A federal ruling that needs to go up the chain


A federal judge strikes down Texas election law requiring residence verification of voter registration addresses

The Texan outlines a setback in Texas for those who support election integrity.

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel struck down a Texas election law requiring county registrars to verify the addresses of registered voters within their jurisdiction.

The law in question, Senate Bill (SB) 1111, requires county voter registrars to verify that addresses at which voters are registered correspond with residences, not only post office boxes or other kinds of addresses. Previously, the Election Code tasked the registrar with verification only if he had “reason to believe that a voter’s current residence is different from that indicated on the registration records.”

If a registrar has reason to believe the registration address doesn’t match up with a residence, he is tasked with notifying the voter and requesting verification such as a driver’s license, state-issued identification card, license to carry, document from the county appraisal district showing homestead status, utility bill, or official tax or motor vehicle document verifying the address.

Under state code, post office boxes may be used as mailing addresses listed in voter files but not as the listed physical address.

In his statement of intent for SB 1111, state Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R-Houston) wrote, “Currently, the Texas Election Code does not sufficiently define the characteristics of a voter residence address.”

“Consequently, the vague description of a residence address has allowed voter registration certificates with residential addresses corresponding with vacant lots, mailbox stores, motels, and commercial locations.”

The plaintiffs — the Texas League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and Voto Latino — alleged that three provisions of the bill “unconstitutionally burden the right to vote.”

The first is the section that requires voters whose registration address is a post office box to submit “evidence of the voter’s residence address” to the registrar. The second states that “A person may not establish residence for the purpose of influencing the outcome of a certain election,” referred to as the “residence provision.” And the third stipulates that a registered address is not lost if the voter leaves for “temporary purposes only.”

(Read more at The Texan)

Actually, it looks like work should occur in two places: the Texas legislature and federal courts

Admittedly, the Texan system is set to limit the number of laws that get passed by crowding the lawmaking into a few months every two years. Additionally, when a portion of the lawmakers pull a stunt by running off to Washington to complain about the voter integrity bills being pushed through, it makes it even more difficult.

Therefore, it is understandable that some ill-thought-out words might make it into a law. 

Still, with some effort from more sane heads in both the federal courts and the Texas legislature, hopefully this will be fixed for both the short and long terms.

 

Lawless Democrats


Ted Cruz Asks DOJ Official Point Blank Why Protesters Outside SCOTUS Homes Not Prosecuted__

Fox News reports on the tug of war that occurred on the floor of the Senate between Senator Ted Cruz and Assistant Attorney General for National Security Matthew Olsen (speaking for the Department of Justice).

Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz grilled a top Justice Department official Wednesday over the lack of arrests made by law enforcement while protesters were demonstrating outside the homes of Supreme Court justices earlier this year. 

“Congress has addressed this issue. It passed 18 USC 1507 making it a crime to protest at the home of a Supreme Court Justice while a case is pending,” Cruz told Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Polite, Jr. during a Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday. “Night after night after night, these protesters committed federal crimes on national television. Why has the Justice Department refused to enforce 18 USC 1507?”

Polite responded to Cruz by pointing out that one person has been charged with a crime by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Maryland after demonstrating outside the home of a Supreme Court justice.

“So, one person?” Cruz responded.

“To date, there has been one prosecution,” Polite responded before Cruz jumped in again.

“What about the hundreds of others?” Cruz asked. “All of whom have violated the law. On the face of it, it’s not complicated. The law is very clear. Why does the Department of Justice pick and choose which laws to enforce, which criminal laws to enforce? Why does it seem to exactly follow the pattern of the partisan preferences of the Biden White House?”

Polite responded, “Politics shouldn’t play and does not play any role in our prosecutorial decisions. What I will also add is that our attorney general has increased the U.S. Marshal service resources … to protect our Supreme Court justices.”

Cruz then asked again why more people were not arrested for violating federal law and why the department is “refusing” to enforce the law.

“Respectfully senator, I disagree that we’ve chosen not to enforce it,” Polite said.

Polite added that he “cannot comment” on the “current status” of potential cases when pressed again by Cruz on the hundreds of protesters who picketed outside the homes of justices.  

Polite later said that he does not believe the one prosecution in Maryland he referenced was based on the criminal code that Cruz referenced.

(Read more at Fox News)

So, in effect, no prosecutions for breaking 18 USC 1507

However, in regard to the 6 January 2021 “riot,” a Black Trump supporter who got in a scuffle with police was sentenced to 63 months in prison and a White militia member was sentenced to 87 months for having admitted taking a gun to the capitol (although it was never unholstered).

Let me remind you that there were at least 25 murders of citizens (unless you include the 34 killed just in CHAZ). Protesters of all stripes (including rapists) got bailed out by Kamala Harris and Joe Biden staffers. Additionally, there were many more grim statistics.

 

Biden’s push to classify you as a domestic terrorist


The Department of Justice forms a new domestic terrorism unit in response to “growing threat”

The Washington Post reports that the DOJ has formed a new domestic terrorism unit on the behest of Merrick Garland in order to respond to the “growing threat” from Virginian mothers and fathers at school board meetings.

parentsThe Justice Department is forming a new domestic terrorism unit to help combat a threat that has intensified dramatically in recent years, a top national security official said Tuesday.

Matthew G. Olsen, the head of the Justice Department’s national security division, announced the creation of the unit in his opening remarks before the Senate Judiciary Committee, noting that the number of FBI investigations of suspected domestic violent extremists — those accused of planning or committing crimes in the name of domestic political goals — had more than doubled since the spring of 2020.

Olsen said that the Justice Department previously had counterterrorism attorneys who worked both domestic and international cases and that the new unit would “augment our existing approach.”

His testimony came just a few days after the anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol, an event that some lawmakers say showed that the FBI underestimated the threat posed by domestic extremists and violence-prone members of far-right groups.

“This group of dedicated attorneys will focus on the domestic terrorism threat, helping to ensure that these cases are handled properly and effectively coordinated across the Department of Justice and across the country,” Olsen said.

(Read about the bull**** pulled by Dick D****** to pull the focus away from the real topic at the Washington Post)

Democrats investigate parents who complain about CRT while releasing felons

I am not sure how Democrats have come to equate parents who complain about critical race theory with Trump voters. While the two groups may have some overlap, I remember some momma bears that got put off by the recording of the “locker room talk.” Additionally, considering the number of Black moms and dads who don’t want their kids taught an alternative, race-based history, it seems counterintuitive for Democrats to attack those who complain about CRT.

Nonetheless, the focus of Democrats now falls on anyone who complains against CRT. At the same time, we should forget about the record or near-record murders in major Democrat cities for 2021 (Houston/Harris County saw 617 — a portion of which were killed by felons put on bond by Democrat judges — murders, Dallas had 220, Chicago/Cook County saw 797, Minneapolis got 96, New York City had 485, and 12 other Democrat cities across America with record murder rates).

Additionally, we are not supposed to look at our wallets. We are not supposed to look at the 7%-less in our pockets (in other words, if this keeps up for 10 years, everything will cost double of what it costs now).

Biden’s Education Secretary allegedly requested the “domestic terrorism” letter from the school boards group

The Epoch Times has discovered evidence that shows the letter that instigated Merrick Garland’s announcement of “domestic terrorism” came as a response to a letter from within Biden’s Department of Education.

Newly surfaced emails suggest that the U.S. Department of Education might have played a more important role than previously thought in the creation of a highly controversial letter, which likened concerned parents to domestic terrorists.

In a letter (pdf) sent to President Joe Biden on Sept. 29, 2021, the National School Boards Association (NSBA) characterized disruptions at school board meetings as “a form of domestic terrorism and hate crime.” The organization also urged the federal government to invoke counterterrorism laws to quell “angry mobs” of parents seeking to hold school officials accountable for teaching Marxist critical race theory and for imposing COVID-19 restrictions such as mask mandates on their children.

Just five days later, on Oct. 5, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memo directing federal law enforcement to help address an alleged “disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence” against teachers and school leaders. The memo remains in effect, despite the NSBA having since apologized for and rescinded the letter.

Education Secretary CardonaAccording to email exchanges obtained by advocacy group Parents Defending Education (PDE), the NSBA letter appears to be a response to a request for information by U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona.

On Oct. 5, NSBA board member Marnie Maldonado sent an email (pdf) to fellow board member Kristi Swett, asking her whether the NSBA had gone through all the correct procedures before sending the letter to Biden.

“I am very concerned about the process by which the statement was made and the tone that essentially allowed the White House to direct the Attorney General to consider members of our community ‘domestic terrorists,’” Maldonado wrote, adding that she wanted the NSBA “to focus on civility.”

In response, Swett said she agreed that there were “communication issues” within the NSBA. She also mentioned that Chip Slaven, then-interim director of the NSBA, “told officers he was writing a letter to provide information to the White House, from a request by Secretary Cordona [sic].”

In an interview with Fox News, PDE President Nicole Neily indicated that the letter Cardona allegedly requested and the “domestic terrorism” letter are the same thing.

(Read more at The Epoch Times)

This proves that charges of terrorism were not a mistake

From the beginning, the charges of terrorism were meant to paint anyone who might stand up against liberal lunacy in schools as a terrorist. As a fringe benefit, the Democrats may have also been able to isolate the parents most likely to start supporting school choice (since nobody would likely want to keep their kids in the schools that won’t listen to the parents).

A Rochester mom who was arrested at a school board meeting files a federal lawsuit and vows to not “back down”

The Christian Broadcasting Network reports on the arrest of a Rochester, New York mother at a school board meeting (ostensibly for a mask worn under her nose) and her struggle with the school board.

A Rochester, New York, mother has filed a federal lawsuit against her school board after being arrested during a meeting last year for supposedly not wearing her mask correctly.

Appearing on SiriusXM host Megyn Kelly’s show, Shannon Joy recalled the incident in question, when she wore her mask just below her nose. At a certain point, the school board broke for a recess, and members purportedly called 911 and directed authorities to arrest her for her violation.

Once police arrived, Joy was handcuffed, arrested, and charged with “trespassing.”

The latter charge, though, was eventually dismissed. The mother believes she was targeted as a result of her activism amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

She told Kelly she filed her lawsuit in hopes of helping other parents slapped with similar charges over supposed pandemic regulation violations.

