat again

And who wouldn’t trust this crew when they have failed at everything, but continue to do nothing but blame the other side?

Biden’s FBI goes full Gestapo against pro-life speaker

FBI raids home of Catholic pro-life speaker and author with guns drawn as his terrified kids watch

Lifesitenews reports that a Catholic speaker was raided by the FBI with guns drawn in front of the speaker’s children.

A well-known pro-life author, sidewalk counselor, and father of seven was the latest victim of a U.S. Department of Justice-sponsored SWAT raid and arrest — for supposed “FACE Act” violations — at his rural home as his children looked on “screaming.”

Mark Houck is the founder and president of The King’s Men, which promotes healing for victims of pornography addiction and promotes Christian virtues among men in the United States and Europe.

According to his wife Ryan-Marie, who spoke with LifeSiteNews, he also drives two hours south to Philadelphia every Wednesday to sidewalk counsel for six to eight hours at two different abortion centers.

Ryan-Marie, who is a homeschooling mother, described how the SWAT team of 25 to 30 FBI agents swarmed their property with around 15 vehicles at 7:05 a.m. this morning. Having quickly surrounded the house with rifles in firing position, “they started pounding on the door and yelling for us to open it.”

Before opening the door, she explained, her husband tried to calm them, saying, “‘Please, I’m going to open the door, but, please, my children are in the home. I have seven babies in the house.’ But they just kept pounding and screaming,” she said.

When he opened the door, “they had big, huge rifles pointed at Mark and pointed at me and kind of pointed throughout the house,” Ryan-Marie described.

When they came in, they ordered the kids to stay upstairs. “Our staircase is open, so [the kids] were all at the top of the stairs which faces the front door, and I was on the stairs as well, coming down.”

“The kids were all just screaming. It was all just very scary and traumatic,” she explained.

After asking them why they were at the house, the agents said they were there to arrest Mark. When Ryan-Marie asked for their warrant, “they said that they were going to take him whether they had a warrant or not.”

(Read the full story at Lifesitenews)

Aren’t you glad we have the “Great Unifier” in charge?

Aren’t you glad that devoutly-Catholic Joe is in charge of the FBI?

An admission by a member of the press on media bias

A liberal reporter claims Republicans shouldn’t have a say on any issue

Townhall comments on the words of a CNN news reader who said the quiet part of silencing Republicans out loud.

Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones is fretting over CNN’s makeover of distancing itself from being an extreme left-leading outlet. 

Titled “CNN ‘hewing toward the center’ is not necessarily good for our democracy,” Jones fret that the network’s attempt of being less polarizing could be dangerous to the country. 

Jones also claimed that “the other side shouldn’t be given a voice” on certain topics, especially when it comes to former President Trump.

His piece bashed a recent story in the Chicago Tribune which touched on CNN’s move to becoming less polarizing amid its new CEO Chris Licht stepping in. 

The Chicago paper boldly stated that most issues have two sides, however when it comes “to the antics of former President Donald Trump,” the Right shouldn’t be allowed to report on it. 

“Here’s the problem: All Americans aren’t reasonable enough or willing to accept what’s true… and it isn’t just a small minority of those who aren’t willing to accept things such as the 2020 presidential election, the authenticity of our elections and other bedrocks of our democracy. For the editorial board to wrap up the issue by briefly mentioning the ‘antics of former President Donald Trump’ seems overly dismissive and not nearly as comprehensive of what’s truly at stake here,” Jones said. 

“Perhaps it’s Pollyannaish to hope that CNN can retrofit itself in a country where each political side believes the other is living in a kind of dangerous alternate reality,” according to the Tribune. 

(Read at Townhall to get several paragraphs of excuses for this bias)

This shouts “Don’t trust Democrats in the press” as loud as anything

That is, this is the loudest shout from the Democrat press to ignore them since they tried to bury the Hunter laptop.

Democrat media outlets now deny previous “fact checks”

The Washington Post botches a fact-check to cover for Democrats’ abortion extremism

The Washington Examiner exposes the poor job done in “fact checking” done by liberal outlets like the Washington Post who now have lowered their standards to the level where they deny having previously “fact checked” for Democrats.

So often, the “fact-checking” industry in the establishment media serves as an organ of the Democratic Party.