“When they called the recess, I got this sinking feeling that they were going to arrest, potentially, me,” she said. “This particular meeting was very different than previous meetings. The board had worked with an outside organization called ‘Black In The Burbs,’ which is a suburban version of [Black Lives Matter] and they brought in about 25 activists, all with red shirts.”

(Read more at the Christian Broadcasting Network)

My bet is that Ms. Joy has already been included on an FBI list

Does anyone have any other theories?

So much for gloom. Here are the comics that don’t run for office.

A reason to pack and shoot first

AReasonToPackAndShootFirst

Awash in Democrat lies and they want to focus on …

AwashInDemocratLiesAndTheyWantToFocusOn

Bad news for the wokesters who walk like an Egyptian

BadNewsForThoseWhoWalkLikeAnEgyptian

Blame the meathead, not the meat packer

BlameTheMeatHeadNotThePackers

CDC takes a hit from science

CDC_TakesA_HitFromScience

Centers for Disease Contradiction and Confusion

CDCC

Crime sanctuary, New York

CrimeSanctuaryNewYork

Fauci’s crooked attack

FaucisCrookedLance

Government resignation: good and bad news

GovernmentResignationGoodAndBadNews

Great uniter against freedom, filibustering, and fluff

GreatUniter

If there were “truth in political advertising”

IfThereWereTruthInPoliticalSpeech

In the small print

InTheSmallPrint

Mangled Voting Act

MangledVote

Most transparent …

MostTransparent

Not keeping up

NotKeepingUp

Of COVID or with COVID?

OfCovidOrWithCovid

Sotomayor graffiti

SotomayorsGrafitti

Stupid is as stupid does (again)

StupidIsAsStupidDoes

The last word

TheLastWord

The non-VP at the non-memorial

TheNonMemorial

Things to remember over 6 January

ThingsToRememberOn6Jan

Time for producers to cut the chain

TimeForProducersToGetPaidInCash

Here, I trust the 8-ball more

TrustThe8Ball

Two years, two cups of Kool Aid

TwoCupsOfKoolAid

Two dogs, one alpha

TwoDogs

Ukraine’s way out

UkrainesWayOut

WaPo did change it to one Pinocchio after liberal reaction

WaPoPutItAtOnePinocchio
The worst part of the controversy related to the cartoon above that the “We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition and many on ventilators” isn’t the stupidest of Sotomayor’s comments on that day. (By the way, in contradiction to her statement, only about 3,342 children were hospitalized with COVID-19 [according to the CDC].)

She also claimed that Biden’s mandate is “not a mandate.” (The problem with this statement is that the word “mandate” is in the title of the OSHA document.)

Beyond that, she said she doesn’t see the “distinction” between federal and state powers. (Maybe she should investigate “federalism.”)

At one point, Sotomayor asked “Why is a human spewing a virus not like a machine spewing sparks?” (First, the law creating OSHA allows that agency to control machines. Second, environmental hazards have not in the past included viruses or other infectious matter. Third, no previous OSHA action has required humans to inject something into their bodies.)

Finally for this set of responses to the Supreme idiocy [but not for the mistakes she made in the court], Sotomayor claimed that the omicron variant is as deadly to children as the delta variant [which it is not]. (The cumulative stupidity of all of these statements is draining my will to respond.)

So much for her “wise Latina” moniker.

Of course, the good news is that the majority of the Supreme Court invalidated the idiocy of Sotomayor and Breyer (who was obviously either channeling or imitating Biden when he said there were “750 million new cases of COVID” [despite the population of the US being limited to 332 million]).

Women’s rights takes it in the rear for trans rights

WomensRightsTakesItForTransRights

Worm in the apple

WormInTheApple

 

Biden waffles continually on his payments to illegals


Biden bursts over issue of illegal aliens getting big payout: “You deserve some kind of compensation”

The Daily Wire keeps us up-to-date on Biden’s waffling through a 7 November 2021 article over paying illegal aliens $450K because they got caught breaking our law.

BidenYellsPresident Joe Biden exploded on Saturday at a reporter who asked him about media reports that his administration was planning to give illegal aliens who were separated from their families at the border under the last administration payouts that could go well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars each in an effort to settle lawsuits.

“I’d like to ask you, real quick, sir: Where do you stand?” the reporter asked.  “You said last week that this report about migrant families at the border getting payments was ‘garbage.’”

“No, I didn’t say that,” Biden claimed.

“Let’s get it straight. You said everybody coming across the border gets $500- — $450,000,” Biden falsely claimed.

“Now, here’s the thing: If in fact, because of the outrageous behavior of the last administration, you were coming across the border, whether it was legal or illegal, and you lost your child — you lost your child — it’s gone — you deserve some kind of compensation, no matter what the circumstance,” Biden yelled.

(Read the entire article at the Daily Wire)

Notice the “You” in the quote from Biden is addressing illegal aliens, not American citizens

Additionally, how many daycares and nurseries has the Biden regime set up in American prisons and jails to keep American citizens from being separated from their children?

Of course, this blog has commented numerous times on the efforts of Democrats to empty the prisons of COVID patients and release felons on bail.

Still, this payment privileges illegal aliens over American citizens in a number of ways:

  1. It presupposes that our laws do not need to be obeyed by illegal aliens (since a number of the illegals who were deported had not only entered or stayed illegally, but most had committed other crimes that resulted in their being arrested). This violates our standard of equal before the law (since it sets up one class that cannot be prosecuted).
  2. It presupposes that America owes illegal aliens compensation for the inconvenience of being separated from their families.
  3. It presupposes that illegal aliens should not be separated from their families (even though all other criminals are separated from their families when they are jailed).

On 5 November 2021, the ACLU showed Biden was lying and had started paying illegals

Fox News reports that the ACLU said that Biden had started the process of paying illegals for the inconvenience of being caught violating American laws during the Trump administration.

The American Civil Liberties Union countered President Biden‘s claim that his administration is not considering payments of up to $450,000 to illegal immigrants who had been separated from their families under the previous administration.

Biden had insisted that the story was “garbage” in response to a question from Fox News’ Peter Doocy on Wednesday.

(continued)

Yet ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero told Fox News that the plan is very much in the works.

“President Biden may not have been fully briefed about the actions of his very own Justice Department as it carefully deliberated and considered the crimes committed against thousands of families separated from their children as an intentional governmental policy,” Romero said.

“But if he follows through on what he said, the president is abandoning a core campaign promise to do justice for the thousands of separated families,” he added. “We respectfully remind President Biden that he called these actions ‘criminal’ in a debate with then-President Trump and campaigned on remedying and rectifying the lawlessness of the Trump administration. We call on President Biden to right the wrongs of this national tragedy.”

(Read the whole article at Fox News)

Ok, so Biden either lied to the illegals or lied to the electorate during the campaign, but he currently has his DOJ in on this plan

Biden may be waffling for the electorate, but the denizens of his swamp know what the plan will fold out as.

On 4 November 2021, Biden labels the reports that he will pay illegal aliens $450K to be “garbage”

In a 5 November 2021 article, Fox News reports that Biden labeled the reports as “garbage.”

President Biden responded Wednesday to a report that suggested his administration was mulling whether to make $450,000 payments to immigrants who were separated from their families at the border under former President Trump‘s administration, calling the reporting “garbage” and saying that it is “not gonna happen.”

Following remarks at the White House where he urged parents to get their children vaccinated, Biden was asked by Fox News White House Correspondent Peter Doocy about the Wall Street Journal’s report and whether he believes it “might incentivize” immigrants to attempt to enter America illegally. Biden responded, “If you guys keep sending that garbage out, yeah, but it’s not true.”

“So this is a garbage report,” Doocy asked? 

“Yeah, $450,000 per person, is that what you said? That’s not gonna happen,” Biden stated.

When asked by Doocy about the reported plan days ago while attending a G-20 press conference in Rome, Biden looked away and scratched his forehead.

(Read more at Fox News)

From these reports, there is one thing you can know.

If Biden’s lips move, he lies.

 

When are we going to take back


1. Our equal representation before the law

Representative Massie questions Merrick Garland on 6 January FBI infiltrators

AZ Central reports Representative Massie’s use of a 6 January video during hearings with Merrick Garland.

One Arizona man who appeared prominently in videos from the Jan. 6 Capitol riot — but has never been charged — returned to prominence this week when those videos were replayed in Congress. 

A video of Queen Creek resident Ray Epps was shown by U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky during a House oversight hearing where lawmakers questioned Attorney General Merrick Garland about the attack on the Capitol. 

Massie used the video as occasion to ask Garland not just about Epps, but about the belief that federal agents were present and agitating people before the riot.  

One video shows Epps telling people on Jan. 5 they need to go into the U.S. Capitol. Other video shows him directing them on Jan. 6 toward the historic building. 

Massie showed video and images of Epps during the hearing, then asked Garland, “as far as we can find, this individual has not been charged with anything. You said this is one of the most sweeping investigations in history.”

Garland responded that the U.S. Department of Justice does not comment on pending investigations, especially particular scenes or individuals. 

Massie persisted. 

“Can you tell us — without talking about particular incidents or particular videos — how many agents or assets of the federal government were present on January 6? Whether they agitated to go into the Capitol and if any of them did?

“I’m not going to comment on an investigation that’s ongoing,” Garland responded. 

(Read about accusations and substantiating details at AZ Central)

I have posted recently on this issue; however, attention to this is only beginning

For over three years, we have endured burning of Democrat havens like Seattle, Detroit, Portland, and other liberal notables, but it obviously has not sunk into the collective psyche of the nation. Nobody notices.

Now, over the past few weeks, this blog and innumerable other conservative outlets look into the possible connections between Ray Epps and the FBI. This must have hit a liberal nerve, since The Hill is calling those who make note of this “right-wing conspiracy theorists.”

Have we been scammed? There seems to be odd connections between Ray Epps, the Oath Keepers, the FBI, and the 6 January protest

100 Percent Fed Up questions the identity of Ray Epps, the relation of the Oath Keepers to the FBI, and why Epps worked so hard to get people to go inside the Capitol on 6 January.

Speaking of scams…Who is Ray Epps? And why did he spend two days inciting Trump supporters to go inside the Capitol?

Here’s what we know.

Ray Epps was the president of the Oath Keepers in Arizona.

Mr. Epps worked alongside the Oath Keeper Founder and President Stewart Rhodes.