Even then, the Washington Post may have made it a bit too obvious.

Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post decided to fact-check claims by Republicans that Democrats support abortion “until the moment of birth,” citing comments from both Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Arizona Senate candidate Blake Masters, who used that phrase. It’s not a particularly difficult fact to check, given that Democrats do support keeping abortion legal at any point in pregnancy and frequently decline or refuse to name a single abortion restriction they would ever support.

But Kessler decided instead to fact-check a claim that was never made.

Kessler says that the “GOP attacks are disingenuous at best” because “they imply that late-term abortions are common.” He then proceeds to “fact check” how many late-term abortions are performed in the United States. In his verdict, Kessler concludes, “The campaign rhetoric suggests such late-term abortions happen frequently. The truth is that they do not.”

But again, this is the claim he was supposedly “fact-checking.” Kessler fabricated a strawman claim to give him an article that is more favorable to Democrats. He knows that Democrats oppose all abortion restrictions — everyone knows it because they keep saying so — and their stance is out-of-touch with most people’s views on the issue. So he decided to make the issue about the frequency of late-term abortions, which he concludes is at least 10,000 per year.

Speaking of which, that 10,000-a-year number also gives the lie to the claim that late-term abortion is “extremely rare.” It is much more common, for example, than deaths from AR-15s or other so-called “assault weapons.” All rifles combined, AR-15s included, accounted for only 364 gun homicides in 2019. (There were 10,258 total gun homicides in 2019, which is almost as many late-term abortions as Kessler decided are “extremely rare.”)

According to the Washington Post’s own police shooting database, there have been 7,768 people shot and killed by police since 2015. That hasn’t stopped the Democrats and their allies in the media from claiming that it is an epidemic. The Black Lives Matter movement is given national reverence by liberals, including Kessler’s paper, even though only 1,689 of those victims were black and, of that group, only 144 in the last eight years were unarmed. So police misconduct and shootings with so-called “assault weapons” are both considerably rarer than late-term abortions, which Kessler declared “extremely rare” at 10,000 per year.

Would Kessler ever claim that Democrats are out of line on gun control or police shootings? Of course, he wouldn’t. Today’s Democratic Party is essentially a political arm of the legacy media corporations.

(Read at Washington Examiner how this type of bias would not be tolerated against the left)

If the main stream press does not want to be seen as just an arm of the Democrat party, why do this?

Why make abortion the focus when the real story is a failing president? Then why pull the focus from abortion when Democrats’ radical stance becomes so evident?

More news that the main stream media doesn’t tell: promotion of LGBTQ+ agenda items

Hilliard City School District promotes an “LGBTQ+ resource guide” with instructions on sex work and abortions

The Washington Free Beacon provides a case where liberals provided minors with information on getting abortions and working in the sex industry (sounds like multiple counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor to me).

Teachers in an Ohio school district are wearing name badges that students can scan with their phones to access an “LGBTQ+ resource guide,” which includes instructions on how to get abortions and “organize like a sex worker.”

Hilliard City School District participates in the National Education Association’s “I’m Here” program, which encourages teachers to wear the badge. The group says the program is supposed to educate teachers on how to respond to LGBT students. But a Washington Free Beacon review found that the QR code takes students to resources that describe abortion as the removal of “pregnancy tissue,” encourage gender transitioning without parental consent, and promote sex work.

Public schools around the country are coming under fire for teaching age-inappropriate lessons to students. Parents in Idaho, for example, caught the state government this month offering “porn literacy” to students. A parent sued a Maine school district for offering books with “sexually graphic material, including descriptions of queer sex,” the Free Beacon reported in July.

The teachers’ badges have sparked outrage among parents in Hilliard City, ABC 6 reported earlier this month.

“The badge has a QR code that once scanned takes you to a website that has extremely inappropriate information, and as a parent that crosses the line,” Hilliard City parent Lisa Chaffee said.

Hilliard City superintendent Dave Stewart said the badges only concern “adult learning,” though the website from the QR code provides resources aimed at K-12 students. After backlash from parents, the district advised teachers to cover the QR code on the back of the badge, according to a statement from Stewart.

One link from the online guide encourages children to seek LGBT resources without their parents’ approval.