On Memorial Day 2011, Oath Keepers held a memorial service for a fallen member. Epps and Rhodes stood side-by-side for much of the memorial service.

Epps can be seen standing behind Stewart Rhodes while Taps is being played.

Since then, Epps has been relatively quiet but has recently been ID’d by Revolver News as one of the primary influencers in the January 6th “insurrection.”

The night before the “insurrection,” Epps appeared to be encouraging Trump supporters gathered near BLM Square in Washington DC to join him, as he announced that he planned to go “inside the Capitol.” Epps told an unidentified male (fed agent?) “In fact, tomorrow—I’m not even gonna say it because I might be arrested, but tomorrow—We need to go IN to the Capitol!” Trump supporters who could smell a rat shout, “Fed…Fed…Fed!”

On January 6th, Epps stood in front of a piece of heavy machinery, shouting at Trump supporters, “We are going to the Capitol, where our problems are,” he yelled. “It’s that direction!” he said, pointing. He encouraged the Trump supporters to tell everyone, “Please spread the word,” he implored.

As protesters first reach the Capitol, where Epps has been encouraging them to go for two days, they began to confront the scant number of police officers standing near low-security barriers. A young man wearing a black t-shirt and red MAGA cap can be seen engaging with police officers at the barriers. Suddenly, out of nowhere, Ray Epps appears and whispers in the ear of Ryan Samsel, a PA resident with an extensive violent criminal background. Epps seems to know to target Samsel, as he whispers in his ear. Almost immediately afterward, Samsel begins to push down the barriers, allowing protesters to run through the barriers and onto the Capitol grounds. Epps disappears.

Here’s Epps re-appearing with the protesters as they march toward the Capitol:

(Read more incriminating events at 100 Percent Fed Up)

2. The protection of our children

A boy wearing a skirt rapes a girl and the boy gets protected due to it being “Pride month”

Townhall comments on the rapes committed by a boy wearing a skirt and protected by the school district by not initially reporting the first crime.

It’s no longer just conservative news outlets and local activists finally realizing they can no longer ignore the rape allegations that are haunting the Loudoun County School District. But, there are still some who haven’t woken up enough just yet, and then are gaslighting everybody else for it. 

Perhaps most disturbing of all is that this includes the commonwealth’s governor, Democrat Ralph Northam, who actually signed into law House Bill 257, which allows the school district to decide for itself if it’s going to alert law enforcement about misdemeanors, including sexual battery.

This revelation comes from reporting by Scott Taylor for 7 News, with the headline of “Gov. Ralph Northam silent as Virginia law on schools reporting crimes is under scrutiny.” Taylor tried to reach out to Gov. Northam for comment, but says he was turned away by Renzo Olivari, who works for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe’s campaign. 

According to Taylor:

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam signed the bill into law. In Arlington on Friday I-Team Investigative Reporter Scott Taylor attempted to ask Northam if he still thought the law was a great idea.

After the Governor answered two questions from other media outlets, Renzo Olivari, a member of former Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe’s media team blocked 7 News from asking any questions.

“Awesome. Ok, thank you very much,” says Renzo Olivari with McAuliffe’s media team.

“Governor, I would like to ask you one question. I want to ask you about Loudon County why are you,” asked Scott Taylor.

“I got to get back,” said Governor Northam.

“Why are you not allowing us to ask a question? You deliberately didn’t allow 7 News to ask a question? Why is that?” asked Taylor to Oliviari.

A few moments later.

“Thanks, everybody. Thanks for coming,” says Olivari.

“You came over earlier and asked if I have questions. Can you explain why you ignored those questions?” asks Taylor.

“Thank you,” says Olivari.

Not deterred, Taylor says they reached out to governor’s office:

After the Governor didn’t answer our questions we reached out to the governor’s office asking the governor to answer the following questions:

  1. Last year you signed a bill into law that gave school officials the ability not to report misdemeanor sex crimes to law enforcement, which created less transparency for parents and students. In light of two recent alleged sex crimes by the same student in Loudon County Public Schools, can you explain to parents and students why you believe that law was a great idea?
  2. With that lack of transparency on a laundry list of crimes not having to be reported to law enforcement, why should parents believe schools are safe in Virginia?

(continued)

HB 257 passed 46-44 in the House of Delegates, and 28-11 in the State Senate, with substitution

As Brett Hall reported in February 2020 for WAVY, another local outlet, “Republicans call on Gov. Northam to veto bill that would stop requiring schools to report misdemeanor crimes to police.” Hall noted in his reporting that the governor’s office did not respond with comment in time for the article’s publication.

Gov. Northam approved of the legislation on March 12, 2020. It went into effect on July 1, 2020. 

(continued)

Local parent, Scott Smith, is alleging that his ninth-grade daughter was raped in the bathroom by a biological boy wearing a skirt. 

(Read more at Townhall)

This is nothing but the reinstitution of Obama’s get-out-of-jail-free program 

This is nothing but a a transsexual twist on the reimplementation of Obama’s PROMISE program that resulted in the Parkland shootings. Bleeding heart liberals want to forgive criminals of things that do not happen to the liberals.

Additionally, in reference to the last quoted paragraph, two girls were violated by this boy wearing a skirt. First, Smith’s daughter was accosted in a bathroom. Then, after the school district tried to “handle the matter internally” by transferring the boy to another school, a girl was victimized in a classroom.

Loudoun County Schools tried to conceal multiple sexual assaults

The Daily Wire reviews how Loudoun County schools tried to conceal the sexual assault against Scott Smith’s daughter.

On June 22, Scott Smith was arrested at a Loudoun County, Virginia, school board meeting, a meeting that was ultimately deemed an “unlawful assembly” after many attendees vocally opposed a policy on transgender students.

What people did not know is that weeks prior on May 28, Smith says, a boy allegedly wearing a skirt entered a girls’ bathroom at nearby Stone Bridge High School, where he sexually assaulted Smith’s ninth-grade daughter. 

Juvenile records are sealed, but Smith’s attorney Elizabeth Lancaster told The Daily Wire that a boy was charged with two counts of forcible sodomy – one count of anal sodomy and one count of forcible fellatio – related to an incident that day at that school. 

As a result of the viral video showing his arrest, Smith became the poster child for what the National School Boards Association has since suggested could be a form of “domestic terrorism”: a white blue-collar male who showed up to harangue obscure public servants on his local school board.

“If someone would have sat and listened for thirty seconds to what Scott had to say, they would have been mortified and heartbroken,” Lancaster said.

Minutes before Smith’s arrest, the Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) superintendent lectured the public that concerns about the transgender policy were misplaced because the school system had no record of any assault occurring in any school bathroom.

Then a woman wearing a rainbow heart shirt – a left-wing community activist – told Smith she did not believe his daughter, he says. His rage reached a boil and he had a heated exchange of words with the woman. A police officer, there to keep the peace in the meeting, pulled on his arm. Smith yanked it away. Before he knew it, Smith says, he was hit in the face, handcuffed, and dragged across the floor, with his pants pulled down. Images of the incident were splashed on televisions and newspapers across the world.

Buta Biberaj, the county’s progressive, top elected prosecutor, who has close ties to the school board’s most liberal members, appeared in court to personally prosecute Smith for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. Biberaj ran on a platform of ending “mass incarceration,” but she wanted to put Smith in jail for the misdemeanors.

(Read more on this account at Daily Wire)

Just like Biden’s beach house wall, liberals want “the little people” to pay for their stupidity

President Obama was all too willing to let a repeat offender stay out of jail (who ended killing 17 and wounding 17 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School). That didn’t matter, since his daughters went to a private school and have a Secret Service protection detail.

Governor Northam obviously had no problem recycling transgender offenders back into the schools. However, again, he probably had no children in those schools that were not protected by armed guards.

High school girls exploited as they give lap dances to teachers and administrators

USA Today tells us of lap dances and inappropriate dress at a school event.

The superintendent of an Eastern Kentucky school district said “appropriate disciplinary action has been taken” after photos surfaced showing students giving lap dances to staff Tuesday as part of a high school’s homecoming week.

Sondra Combs, superintendent of Hazard Independent Schools, did not specify who had been punished.

“As it is a personnel matter, we are not allowed to disclose any further information regarding the specifics of the discipline,” her statement said.

Combs said students were behind the homecoming festivities that included a “man pageant” and led to photos of students giving lap dances in their undergarments being shared on social media.

The photos were initially posted to the “Hazard High School Athletics” Facebook page, but that post was later deleted. Among them was a photo showing a student dancing in front of the high school’s principal, Donald “Happy” Mobelini, who is also mayor of the Perry County city. Screenshots have continued to circulate on social media.

Other photos on the athletics page that also were taken down showed female students dressed in “Hooters” outfits and students and staff appearing to paddle one another.

(Read more at USA Today)

Yes, sometimes children need protection both from themselves and those who would exploit them

Sometimes, as parents, it is our duty to protect our kids from outside predators. However, sometimes our children come under the sway of unsavory characters who have worked themselves into positions of authority. This is where we need to work and weed out the exploiters.

3. Our borders and jobs

Migrant caravan containing thousands travels through Mexico toward US border

Fox News reports on the thousands travelling through Mexico toward the U.S. border and the message they bring.

A massive migrant caravan organized via QR code left the town of Huehuetán in the south of Mexico Monday morning on the third day of their long trek toward the U.S. southern border.

The caravan, made up of mostly Central Americans, South Americans and Haitians, is the largest and most organized of its kind this year, with participants registering to join via QR code starting on Oct. 15.

“Tell Biden we are coming,” one migrant named William from El Salvador told Fox News.

Video footage captured by Fox News showed thousands of migrants, including small children being pushed in strollers, walking north about 20 miles north of Tapachula. One migrant carried a large wooden cross at the front of the caravan while others carried American flags and signs with President Biden’s name.

“President Biden, we need your help,” one migrant said.



(Read more at Fox News)

Ask the chicken plant workers of Mississippi whether illegal aliens drove the wages down

On this physical Earth, there are limits. Biden has proven it by breaking the supply chains and emptying once plentiful grocery store shelves.

If we do not want the #EmptyShelvesBiden and the continually increasing prices on every thing needed for life to become commonplace, we need to set some limits. We need to enforce borders.

Border Patrol arrests of criminal illegal immigrants skyrocket

Fox News tells us here how criminal illegal aliens have been arrested.