(Read at the Washington Free Beacon about the links concerning protections in Texas for LGBT issues)

So, what holds a more important place in your heart than children? With that answered, why doesn’t the press report on this?

If the press really wants to grab our attention, why not show how the LGBTQ+ community has targeted our children through liberal teachers?

One more exchange that would have been repeated daily had the liberal/conservative or male/female or race roles been reversed

John Kennedy spends over four minutes clarifying points that a nominee would rather obscure

In the following video taken from the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on 7 September 2022, Senator John Kennedy illustrates how people who sign a document should know what they sign. That is, because a judicial nominee had co-written a document titled “Mandate for Change,” maybe she should not be so surprised she now finds herself denying what the publication advocated.

 

Democrats don’t care


Democrats don’t care about civility or our courts

Possessed activists try to ambush Supreme Court justices at churches and the Supreme Court justices’ homes

The Washington Times reports on the new low that the Left under Biden has reached.

Pro-choice activists are planning protests in churches on Mother’s Day and are preparing visits to Supreme Court justices’ homes next week to express anger over an anticipated ruling overturning legalized abortion. 

The activist group “Ruth Sent Us,” named for the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is challenging people to protest inside a Catholic Church on Sunday and it published a map purporting to show Republican-appointed justices’ homes for a “Walk-by Wednesday” demonstration. 

“Whether you’re a  ‘Catholic for Choice,’ ex-Catholic, of other or no faith, recognize that six extremist Catholics set out to overturn Roe,” the group said on Twitter. “Stand at or in a local Catholic Church on Sun May 8. #WarOnWomen #MothersDayStrike.”

The group published locations for three of the justices in Virginia and three of the justices in Maryland in a map embedded on its website. The “extremist justices” targeted by the activists include Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas. 

Not all of the targeted justices are Catholic and at least one of them may not be on board with the leaked draft opinion overturning legalized abortion. 

(Read about the leftist tactics exposed at the Washington Times)

As of the morning of 6 May 2022, the site is still up

If this had been a conservative site organizing a peaceful march for Trump, would this have been shut down already? Would you be able to go to https://www.ruthsent.us/ and see how they target conservative members of our courts if this were anything but a group of Biden-loving liberals?

If any of these had shown up to an anti-vaccine rally with “My Body, My Choice” signs — would they be in jail now?

Therefore (in case you have forgotten about the murders and burnings of the 2020 “Summer of Love”), this is all the proof you need that liberals do not care about civility or the law.

Democrat bureaucrats don’t care the terms set for their bail

Indicted Hidalgo chief allegedly can’t wait full day before breaking bail rules

The Houston ABC affiliate KTRK informs us of the care-free attitude of the Lina Hidalgo chief of staff (Alex Triantaphyllis) took about following the terms of his bail.

Prosecutors allege Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo’s chief of staff violated bond conditions when he voted to approve the scope of work for a $48 million childcare-related project.

Alex Triantaphyllis is one of the three Harris County staffers accused of steering a multi-million dollar contract to a small, Houston-based firm.

In a court document filed on May 4, prosecutors say a judge ordered four bond conditions for Triantaphyllis, chief of staff for Judge Hidalgo.

One of those conditions set at a hearing on April 12, included that he “not serve on any procurement or contract evaluation committees or in any similar role during the pendency of this case,” according to the May 4 filing, which was made public on Wednesday.

The next day, he “represented the Office of Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo on the American Rescue Plan Act Steering Committee Teams meeting, and voted to approve the procurement guidelines and scope of work for the Child Care Capacity: Contracted Slots RFP.”

A source familiar with the meeting told 13 Investigates, that during the one-hour meeting, a five-person committee discussed an approximately $48 million program aimed at expanding free childcare for Harris County residents by renting out space in existing childcare facilities.< /p>

Triantaphyllis was among the five committee members who voted on April 13 to approve the scope of work for the project and the methods by which it would be scored, which uses COVID-19 recovery funds.

In its motion to report bail condition violations to the court, prosecutors are urging the judge “to determine whether the current bond conditions are sufficient.”

Triantaphyllis’ attorney Marla Poirot told 13 Investigates that as chief of staff for the judge’s office, Triantaphyllis’ job involves serving on committees like the one he went to on April 13. She said it is not a conflict for him to be involved in past or potential work discussions.

(Read about at KTRK how Democrat lawyers think Democrat bureaucrats are persecuted for breaking the law)

The question is this: Do you care enough to vote the bosses of these bureaucrats out?

If you vote Lina Hidalgo out, then the staff under her also gets the boot. If you don’t want government that employs likely felons, then vote them out.

Democrats don’t care that they got caught. They keep paying their friends

Harris County paid vendor $1.4M after controversial COVID contract canceled

Houston Fox affiliate KRIV reports how Lina Hidalgo directed $1.4 million to her Democrat buddy even after the $11 million questionable project came under scrutiny.

More disturbing questions have emerged surrounding the controversial $11 million COVID-19 communication contract, which has already triggered the criminal indictment of Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo’s chief of staff and two members of her inner circle for an alleged “bid-rigging” scheme.

The latest concern involves the $1.4 million paid to Elevate Strategies owner Felicity Pereyra immediately after the contract’s cancellation last September.

“It was clear they couldn’t have provided $1.4 million in services over the course of a few weeks,” said longtime, Houston columnist and FOX 26 contributor Bill King.

King calculates Elevate Strategies billed Harris County an average of $41,000 a day before the deal was abandoned and taxpayers have little, if anything, to show for it.

King says the sheer speed with which Pereyra was ultimately paid is reason for serious question and potentially investigation.

“There are just red flags, just a mountain full of them, on top of this deal, waving in the wind. This is just not the way the county does business,” said King.

And while Harris County gives vendors a full month to submit invoices for work completed prior to a contract’s cancelation, King’s concerns have drawn the rapt attention of Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey, who says the taxpayers deserve better accountability.

“I will be bringing this up in the next court in terms of public transparency. Because we have a real transparency problem in terms of communicating why we did what we did, and particularly after the fact,” said Ramsey.

(For once, read of Lina’s non-response at KRIV)

This underscores the point: Do you care enough to vote Lina Hidalgo out of office

The only way the article above matters is if you get off your duff and vote Lina Hidalgo out of office.

Democrats don’t care about the felons they release to murder new victims

The 172nd victim in Harris County who was killed by a criminal out on bond over the past two years dies

CrimeStoppers, Houston Victim’s Advocate Andy Kahan posted to Facebook the following summary of the murder committed by a felon out on bail:

Discretionary Felony Bond Reform Alert:

  • The suspect charged for the murder of Nicholas Alfred was out on multiple felony bonds
  • Kelly was released on Felony Bond 9/30/21 on the charge of Assault with Intent to Impede Breathing (trying to strangle someone to death)
  • He got out on a $10,000 Bond
  • On 11/20/21 he was charged with Felon in Possession of a Weapon
  • Despite already being out on Felony Bond he was once again allowed to bond out
  • On 12/0//21 he was released on a $10,000 bond
  • Nicholas Alfred became the 172nd victim of the Harris County Bond Pandemic
  • Crime Stoppers will continue to track defendants charged with murder after being released on multiple felony bonds despite the best efforts of certain entities

If you care, vote the Democrat judges out of office

If you vote out the Democrat judges who release these felons, then we will not have this problem.

 

The new tactic of the Left is to not define terms


Proposed laws in California and Maryland open the possibility of “post-birth abortion” under the undefined label of “perinatal death”

LifeNews reports on an often-denied provision of a California law currently under consideration.

California policymakers who make up the “Future of Abortion Council” just dropped a bombshell. They intend to not only codify the killing of unborn children throughout all nine months of pregnancy but to decriminalize killing newborns days or even weeks after birth.

New language added to AB 2223 last week revealed the disturbing intent. The proposed legislation would shield a mother from civil and criminal charges for any “actions or omissions” related to her pregnancy, “including miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion, or perinatal death.” Although definitions of “perinatal death” vary, all of them include the demise of newborns seven days or more after birth.

The bill from Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks additionally protects anyone who “aids or assists a pregnant person in exercising” these rights. It also allows a woman to sue any police department or legal authority which arrests or charges her for hurting or killing her child under provisions of the bill.