Border Patrol agents in the Laredo Sector in Texas have seen arrests of criminal illegal immigrants skyrocket this fiscal year, as agents at the border continue to deal with an overwhelming migration crisis — which includes gang members and sex offenders trying to make their way into the U.S.

In a release, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) said that since the beginning of the fiscal year in October, nearly 760 criminal illegal immigrants have been arrested by Laredo Sector agents, compared to more than 60 arrests in the same time last year. That is an increase of approximately 1,166%.

It comes as part of an aggressive spike in migrant encounters at the border, with 178,000 migrants encountered in April alone, an increase from the already high 172,000 encountered in March. While many of those are single adults being removed by the Title 42 public health protections, agents have previously estimated there have been up to 1,000 “gotaways” getting past agents every day.

Sources have told Fox that smugglers will dump children in one part of the border so that adults can get in in another part of the border — something through uncompleted border wall — as overwhelmed agents attend to the children.

CBP announced the surge in criminal arrests in Laredo in a release announcing that agents had apprehended a 20-year old Mexican national who was a member of the Sureno Gang, and had a criminal history including robbery, battery and theft of property. Agents across the border have encountered gang members from a number of gangs, including MS-13.

(Read more at Fox News)

Add to this, Biden wants to pay “reparations” to those who broke into our country illegally and were punished

Biden wants to pay “reparations” to those who broke our immigration laws and then (usually by breaking yet another law) were caught and deported. However, he doesn’t want to pay them $100,000 (the amount paid to the spouse and children of a soldier or sailor who died in service to our country). Biden doesn’t want to give them the equivalent of 40 acres and a mule (the promise made to former slaves). No, Biden wants to pay these people who broke our laws $450,000.00.

Cartoons featuring Jacks and Jennies

A house divided

Biden quake

Biden values at the school board meeting

Extinct species

Hidin’ Biden, Part 2

I approved this experiment (with the approval of my dog)

Lap dog?

Let’s go, Brandon

Needs to be smaller

Under the tongue and spit when she turns

The Wizard of Oz I would leave on the shelf

(Won’t work, Biden)

 

If this were not a Democrat regime, impeachment papers and resignation letters would be flying


Former Obama ethics official slams Biden White House for avoiding questions on Hunter Biden’s artwork

Fox News points out how an Obama ethics official has called out the Biden regime over Hunter’s latest fundraising scheme.

HunterJoeBidenFormer Director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics Walter Shaub shared some constructive criticism on Wednesday for President Biden and his administration. 

Shaub commented on a clip of White House press secretary Jen Psaki responding to questions regarding Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden’s son, and his artwork. 

New York Post reporter Steven Nelson asked Psaki about the ethics of Hunter selling his artwork for tens of thousands of dollars a piece.

“We at The New York Post reported on Friday that the First Son had sold five prints of his artworks for $75,000 each and that a team of lawyers is reviewing prospective buyers who are going to be allowed into an upcoming New York show,” he said. “That seems to suggest a departure from the White House-brokered agreement where the purchasers would be anonymous.”

He then asked whether Psaki “could say if the White House knows who purchased the five prints and whether there is indeed a departure to the arrangement that there would anonymity here.”

“I know this is your favorite topic,” Psaki replied. “But it, again, it’s still is the purview of the gallerist. We still do not know and will not know who purchases any paintings. And the president remains proud of his son.”

(Read about how Psaki thinks the public has no right to ask about ethics at Fox News)

This Obama ethics advisor had to have heard Joe brag to the Council on Foreign Relations

This blog has noted Biden’s brag about getting the prosecutor who investigated Hunter in Ukraine fired; therefore, surely this Obama “ethics advisor” surely must have heard of that event. So why didn’t this purportedly ethical Democrat advise Joe to never enter the presidential race?

I maintain that a “Democrat ethics advisor” is a red herring thrown out to distract the public from the illegitimacy of a Democrat’s actions.

Don’t fall for it. If a Democrat mentions this article, just point to the illegitimacy of the Biden actions from the get-go.

Former Walmart CEO blasts Biden for supply chain crisis

The Daily Wire reports on the disgust of a former Walmart executive over the current supply chain debacle.

Former Walmart CEO Bill Simon slammed President Biden’s response to the supply chain crisis.

As dozens of cargo ships remain stranded outside of California ports, Biden suggested that White House partnerships with private companies could address shipping and processing bottlenecks. However, social media users have been posting images of empty store shelves along with captions such as “Bare Shelves Biden.”

Bill Simon — who led Walmart from 2010 to 2014 — agreed that the situation is a “mess from start to finish.”

“I’ve never seen it like this, and I don’t really think anybody living in this country has,” the executive told Fox Business anchor Dagen McDowell. “I mean, this is really unprecedented.”

Simon remarked on “Mornings with Maria” that “there’s a shortage of labor in our distribution system and there’s a shortage of people to put [items] on the shelf.” He added that the crisis will not be relieved “until we alleviate the labor shortage that’s out there and get people driving trucks and unloading at the docks and stocking shelves.”

For months, industry leaders have been urging President Biden and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg to help American supply chains return to normalcy. A June letter from Matthew Shay — President and CEO of the National Retail Federation — noted that the supply chain crisis has affected over 97% of American retailers:

Our nation’s supply chains are stressed because of the COVID-19 global pandemic, and they continue to struggle through our economic recovery. We would like an opportunity to discuss the impact these issues are having on the nation’s retailers, our workers and our customers, as well as potential solutions to address current and future disruptions.

(continued)

However, Politico recently revealed that Buttigieg has been on paid paternity leave for months.

(Read about the empty pleadings of a mindless partisan at the Daily Wire)

If Biden has lost support from the ultra rich, this might get his attention

If Biden has lost support from those like the Waltons, the Gates, or any of the other mega-rich Americans, then he will probably respond to them. However, the question remains whether this has been kabuki theater or a real situation. My bet falls on the kabuki theater scenario. If this supply chain problem/inflation/unrest keeps up for a year, then maybe it might really catch the attention of the really rich (but not until then).

Biden’s DOJ claps back at him after he made a comment that crossed the line

The Daily Wire tells us of the reaction at the Department of Justice over a comment by Joe Biden.

Democrat President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a statement late on Friday evening pushing back on remarks that the president made in which he appeared to weigh in on matters that the DOJ did not seem to appreciate.

The statement from the DOJ came in response to the following exchange that Biden had with reporters at the White House:

REPORTER: Mr. President, what’s your message to people who defy Congressional subpoenas on the January 6 committee?

BIDEN: I hope that the committee goes after them and holds them accountable criminally.

REPORTER: Should they be prosecuted by the Justice Department?

BIDEN: I do, yes.

Biden’s remarks referred to former Trump administration officials who investigators subpoenaed last month over the January 6th riot at the U.S. Capitol.

“Former chief White House strategist Steve Bannon’s lawyer has told the committee he won’t comply with the congressional subpoena,” Politico reported. “The House panel scheduled a vote to hold Bannon in contempt of Congress on Tuesday. If that vote moves forward, the full House, slated to reconvene next week, will then hold a vote. If the House moves to hold Bannon in contempt, which is likely with Democrats’ slim majority, then the matter will be referred to the U.S. Attorney for Washington D.C. for criminal prosecution.”

DOJ spokesperson Anthony Coley quickly responded to Biden’s remarks, saying in a statement: “The Department of Justice will make its own independent decisions in all prosecutions based solely on the facts and the law. Period. Full stop.”

(Read about previous controversies noted this year by the Daily Wire)

It will not stop. Period. This is a Democrat regime with a Democrat press and a Democrat swamp.

Just look at how the press has covered the crime rate doubling in major cities under Democrat rule. Look at how they have covered the decriminalization of rioting on behalf of Antifa (refer to the bottom of this post). Look at how they cover the riots by Antifa and Black Live Matter. Then look at how they cover the 6 January event in the District of Columbia (while unruly, I won’t call it a riot — since it doesn’t come near the standards set by Antifa and BLM).

Liberal watchdog files an ethics complaint against Psaki

One America News Network reports that a liberal watchdog group has filed an ethics complaint against Jen Psaki for her endorsement of Governor Northam from the White House podium.

A government watchdog group has called for an investigation into White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed an ethics complaint against Psaki on Friday. She’s being accused of endorsing Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe in a press conference on Thursday.

The group alleged Psaki violated the Hatch Act, which forbids federal employees in the executive branch from political activity.

(Read the response of Psaki at OANN)

There is not enough brown in all the screens of the world to contain the BS in Psaki’s response

Truthfully, responding to the lies that continually spew from that creature test the limits of civility.

How did the press not push Buttigieg on supply chain problems?

Breitbart asks how any semi-responsible press might have missed asking Buttigieg about supply chain problems.

On Saturday’s edition of Newsmax TV’s “The Count,” Breitbart News editor-in-chief Alex Marlow, author of Breaking the News: Exposing the Establishment Media’s Hidden Deals and Secret Corruptionsaid Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was absurdly “indignant” that people thinking someone in charge of running a government agency shouldn’t be taking two months off during a crisis.

Marlow added that in a responsible media environment, Buttigieg would be “brought out in front of them on a constant basis until he’s able to mount some sort of a reasonable explanation for what’s going on.”

“He hid that he was on paternity leave, and obviously, a crisis like this builds,” Marlow said. “It doesn’t happen all at once, and then he was indignant that he was getting criticized for taking such a long paternity leave, which was absurd. He made it seem like conservatives are now, all of a sudden, anti-family. Because we thought, in the middle of a crisis, you shouldn’t be taking two months off when you’re running a bureaucratic agency.”

(Read more and watch the video at Breitbart)

How can two men realistically take two months of “paternity leave”

Two cohabitating men will never produce a child nor will they ever go through the trauma of childbirth. If the men in question anticipated the possibility that they are so emotionally fragile that they need two months off in order to adjust to the feeding and diapering schedule of two newborns, then maybe they should have taken a less stressful job (like maybe the mayor of an insignificant Democrat town).

Biden’s support from police has disintegrated in just under nine months

The Washington Times digs in to the details of how Biden’s support from police disintegrated in under nine months.

President Biden’s relationship with America’s law enforcement community has gone from bad to worse in the nearly nine months that he has occupied the Oval Office, according to veteran police officers.

Rank-and-file cops and unions that broke away from Mr. Biden to endorse President Trump say they are “disgusted” with what they see as a lack of support from the White House.