“For years, pro-life advocates have argued there is no moral difference between ending a child’s life days before birth or days after birth. California’s pro-abortion legislators now seemingly agree,” said Jonathan Keller, President of California Family Council. “A political culture that justifies killing millions of children in the womb is now declaring open season on unwanted newborns. Every Californian must oppose this heinous bill.”

Governor Newsom formed the “Future of Abortion Council” last year in an effort to turn California into a “sanctuary state” for the procedure. Organizers listed AB 2223 as part of their legislation package implementing a 45-point plan to “expand and protect access” to abortion in California.

(Read more at LifeNews for a discussion of the Maryland law explored below and the Northam foible)

Oddly, this term seems to be popping up out of the blue

Just like most of us had not heard of “transgender” or “cis” before 2015, this new focus on perinatal death seems to be the new push of the Left.

Maryland “Pregnant Persons” bill seeks to decriminalize infanticide

TownHall lays out the facts of a proposed Maryland law being pushed by Democrats in their legislature.

A new set of bills under consideration in the Maryland House and Senate are raising eyebrows for what they would change in the law concerning mothers who abandon their newborns to die either because they no longer want the child or are unable to care for their baby. 

Maryland Senate Bill 669 and House Bill 626, dubbed the “Pregnant Person’s Freedom Act of 2022,” not only erase women by adopting the left’s gender-confused newspeak that ludicrously assumes men can get pregnant but, as the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) explained in its analysis of the legislation, “the bill also proposes a revision of the fetal murder/manslaughter statute that would serve to handcuff the investigation of infant deaths unrelated to abortion.”

In other words – this bill will effectively legalize infanticide. The exact language of the bill states: “This section may not be construed to authorize any form of investigation or penalty for a person . . . experiencing a . . . perinatal death related to a failure to act.” (Emphasis added). In other words, a baby born alive and well could be abandoned and left to starve or freeze to death, and nothing could be done to punish those who participated in that cruel death. The bill also includes a section that would allow “a person [to] bring a cause of action for damages if the person was subject to unlawful arrest or criminal investigation for a violation of this section as a result of . . . experiencing a . . . perinatal death.

As the ACLJ — which is preparing to testify against the bill — also notes, “Because the language that is used is without clear definition, the bill could prevent any investigations into the death of infants at least seven days AFTER their birth, and may extend to infants as old as four weeks!” under the medical definition of “perinatal” that ranges from 7 to 28 days.

(Read of the non-lethal options available in Maryland at TownHall)

Do not define terms, but do go back to their standard catch phrases

During the pandemic, “My body, my choice” was seen as an attack on the health of Democrat Karens and Kens. However, now liberals wave that slogan on signs outside the Supreme Court and shout it for hours.

During the pandemic, healthcare was seen as an act of giving in to the collective and submitting to mandated shots that ended in the deaths of many. Now, “healthcare” means a procedure that ends with the death of at least one human (if not all involved).

Shut Up, the Disinformation Governance Board explained

The Wall Street Journal illustrates through a 2 May 2022 opinion piece how little anyone knows about the Disinformation Governance Board (because nothing has been defined). (The bolding below is mine, placed to create emphasis.)

It’s always exciting for progressives when they create a new government office of something or other. They live for this: another excuse to spend piles of taxpayer dollars; another polysyllabic title and flashy logo; another opportunity to extend the long, comforting arm of the bureaucracy into the business of ordinary citizens who never knew how impoverished their lives were without it.

So there was a tangible buzz of excitement around Washington last week when the Department of Homeland Security proudly inaugurated the Disinformation Governance Board.

Other than its title and the identity of its executive director, there’s not much we know about this exciting-sounding new body. Its job, Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told a congressional committee last week, is to tackle falsehoods that threaten the national security of the U.S. He made it sound over the weekend as though it is all about preventing human traffickers and smugglers from misrepresenting themselves—all harmless enough.

But we also learned last week that it will be headed by Nina Jankowicz. Her Twitter feed makes her look like a cross between Madame Mao and Bette Midler—a mix of impeccably conformist left-wing views about politics and media misinformation—the Hunter Biden story was Russian disinformation, the Steele Dossier was all true, etc.—with excruciating political parodies of musical-theater numbers. Watching her videos is a little like being an audience member at a Christmas concert in a prisoner-of-war camp.