“It’s been worse than I thought, especially with what I know about Biden,” said Paul DiGiacomo, president of the New York City Detectives’ Endowment Association.

“Biden was once a very strong supporter of the police, but he doesn’t appear to be one anymore,” Mr. DiGiacomo said. “Honestly, I haven’t seen anything I can point to in a positive manner.”

Even officers who backed Mr. Biden last year say they are frustrated with his performance on law-and-order issues.

Charles P. Wilson, chairman of the National Association of Black Law Enforcement Officers, endorsed Mr. Biden personally because his organization is a nonprofit and cannot back political candidates.

Mr. Wilson acknowledged that the president’s lack of public praise for law enforcement is contributing to low morale at a time of record resignations and retirements from police forces.

“It’s an issue the administration should address. A lot of cops — because there is such a focus reform — think the administration point blank doesn’t care about them,” he said.

Mr. Biden came face to face with the law enforcement community Saturday when he delivered remarks at the 40th annual National Peace Officers’ Memorial Service outside the U.S. Capitol.

The president zeroed in on his own tragedies dealing with the deaths of his infant daughter, Naomi, in a 1972 car crash, and his eldest son, Beau, of brain cancer in 2015 at the age of 46.

Mr. Biden acknowledged he didn’t know any of the nearly 500 fallen officers named in this year’s program but told the crowd that he understood them and their loss.

“Although I didn’t know them personally, I know you. I know you,” he said.

Touting efforts for a racial justice overhaul of policing, he said it would also be good for police officers.

“Being a cop today is one hell of a lot harder than it’s ever been,” Mr. Biden said. “We’re waking up to the notion [that] unless we change the environment in which the job could be done, we’re going to have trouble.”

Officers’ complaints about Mr. Biden go beyond his lack of pro-police rhetoric. 

They say the administration’s failure to develop a comprehensive strategy to combat the nation’s rising crime rate, Justice Department investigations into local police departments and support of police reform measures have further eroded morale.

Paul Beakman, a former officer who is running as a Democratic candidate for alderman in the upstate New York town of Lockport, said he feels the country is less safe under Mr. Biden.

“I’m disgusted,” he said. “The administration pretends it’s pro-police with this tremendous overemphasis on the Capitol incident in January. While that attack on my brothers and sisters was horrible, they’ve completely turned a blind eye on public safety in this country.”

(Read more at the Washington Times)

I believe that the Washington Times is too kind

I believe that, due to Biden’s campaign promise to redirect funds from police and President Trump’s full-force support of law enforcement, there has never been much support within the ranks of police officers for Dementia Joe.

If Biden was not pro-criminal, this law would not have passed in Democrat Seattle

To disassociate themselves from criminality, Democrats need action — not words

Biden needs to step beyond words (and the majority of his words — such as his promise to punish the Border Patrol agents who only did their job — have been against police) and step into action. However, we all know Sleepy Joe is not one for action.

 

Democrats may have incentivized them, but these actions also come from the heart of social media companies


GoDaddy cuts service from Texas pro-life group’s website used to report violators of abortion law

The Blaze reports that GoDaddy has cut service from a pro-life group.

GoneDaddyWeb hosting provider GoDaddy cut service to a website belonging to the pro-life group Texas Right to Life, telling the group late Thursday it had 24 hours to find new hosting services for its whistleblower tip website, prolifewhistleblower.com.

The group built the website to solicit anonymous tips on people who break a new Texas law that bans abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected. The Supreme Court declined this week to block the law from taking effect.

What is the background?

As Texas Right to Life noted on its online tip website, the Texas law is unique:

The Texas Heartbeat Act is unique because it calls upon private citizens to hold abortion providers and their enablers accountable. Any person can sue any abortion provider who kills an unborn child after six weeks of gestation—and any person can sue anyone who aids or abets these illegal abortions. All of these individuals must pay damages to the person who sued them of at least $10,000 for each illegal abortion that they perform or assist.

In response, social media activists flooded the website with fake tips, the New York Times reported. When that failed to take down the website, Gizmodo’s Shoshana Wodinsky suggested activists target the host of the website, GoDaddy.

(Read more at The Blaze)

So, protect a baby’s beating heart and get de-platformed

While giving up one’s free speech rights for the life of a baby seems like a small sacrifice, it also makes the mission of Texas Right to Life impossible to achieve in that they depend on their ability to convince others of their point of view. By silencing them, GoDaddy has deprived them of their lifeline to the rest of the world.

Therefore, I would argue that GoDaddy has created an argument against any conservative support for its existence.

Biden’s Department of “Justice” shields social media from 6 January scrutiny in court

The Washington Times points out how Biden’s Department of “Justice” shielded social media from 6 January scrutiny in court.

GoogleFacebookTwitterThe Biden team is omitting the degree to which Jan. 6 rioters relied on Facebook, Twitter, and Google — the Democratic Party’s best censorship friends. 

Here’s how. 

Government lawyers prosecuting Jan. 6 Capitol rioters have filed an inventory in the U.S. District Court of the Justice Department’s huge stock of evidence, including posted videos and photos. It is a grand tour of what they hold as opposed to specific documents. Prosecutors are required by law to turn over evidence to defense attorneys as part of pre-trial discovery.

The 13-page memo leaves out the social media platforms that often do the Democratic Party’s bidding. Instead, the Justice Department document focuses on a single conservative-favored app, Parler, although Donald Trump’s “Stop the Steal” supporters made extensive use of Facebook and Twitter. Parler is the same site those liberal big tech firms temporarily put out of business until it reemerged on another Internet host.

Republicans last winter warned there was a liberal campaign brewing to protect big tech from Jan. 6 scrutiny. 

The DoJ memo, “United States’ Memorandum Regarding Status of Discovery,” prepared by the “Capitol Breach Discovery Coordinator,” seems to prove it.

The memo also underscores the political priority of President Biden to paint America’s No. 1 threat here and abroad as homegrown “white supremacists.” They are everywhere ready to destroy the country, Mr. Biden says, as does his attorney general, Merrick Garland.

Mr. Garland told a Senate panel in May, “In the FBI’s view, the top domestic violent extremist threat we face comes from racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, specifically those who advocate for the superiority of the white race.”

This is why the Justice memo is so interesting. The Jan. 6 breach is likely the most photographed, filmed, and texted crime-in-progress — before, during, and after.

When the evidence list gets to social media accounting, prosecutors mentioned just one platform relied on by invaders: “A collection of over one million Parler posts, replies, and related data.” “A collection of over one million Parler videos and images (approximately 20 terabytes of data).”

And then, under the heading, “Systematic Reviews of Voluminous Materials.”

“Comparing all known identifiers of any charged defendant against tips, Parler data, ad tech data, cell tower data, and geofence data.”

By this evidence-disclosure filing, you would think that Parler alone played the role of Jan. 6 Capitol riot communications center. It was not alone.

Perhaps there were more total social media posts on Parler than Facebook, Twitter, and Google’s YouTube. 

But the Washington Times showed in a story I authored in February––a month into the Justice Department investigation — that Facebook by far was the most mentioned platform in over 160 law enforcement affidavits justifying the arrests of alleged invaders. 

(Read about the affidavits the Times cited and the social media platforms implicated at the Washington Times

All along, we have been fed the lie that Parler supplied information to the “insurrectionists” on 6 January

From the beginning, we heard that Parler provided a means of communication for the “insurrectionists” on 6 January. From observing the events of the day and comparing them to the real riots occurring in Democrat cities since 2019, we knew that what occurred on 6 January was little more than a few idiots mixed in with  quite a few peaceful protesters who supported President Trump. Now we know that the liberal social media platforms were the main means of communication.

This comes as no surprise.

Flood of Cuban protesters rise up against the communist regime

Dictatorship quickly shut down social media feeds

The Washington Times reported in a 11 July 2021 article (nearly now forgotten) on the protest of the communist regime in Cuba and how Internet access was denied (just as news goes unreported State-side).

Cubans took to the streets Sunday in what Cuban activists and U.S. politicians are calling the biggest demonstrations in decades.

According to social media feeds, which Cuba’s communist dictatorship quickly shut down as U.S. news outlets began collecting them, hundreds of citizens shouted “freedom” to protest shortages of food and medicine in several cities across the island.

“The people are dying of hunger!” one woman shouted in Spanish during an Artemisa province protest posted on Facebook. “Our children are dying of hunger!”

In another video, a police car in the city of Cardenas was overturned by protesters.

There also was social media evidence of protests in San Antonio de los Baños and Palma Soriano, The New York Times reported.

Carolina Barrero, a Cuban activist, called the protests “spontaneous, frontal and forceful,” and a challenge to a regime that has kept an iron lid on dissent since taking power when Dwight Eisenhower was U.S. president.

“It is the most massive popular demonstration to protest the government that we have experienced in Cuba since ’59,” she told the Times by text message.

“What has happened is enormous,” she added.

Julie Chung, acting assistant secretary of state of Western Hemisphere affairs, expressed concern on Twitter about reported “calls to combat” against the protesters. She was the most senior Biden administration official to comment publicly on the unrest in Havana Sunday.

(Read more of the struggle at the Washington Times)

It is always good to see that the press is fairly covering the news and not covering for the socialist left

I enjoy not having to mock a totally delirious press that feels that it must cover for the failings of socialism, the Big Brother Big Tech, and other elements of the left (which could be translated into the babbling of Dementia Joe or Horizontal Harris).

When that happens and they honestly report on an important story like the ongoing protests in Cuba, I will let you know.

YouTube deleted Trump’s CPAC speech and curtailed ACU’s video upload capabilities

The Beauty of Life reports that YouTube deleted Trump’s speech video and restricted ACU’s video upload permissions.

Youtube has recently taken down a video from the American Conservative Union (ACU) in which former President Donald Trump announced that he would file a lawsuit against Big Tech.

In a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference hosted by ACU, the 45th president made clear on Thursday, July 8, that his class-action lawsuit is aimed to force Big Tech to stop censoring the American people, giving some bases for the case amid concerns that the lawsuit would be “dead on arrival.” 

However, YouTube has “issued a strike against” the ACU and “banned the organization from posting for one week,” according to an emailed statement.

“As a result, YouTube has prevented ACU from sharing content from CPAC 2021 Part 2 in Dallas, Texas, including former President Donald Trump’s speech on Sunday, July 11,” the statement said.

The removal came two days after the video was uploaded. Explaining the action, YouTube said that the video contained alleged “medical misinformation” regarding COVID-19 that violated its terms and conditions.

YouTube did not point out exactly how the video “violated” its policies.

“It is clear that YouTube censored CPAC because we stood with former President Donald Trump on his lawsuit against Big Tech,” ACU Chairman Matt Schlapp said in a statement.

“This is yet another example of Big Tech censoring content with which they disagree in order to promote the political positions they favor,” he continued.

“Google’s political biases heavily influence YouTube’s definitions of ‘misinformation’ and that the political beliefs of Google executives take priority over the free speech rights of Google users,” stated the ACU.

ACU also said that the censorship came as former president Trump was touting hydroxychloroquine’s efficiency in COVID-19 early treatment even though his claims “are backed by sound medical research conducted by local health authorities.”

(Read more at the Beauty of Life)

Again we see the biased side of YouTube

This bias and many other instances are the reasons that at least the largest social media companies must be broken up and must lose their Section 230 protections. They routinely act as editors of the public dialog; therefore, they should be treated like editors.

Government demands for Twitter to remove journalist content jump 26%

Zero Hedge goes to multiple sources to expose how Twitter has allowed itself to become a puppet of totalitarians (in America, such have become known as Democrat socialists).

Twitter on Wednesday announced that government demands to remove content posted by journalists and news outlets jumped 26% worldwide in the second half of 2020 vs. the first half of the year, Reuters reports.

According to the company’s transparency report, 199 ‘verified’ journalists and news outlets on its platform were subject to 361 legal demands to remove content – though the social media giant refused to say which countries had submitted them.

After engaging in several conflicts with countries – primarily India – over rules regulating social media content, Twitter announced last week that it had hired an interim chief compliance officer in India, as well as other executives tasked with ensuring that the company adheres to international laws.

In April, Twitter admitted to censoring criticism of the Indian government amid widespread reports that the official government death toll during the pandemic was misrepresented – and the actual figure could be as much as 30 times higher than reported.

As Jonathan Turley noted at the time:

With the support of many Democratic leaders in the United States, Twitter now regularly censors viewpoints in the United States and India had no trouble in enlisting it to crackdown on those raising the alarm over false government reporting.

Buried in an Associated Press story on the raging pandemic and failures of the Indian government are these two lines:

“On Saturday, Twitter complied with the government’s request and prevented people in India from viewing more than 50 tweets that appeared to criticize the administration’s handling of the pandemic. The targeted posts include tweets from opposition ministers critical of Modi, journalists and ordinary Indians.”

The article quotes Twitter as saying that it had powers to “withhold access to the content in India only” if the company determined the content to be “illegal in a particular jurisdiction.” Thus, criticism of the government in this context is illegal so Twitter has agreed to become an arm of the government in censoring information.

(Read the closing points at Zero Hedge)

 

Joe Biden’s America: Back to two standards


A purported investigation into the murder of a Trump supporter

New footage yields more questions regarding the woman shot and killed inside the Capitol building

Townhall reports that new video sequences raise questions about the shooting of Ashli Babbitt.

CapitolArrestsThere are many questions from yesterday. Why was it so easy for demonstrators to storm the Capitol? Was the city prepared? Regardless, the fact is that while Congress was debating certifying the 2020 Electoral College results, senators and representatives had to recess and flee to safety as Trump supporters broke into the building. Guns were drawn inside the House chamber as police barricaded the door to prevent protesters from coming inside. The Senate floor was breached. Inside the building, tear gas was deployed and a rumble between police and protesters broke out in the Rotunda. Also, a woman was shot and killed. The footage is not pleasant. You can watch it here [WARNING: Graphic content].

It clearly shows a police officer shoot the woman who is trying to bust down the door, but as Ben Domenech of The Federalist noted, “This is crazy. There were other cops right behind her.

Was there an attempt at an arrest? I also understand that this is one of those situations where you could potentially be shot by police. We’ll let the investigation begin as there always is with an officer-involved shooting, but I’m sure more questions will be raised before we get any answers. Also, Twitter is not the place to debate or argue this event at all. Dan Cohen of Behind the Headlines had the clip, by the way.

I’m watching “leftists” transform in real time into apologists for police murder.

There are a hundred different ways cops could’ve handled this situation that didn’t involve lethal force. pic.twitter.com/SV9DQzJgCT

— Dan Cohen (@dancohen3000) January 7, 2021

What we do know is that the woman was named Ashli Babbitt, a Trump supporter, and Air Force veteran. She served for 14 years. Her family found out about her death through the news (via NY POST):

The President Trump supporter killed in the Capitol building Wednesday was an Air Force vet from California who tweeted a day earlier how “nothing will stop us” and “the storm is here.”

Ashli Babbitt, who had 14 years in the service and did four tours of duty, was married and lived near San Diego, her husband Aaron told KUSI-TV.

“I’m numb. I’m devastated. Nobody from DC notified my son and we found out on TV,” the husband’s mother, Robin Babbitt, told The Post, saying of her daughter-in-law, “She is a Trump supporter.”

Everything is “pretty surreal,” added Aaron’s brother, Justin. “It’s hard, because we haven’t been officially notified.”

(Read more at Townhall)

Not only were there cops right behind her, there was an Antifa/BLM leader directly behind her (and he was released)

Yes. Not only were police behind her, the Antifa/BLM agitator was behind her (and was later released — refer to the response to the NewsMax article).

DOJ to “investigate” Capitol shooting death of Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt

NewsMax claims that the Department of Justice will “investigate” the shooting death of Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt even though the Antifa/BLM agitator behind her was released.


ashli-babbittThe Department of Justice is opening an investigation into the death of Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt, 35, who was shot in the chest by a Capitol Police officer during Wednesday’s riot at the Capitol while trying to climb through a window and enter the House chambers.

Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Michael Sherwin told CBS News that his office has opened a formal investigation into whether excessive force came into play in relation to Babbitt’s death, senior investigative correspondent Catherine Herridge reported through Twitter.

The office’s civil rights division will be the lead prosecutors for the case, which is also under investigation by the FBI and the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, Herridge also reported.

Sherwin’s office has also opened a homicide investigation into the death of Capitol Hill Police officer Brian Sicknick, who died of injuries Thursday night from the injuries he sustained while responding to the riots and engaging physically with attackers during the melee, reports CNN, quoting a statement from the Capitol Police.

Sicknick joined the department in July 2008 and had most recently served in the department’s First Responders Unit.

Babbitt, a California native, had served for 14 years in the Air Force. According to a friend and fellow veteran, she was an avid supporter of President Donald Trump and flew across the country to be at the president’s massive rally on Wednesday, reports The New York Post. Babbitt also live-streamed a part of the march from the rally to the Capitol.

(Read more at NewsMax)

Whatever they do, it probably will not be justice

More than likely they will prosecute any of the crowd who have not paid their Democrat party dues, wait a few weeks, and then release the rest (as they already have with John Sullivan). Of course, like most stories that would benefit the conservative side, this story will be buried by the press.

On civility between the parties

House may wait until after Biden’s first 100 days to send impeachment articles against Trump to Senate

The Hill parrots James Clyburn in his claim that the House will forward articles of impeachment after Biden’s first 100 days.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) suggested Sunday that the Democratic House may wait until after President-elect Joe Biden’s first 100 days in office to send the Senate articles of impeachment against President Trump.

Asked by CNN’s Jake Tapper if he thought impeachment proceedings would take time away from confirming Biden’s Cabinet, Clyburn responded, “Yes, I do have concerns. And so does Speaker Pelosi.”

“Mitch McConnell is a pretty good legislator. And he’s doing what he thinks he needs to do to be disruptive of President Biden. But I would say to Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi is smarter than that,” added the No. 3 House Democrat, referring to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

“We will take the vote that we should take in the House. And [Pelosi] will make the determination as to when is the best time to get that vote and get the managers appointed and move that legislation over to the Senate,” Clyburn added.

“[L]et’s give president-elect Biden the 100 days he needs to get his agenda off and running,” Clyburn added. “And maybe we will send the articles some time after that.”

Clyburn went on to say he expected the House to have its final articles of impeachment sometime Monday and take floor action on them by Tuesday or Wednesday. While Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) has written a single article for incitement to insurrection in relation to last week’s deadly Capitol riots, Clyburn said House leaders are also exploring articles relating to the president pressuring Georgia officials to change election results.

(Read more at The Hill)

So, unless the Democrats change the rules again (as they did with the nuclear option) this will do nothing

Unless the the turncoat Republicans (aka Mitch McConnell, Dan Crenshaw, Michael McCaul, …) are willing to further motivate conservatives to start preparing for the next election, then the Democrats will either have to change the rules again or settle for having this second again impeachment do nothing.

On the other hand, Biden says he wants us to “unite”

Nothing says unite like prosecuting an impeachment for free speech (where President Trump told his followers to march peacefully).

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer calls for “unity” and “healing” before trolling Secretary DeVos

Townhall points out how Governor Whitmer made a call for unity and then followed that by trolling Education Secretary DeVos.

WhitmerIn the wake of violence at the United States Capitol carried out by supporters of President Trump, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D) joined calls for unity and a peaceful transition of presidential power in a joint statement with former Michigan Governor Rick Snyder (R-MI).

“What is unfolding today in our nation’s capital is truly appalling. Violence, vandalism, and insurrection have no place in this great country of ours. We are a nation of laws, not mobs,” Whitmer wrote. “Now is the time to put this election behind us once and for all. We must unify as one nation to defeat our real enemy, which is the pandemic that has taken far too many of our friends, neighbors, and loved ones.”

Just one day after calling for bipartisan unity, however, Whitmer took to Twitter to troll outgoing Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.

Republicans in Michigan blasted Whitmer for lack of leadership:


(Read more at Townhall)

This is not the first instance of hypocrisy with Whitmer

Of course, there was Memorial Day 2020 where Ms. Whitmer ordered everyone in Michigan to self quarantine; however, she dressed down a marina owner for not releasing the Whitmer family boat.

Then there was the time Ms. Whitmer told the people of her state not to travel to their summer homes, but her vehicles were seen in front of her summer home.