(Read of the Wall Street Journal‘s apt acronym for these liberals)

It seems that they figure “If we don’t tell them, we can do anything”

It seems that the Democrats have determined that, as long as they do not inform the public, they can break any law and infringe on any right they want to stifle.

Considering how the 6 January protesters are being treated, they may be right.

 

On the tech giants in Joe Biden’s America


Texas passes SB12, much to the consternation of liberals who want to continue to silence conservatives on social media

Texas moves to protect conservatives from tech giant viewpoint discrimination

The Texas Public Policy Action informs us of Texas SB 12, which would stop companies like Facebook and Twitter from blocking posts based on a political viewpoint.

Austin-CapitalSB 12 would prevent social media platforms with more than 100 million users in a calendar month from censoring a person’s viewpoint expressed in a social media post but would not prohibit the censoring of content that is prohibited, such as violent or overtly sexual content or in cases where federal law specifically allows websites and services to censor speech. This applies to Texas residents, users who do business in Texas and users who receive or share content on a social media platform in Texas.

SB 12 would require social media platforms to publicly disclose on their website and in a way easily accessible to the public, accurate information regarding its content management, data management, and business practices, including specific information regarding how they use, place, and target content and services.

Requires social media platforms to publish an acceptable use policy informing users of acceptable content, explaining the steps the social media platform will take to ensure content complies with the policy, and explains the means by which users can notify the platform of content that potentially violates the policy.

Requires social media platforms to publish a quarterly transparency report of the number of times they were alerted to illegal content or activity and their response. Provides process by which users can file complaint about content being removed and the responsibilities of the platform in rectifying the complaint.

The Attorney General may sue a social media platform for violating these terms.

(Read why Texas Public Policy Action supports SB12 at Texas Public Policy Action)

Reason.com points to possible flaws of Texas SB12 — all based on federalism

In their review of Texas SB12, Reason.com points out some flaws in Texas SB12:

Political bias on social media is one of the biggest issues animating the political right these days, and thus many conservatives talk about doing something to prevent “Big Tech” censorship. Several Republican-controlled states are considering passing legislation designed to accomplish just that.

The Texas Senate, for instance, is poised to approve SB12, which ostensibly prohibits social media companies from restricting their users’ speech.

“We need to recognize in Texas, maybe particularly in Texas, we see that the First Amendment is under assault by the social media companies and that is not going to be tolerated in Texas,” said Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in support of the bill.

The First Amendment is not under assault by social media companies. On the contrary, the First Amendment defends the free speech rights of private entities—like social media companies—against restrictive government action, like this bill. It would be more accurate to say that the First Amendment is under assault by the Texas legislature. A private company deciding what kind of speech it allows on its platform is precisely the kind of thing the First Amendment protects from government interference.

If that were not enough, the bill has two massive flaws, one of which might render it entirely pointless.

First, the bill defines its terms very broadly: It would prohibit any large social media company (more than 100 million monthly users) from restricting content because of the expressed viewpoint. “An interactive computer service may not censor a user, a user’s expression, or a user’s ability to receive the expression of another person,” the bill reads.

Practically speaking, this could prohibit Facebook and Twitter from taking action against content that is harmful, abusive, or spammy. Facebook’s News Feed algorithm makes choices about what kind of content to prioritize, and the platform occasionally opts to limit the reach of some posts—conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, or COVID-19, for instance. The bill would appear to interfere with the day-to-day runnings of the site in very basic ways. It could even force social media sites to take away moderation options from users.

“YouTube and Facebook allow page managers to remove content posted on their community pages,” noted Steve DelBianco, president of the trade association NetChoice, in his comments about the bill. “This empowers content creators to curate their pages to suit community interests. However, platforms and websites might remove this capability, since it invites expensive litigation under SB 12.”

If that weren’t good enough reason to oppose the bill, it also contains a section that appears to render the entire thing obsolete: “This chapter does not prohibit an interactive computer service from censoring expression that the interactive computer service is specifically authorized to censor by federal law.”

Under a federal law known as Section 230, social media companies cannot be held liable for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” In other words, federal law already gives social media companies every right to restrict users’ content, and Texas’ bill—as written—bows to federal law.