WhitmerDistancing

Testimony disproving the IG claims of "lack of bias:" Cases 1 & 2 (Graham & Gowdy)


Senator Graham: “Eventually ‘very concerned’ gets to be ‘enough already.’ ”

In the following video, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) pressed Inspector General Michael Horowitz about various various depictions of bias against then-candidate Donald Trump. (Emphasis is mine for key passages.)

Speaker Testimony
Sen. Graham: Would you say that this investigation was done by the book?
M. Horowitz: Um. Hard to say what “by the book” is.
Sen. Graham: Who wrote this book? If it was done by the book, who wrote the book?
M. Horowitz: There are reasons to raise questions.
Sen. Graham: I think you did a good job, but the whole idea that this is normal, folks: there’s nothing here normal. I don’t want you to think the FBI does this day in and day out. This is not normal. I think that’s what you tried to find.
M. Horowitz: Yes.
Sen. Graham: Do you believe it’s pretty clear to everybody in the country that July 5th that Donald Trump was the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party?
M. Horowitz: That’s my recollection, and from the …
Sen. Graham: The convention was on the 18th.
M. Horowitz: And the texts, I think, reflect that as well.
Sen. Graham: I’m going to read this text message from page to Strzok on August the 8th after he had gotten the nomination. She says, “Trump’s not ever going to become President, right? Right?!” Strzok responded, “No, no, he’s not. We’ll stop it.” Now I don’t know how you feel about that. That’s pretty unnerving. Strzok, wasn’t he the lead investigator of the Clinton e-mail investigation?
M. Horowitz: He was in essence the lead guy.
Sen. Graham: The head guy looking at Clinton on august 8th says we’ve got to stop Trump. Now was that just idol talk? A week later here’s what they say. Strzok text message to Lisa Page.  “I want to believe the path you threw out to consideration in Andy’s office that there’s no way he gets elected but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy and the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.” Now that’s a week later. Who’s Andy?
M. Horowitz: Our understanding it was Andy McCabe, the deputy director.
Sen. Graham: So, you have the deputy director meeting with the lead investigator of the Clinton e-mail investigation and Ms. Page, who’s involved somehow meeting in Andy’s office discussing taking out an insurance policy to make sure Donald Trump doesn’t become President? Is that what you’re telling us?
M. Horowitz: I’ll be clear, I can’t speak to whether McCabe — Mr. McCabe was there or not.
Sen. Graham: Did you ask Mr. McCabe?
M. Horowitz: We did. He said he did not recall.
Sen. Graham: So, one of them is lying. So, I want you to reopen this investigation and come back and tell us. Do you believe Strzok or do you believe McCabe? Because you just told me the deputy director of the FBI says he’s not the Andy.
M. Horowitz: He doesn’t — just to be clear, they’re talking about a conversation in his office?
Sen. Graham: Yes.
M. Horowitz: He’s claiming — he is saying he does not recall whether he was there or not and neither of those individuals are putting him in the middle of their conversation.
Sen. Graham: All I’m saying is that the Andy’s office where this occurred, he wasn’t there. What did Strzok — Strzok says he’s there. Somebody’s lying. Anyway, we’ll figure that out later. None of this is normal, folks. Let’s look at the actual interview itself. How many people were involved in the Clinton interview on July 2nd?
M. Horowitz: There were six or eight people present but two agents conducting the interview.
Sen. Graham: So, as I understand it, there were two agents and two prosecutors?
M. Horowitz: Correct.
Sen. Graham: Now this was an e-mail sent in February 2016 from page to McCabe. “Hey, you surely already considered this, but in my view our best reason to hold the line at two and two (two agents and two prosecutors) is she might be our next President.” How did you feel about that?
M. Horowitz: We were concerned about it and we lay out here why we were concerned.
Sen. Graham: OK. Let’s keep talking about this interview. One of the FBI agents in the interview said on election day to another FBI agent, “You should know that I’m with her.” Now “her” was Clinton, right?
M. Horowitz: Correct.
Sen. Graham: How do you feel about that?
M. Horowitz: Very concerned.
Sen. Graham: OK. Eventually “very concerned” gets to be “enough already.” I’m very concerned, you know — one, I’m glad I don’t text and e-mail, that’s one thing I’m glad I don’t do, but circumstances …  Have you ever proved a case by circumstantial evidence, Director Wray?
M. Horowitz: Yes.
Sen. Graham: Well, I’m going to write you a letter and talk to you about why you should reconsider your findings as to whether or not it affected the investigation. Here’s what Ms. Page — Mr. — Ms. Page said on March 4th, 2016. “God, Trump is a loathsome human.” How do you feel about that? I mean, she’s entitled to her opinion.
M. Horowitz: I think we’ve laid out here why we were so concerned about it.
Sen. Graham: Well, when you add it all up, as early as March these people hated Trump and this investigation was anything but by the book and at the end of the day what Comey did just blows me away as much as it does y’all, and I can’t believe that this happened to my FBI. I told you the story, Mr. Wray, Director Wray, about wanting to be part of the organization and y’all were smart enough not to take me. The bottom line is, if you’re on our side of the aisle, this really does hit you hard. And we can’t just write it off. I think there was a lot of bias that did affect an investigation that is to me almost impossible to explain using any standard that I grew up with as a prosecutor or even as a defense attorney.This is Strzok to Page on October 20th. “Trump is an f’ing idiot.” The bottom line is, I’m glad you found what you found, Mr. Horowitz.

I’m not buying that the Clinton e-mail investigation was on the up and up, and the reason I’m not buying it is because the two people intimately involved, one, the guy — the lead investigator clearly did not want to see Donald Trump become President of the United States. Finally, do you agree with me that finding her liable criminally would be inconsistent with stopping Donald Trump? If they found Hillary Clinton was criminally liable, that paves the way for Donald Trump. Can you put those two things together?

M. Horowitz: I guess it would depend when.
Sen. Graham: How about July? Before the convention.
M. Horowitz: It clearly could conceivably —
Sen. Graham: Well, not clearly conceivably, that’s exactly what’s happening here, folks. You cannot hold her criminally liable and stop him. As to the law, why did they change “gross negligence” in the original statement, Director Wray, to “reckless disregard?”
C. Wray: I think I would defer to the inspector general to look into that.
Sen. Graham: Why did they do that?
M. Horowitz: The explanation was that …
Sen. Graham: Can I suggest something.
M. Horowitz: Yes.
Sen. Graham: Gross negligence is a criminally liable standard.
M. Horowitz: Correct.
Sen. Graham: So, if they said it the way they originally wrote it, she’s guilty of a crime. And the reason they changed it is because she’s not guilty of a crime and if you want to stop him, it can’t be gross negligence. What is the difference between “reckless disregard” and “gross negligence?”
M. Horowitz: Not much.
Sen. Graham: It is a lot politically.
M. Horowitz: Right.

Representative Gowdy: “What is more textbook bias than prejudging this (Clinton) investigation before it’s over and this one (Trump’s) before it begins?

Speaker Testimony
Rep. Gowdy: Inspector General, there’s a text exchange between FBI lawyer Lisa Page and FBI agent Peter Strzok from August 8th of 2016 and in that text exchange, Lisa Page wrote “Trump’s not ever going to become President, right?” with a question mark. And followed that with “Right” with a question mark and an exclamation point in case anyone reading it may have missed the point of her emphasis.

Peter Strzok responded, “No. No, he’s not. We will stop it.”

Do I have that text exchange right?

M. Horowitz: You do.
Rep. Gowdy: Now Lisa Page was an FBI lawyer who worked on the Clinton email investigation.
M. Horowitz: That’s correct.
Rep. Gowdy: Did she also work on the Russia investigation?
M. Horowitz: Uh, she did.
Rep. Gowdy: How about the Mueller special counsel team?
M. Horowitz: She did for a period of time.
Rep. Gowdy: All right. So we’re three for three on her working on the two most important bureau investigations in 2016 and beyond. Now, is this the same Lisa Page that Andy McCabe used to leak information to a news outlet?
M. Horowitz: She was a special counsel, and as we indicated in our earlier report, she was the individual through whom he provided that information.
Rep. Gowdy: Wasn’t there also a text about an “insurance policy” in case Trump won and a meeting in “Andy’s office?” She was part of that text string, too, wasn’t she?
M. Horowitz: Correct. That was on August 15th.
Rep. Gowdy: All right, so this August 8 text was not the only time FBI lawyer Lisa Page was able to use the text feature on her phone. This is the same Lisa Page who admonished the agent interviewing Hillary Clinton not to go into that interview “loaded for bear” because Clinton might be the next president, and it’s the same Lisa Page who said Trump was “loathsome,” “awful,” “the man cannot become president; Clinton just has to win,” and that Trump “should go F— himself.”

Now, most of those comments were made before the Clinton investigation was over and we are somehow supposed to believe that she did not prejudge the outcome of that investigation before it was over? She already had Hillary Clinton winning. I don’t know how you can win if you’re gonna wind up getting indicted and/or plead guilty or be convicted of a felony.

I think we understand the first half of that text pretty well. She didn’t want Trump to win and wanted Clinton to win.

Now for the response: Senior FBI agent Peter Strzok wrote, “No, he’s not. We’ll stop it.” Now I think this is the same Peter Strzok who worked on the Clinton email investigation. Do I have that right?

M. Horowitz: Uh, that’s correct.
Rep. Gowdy: The same Peter Strzok who not only worked on the Russia investigation when it began, but was one of the lead investigators at the inception of the Russia probe. Do I have the right Peter Strzok?
M. Horowitz: That’s my understanding.
Rep. Gowdy: Now is it the same Peter Strzok who was put on the Mueller Special Counsel team?
M. Horowitz: Yes.
Rep. Gowdy: This is not the only time he managed to find the text feature on his phone either. This is the same Peter Strzok who said, “Trump is an idiot,” “Hillary should win 100 million to 0.” Mr. Inspector General, that one is interesting to me because he’s supposed to be investigating her for violations of the Espionage Act at the time he wrote that in March of 2016. He’s supposed to be investigating her for violations of the Espionage Act and he can’t think of a single solitary American that wouldn’t vote for her for President. I mean, can you see our skepticism? This senior FBI not only has her running, he has her winning 100 million to nothing.

So what if they found evidence sufficient to indict her? What if they had indicted her? Is this the same Peter — he wasn’t part of the interview of Secretary Clinton, was he?