(Read more at Reason.com)

Maybe it is time for states to start asserting their preeminence over the federal government. It was the states that created the federal government (not the other way around).

With all due deference to President Lincoln, we in Texas don’t like running a liberal ship into the ground — and that is just what New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, D.C. seem intent on doing. Therefore, we conservative states need to chart another course and dare the demented people up North to try to hold us down.

Mike Lindell touts a new social media platform that will handle over a billion users

The Epoch Times reports that Mike Lindell, CEO and founder of MyPillow, has announced the formation of a social media platform.

mike-lindell

The forthcoming social media website from MyPillow’s Mike Lindell will be able to handle more than a billion users, Lindell said this week.

“I believe it will handle upwards of a billion. If it doesn’t, we will get to that capacity. I don’t think that’s exaggerated, by any means,” Lindell told The Epoch Times.

“It’s going to be the safest, secure platform. I built it expecting to be attacked.”

The platform, dubbed Frank, has a landing page but isn’t operational yet.

Lindell told The Epoch Times’ affiliate NTD on March 11 that the website would be up and running within two weeks.

The current plan is to launch as soon as April 5, but no later than April 12.

“The only reason for the delay is, I actually added six more servers in another location. I really want redundancy, so I’ve got three different U.S. locations and another hidden one. So I’ve got—if anybody went out there to physically damage my stuff, I wanted a fourth location, so that was very important to me,” Lindell told The Epoch Times.

Frank is described as a mix of YouTube and Twitter. The core idea is free speech, according to Lindell, who was banned by Twitter in January for violations of the platform’s Civic Integrity Policy and has said he’s been harmed by actions from Google.

(Read more at The Epoch Times)

This allows us the opportunity to use our feet to vote rather than using the change of law

Just like when I moved to Parler, I will move to both Mike Lindell’s and President Trump’s new platforms. However, I think that (instead of using these platforms as supplements to Facebook and Twitter — the latter of which cut my followership by thousands before I quit) I will use these primarily.

Just to mock Facebook and Instagram, here is the Trump interview those platforms banned in Joe Biden’s America

Here is the video banned by Instagram and Facebook

The following video is available in its entirety on Rumble.

Not only does the NYT buy ink by the barrel, they buy politicians

Corporate media legislation is “bait and switch to strangle conservative outlets”

Breitbart quotes Ken Blackwell as he outlines how the corporate media has worked with Democrat leaders to craft legislation that will drive out the competition.

Former Ohio state treasurer and secretary of state Ken Blackwell described a bill backed by corporate media giants currently making its way through Congress as “a bait-and-switch attempt that claims to help conservative news sources but would instead purge them from the marketplace of ideas.”

Blackwell took aim at the proposed legislation, known as the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act of 2019 (JCPA), in an op-ed in the American Thinker.

As Breitbart News’s Allum Bokhari reported, the JCPA is deceptively titled because instead of promoting “competition,” the bill in its current form would “cement the advantage of the establishment and corporate media at the expense of its competitors” by giving “Big Media companies a special exemption from antitrust law, allowing them to form a cartel that would, under normal circumstances, be illegal to create.”

“Furthermore, there is nothing in the bill that would prevent the bigger media companies from excluding smaller companies from the cartel,” Bokhari added. “If passed, there would be nothing to stop the formation of a cartel that includes CNN, NBC, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other big companies, while excluding smaller competitors in the independent media — not to mention local newspapers. Such a cartel would secure favorable rates for the former while leaving the latter in the dust.”

Blackwell’s op-ed offers similar criticism of the bill. He explains that it would not only grant big media companies an exemption from federal antitrust laws, but it would also allow them to “operate in a coordinated fashion to negotiate prices that social media companies like Facebook would have to pay them to carry their content. It would ensure that these tech billionaires would have to direct some of their riches into content providers.”

“But that’s a Big Boys’ game, where the major players could decide whom to let into their club. Smaller outlets would be left out in the cold, and the market would suffer,” Blackwell writes.

(Read three central paragraphs of Blackwell quote at Breitbart)

America needs to remain a country where the little guy can thrive

Oddly, under the Democrat socialist politicians, America is becoming a nation of Nazi-eque melding of big business and government.