M. Horowitz: He was present for the interview.
Rep. Gowdy: Huh. So, four months before that interview, he has her winning 100 million to 0. He wrote the bigoted nonsense of “Trump, Trump is a disaster.” “I have no idea how destabilizing his presidency would be,” He wrote, “F Trump,” “Trump is an F*ing idiot,” “On the prospects of Trump winning, this is f*ing terrifying.”

In addition to liking to use the “F” word, I think we have the same FBI agent, Lisa Page, and the same FBI agent, Peter Strzok, working on the Clinton email investigation, the Russia probe, and on Mueller’s team. So we have the right texts and the right people and I want to make sure we have the chronology right. Comey announces no charges for Secretary Clinton, right?

M. Horowitz: Correct.
Rep. Gowdy: July 28th, 2016, the FBI initiates a counterintelligence investigation into Russia and the Trump campaign and Strzok is not only on that Russia investigation team — he’s actually leading it. That’s three weeks after Clinton is exonerated by Comey. Strzok is leading an investigation into Russia and possible connections with the Trump campaign. That’s on the 28th of July. On the 31st of July, three days after the Russia investigation began, Strzok wrote, “Damn, this feels momentous. The other one did too, but this was to ensure we didn’t ‘f’ things up. This one matters, because IT MATTERS.” And if you happen to not know how important it is, he went ahead and put matters in all caps, in case you happen to not focus on the importance of why this matters. Now her investigation was just to make sure they didn’t “f” things up. This one, we’re three days into it, Inspector General Horowitz, three days into an investigation, but this one really matters. I wonder what he meant by saying the purpose of the Clinton investigation was to make certain they didn’t “f” things up? But the Russia investigation? No, no, that’s different. That one really mattered.

It almost sounds, Inspector General Horowitz, like they were going through the motions with the Clinton investigation. But boy, they sure were excited about the Russia one.

Then we get to August 6th, less than 10 days after the Russia investigation begins and Page says, “You are meant to protect the country from that menace.” And then we get to August 8th, 2016, less than two weeks after the Russia investigation even began. The lead FBI agent says he will stop Trump from becoming President. This is two weeks into an investigation and he’s already prejudged the outcome and we’re somehow supposed to believe that that bias was not outcome determinative. I can’t think of anything more outcome determinative that my bias against this person I’m investigating. With only two weeks worth of investigating, I have already determined he should not be the President of the United States.

Then we get to August 15th, just over two weeks into the Russia investigation. Strzok says, “I want to believe the path you threw out, that there’s no way he gets elected, but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy.”

Mr. Inspector General, that is two weeks into an investigation and he is talking about taking out an insurance policy because he can’t fathom the target of his investigation possibly becoming the President. So I want to go back to “No, no. He’s not going to be President. We’ll stop it.” What do you think “it” is in the phrase “We’ll stop it.”

M. Horowitz: I think it’s clear from the context we’re going to stop him from becoming President.
Rep. Gowdy: That’s what I thought too. I wonder who the “we” is in the “We’ll stop it.” Who do you think the “we” is?
M. Horowitz: That’s subject to multiple interpretations.
Rep. Gowdy: See if we can go through a couple of them.
M. Horowitz: Them or a broader group beyond that.
Rep. Gowdy: It’s hard to fathom a definition of “we” that doesn’t include him. He’s part of “we.” You could assume that the person he’s talking with is the FBI attorney who happens to be working on the Russia investigation. She may be part of the “we,” but I wonder, Inspector General, did you find any other FBI agents or FBI attorneys who manifest any animus or bias against President Trump?
M. Horowitz: We did.
Rep. Gowdy: How many?
M. Horowitz: We found three additional FBI agents, as we detail in the report.
Rep. Gowdy: And were any of them working on the Russia investigation?
M. Horowitz: I’m sorry, let me — two agents and one attorney …
Rep. Gowdy: Two other agents, one other attorney. Were they working on either the Russia investigation or the Mueller probe?
M. Horowitz: I believe two of the three were, but I would have to just double check on that.
Rep. Gowdy: Okay now Bob Mueller was named Special Counsel on May 17th, 2017. One day later, Mr. Horowitz, one day later, Peter Strzok is back on his phone texting some more, “For me and in this case, I personally have a sense of unfinished business. I unleashed it with the Clinton email investigation. Now I need to fix it and finish it.” Fix what?
M. Horowitz: Well, there is outlined in the report what Mr. Strzok’s explanation for …
Rep. Gowdy: Oh, I know what he says. I’m asking for the …
M. Horowitz: Our view is …
Rep. Gowdy: I’m asking the guy who had a distinguished career in the southern district of New York and a distinguished career in the Department of Justice. Would you rather cross-examine Peter Strzok or direct the examination on that?
M. Horowitz: Probably cross-examine.
Rep. Gowdy: That’s what I thought. How about “Finish it” when he said, “I unleashed it and now I need to fix it and finish it.”
M. Horowitz: I think in the context of the emails that occurred in August and the prior August you outlined, I think a reasonable explanation of it or reasonable inference of that is that he believed that he would use or potentially use his official authority to take action.
Rep. Gowdy: But this is 24 hours into him being put onto the Mueller probe. There’s no way he possibly could have prejudged the outcome of the investigation 24 … maybe he did. Maybe that’s the outcome-determinative bias my Democrat friends have such a hard time finding. Inspector General Horowitz, if one of your investigators talked about Lisa Page and Peter Strzok the way they talked about Donald Trump, would you have left them on the investigation?
M. Horowitz: Um. No.
Rep. Gowdy: Did you have an agent when you were a prosecutor with this level of bias?
M. Horowitz: You know, as I’ve laid out here, I thought that this was completely antithetical to the core values of the Department and extremely serious.
Rep. Madher: Speak up, please.
M. Horowitz: I’m sorry.
Rep. Gowdy: I heard you, but you can say it where Mr. Madher can hear you, too.
M. Horowitz: My view of this was that this was extremely serious, completely antithetical to the core values and my personal view (having been a prosecutor and worked with FBI agents). I can’t imagine FBI agents suggesting even that they might use their powers to investigate frankly any candidate for any office.
Rep. Gowdy: I can’t either and let me ask you this in conclusion: I think you’ve already — you laid out in your opening that Peter Strzok’s obsession with Donald Trump and the Russia investigation may have led him to take his eyes off of the Weiner laptop and, in a notably ironic way, caused Jim Comey to be a little bit later in sending those letters to Congress. So that is one example of outcome-determinative bias. But I have to ask you: You used to be in a courtroom. You were on the side of the United States and you worked for the Department of Justice. If someone is prejudging the outcome of an investigation before it ends and someone is prejudging the outcome of an investigation before it even begins, what is more textbook bias than prejudging this investigation before it’s over and this one before it begins? I am struggling to find a better example of outcome-determinative bias than that. So what am I missing?
M. Horowitz: Well, I think certainly with regard to the Russia investigation you mentioned (as you know), we are looking at that in an ongoing way. With regard to the Clinton email investigation, I think as we lay out here and go through it, we looked at text messages, emails, and documents to try to assess whether the specific decisions that we were asked to look at and then the ultimate prosecutorial decision were impacted by Strzok, Page, and the others’ views and what we ended up finding particularly as to the prosecutor’s decision was, that that decision they made exercising their discretion on their view of the policy, the law, and the facts as it was found. We’ve laid that out and, in our view, we didn’t find or see evidence that the prosecutors were impacted by that bias. The idea was to but out the facts for the public, members of the Congress  to see, and so the folks that want to take a look at those issues can assess them themselves.
Rep. Gowdy: My time is up I hope one of my other colleagues will explore that, because the explanation I’ve heard is that the failure to prosecute was predicated upon their belief that there was not sufficient evidence of intent on her behalf and I don’t know where in the hell you would go to find better evidence of intent than interviewing the person who actually was doing the intending and when you make up your mind that you’re not going to charge someone and you make up your mind that you need to not go in “loaded for bear”  and then you read the 302 and there’s not a single damn question on intent it is really hard for those of us who used to do this for a living to not conclude they’d made up their mind on intent before they even bothered to talk to the best repository of intent evidence which would be her.

The Liberal War on Identity: Part 2 – the Second Shot


 

Second Shot from the Liberal Side:

Obama Guides Schools to Accommodate Transgenders or Be Sued and Lose Federal Funds

In the heavy-handed method common to the “tolerant” liberal left, Obama issued a threat of lawsuits and loss of federal funding against schools who did not allow transgenders into the bathrooms and locker rooms of their choice (as reported in a 12 May 2016 CNN article).

“The Obama administration issued guidance Friday directing public schools to allow transgender students to use bathrooms matching their gender identity.

A joint letter from the Departments of Education and Justice went to schools Friday with guidelines to ensure that ‘transgender students enjoy a supportive and nondiscriminatory school environment,’ the Obama administration said.

The announcement comes amid a heated national debate over transgender rights in schools and public life. The administration is embroiled in a legal standoff with North Carolina over its controversial House Bill 2, part of which has to do with transgender bathroom access. Other states and local governments have attempted to draw lines around rights for transgender people with mixed results.

This latest guidance for schools goes beyond the bathroom issue, touching upon privacy rights, education records and sex-segregated athletics, all but guaranteeing transgender students the right to identify in school as they choose. It echoes what members of the administration have previously said on the topic.

‘There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their sex,’ Attorney General Loretta Lynch said. ‘This guidance gives administrators, teachers and parents the tools they need to protect transgender students from peer harassment and to identify and address unjust school policies.’

The letter does not carry the force of law but the message was clear: Fall in line or face loss of federal funding.

North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory slammed the guidance and called on Congress to address the issue.

‘Most Americans, including this governor, believe that government is searching for a solution to a problem that has yet to be defined. Now, both the federal courts and the U.S. Congress must intercede to stop this massive executive branch overreach, which clearly oversteps constitutional authority,’ McCrory said in a statement. ”

When America was battling uniformed Nazis, thoughts were known to be free.  Nobody could eradicate them.  Thoughts flew by and nobody could shoot them.  Now, all of American society stands under the threat of offending and then being held accountable to the Democrats (also known as the gender Nazis) for being insensitive.

For such an infraction against liberal thought, these tolerant Democrats will strip our schools of funding, will fine our businesses (as with Sweet Cakes by Melissa and Masterpiece Cakeshop), and throw you in jail (as with Kim Davis).

George Orwell had it right.  He just did not go far enough.