So what happens when you register dead folks and ghosts? You still lost, but maybe now you’ll go to jail. Another case of the left caught ch
Pennsylvania officials charged Jennifer Hill on Thursday for registering dead and non-existent people to vote in Pennsylvania.
Hill, 38 of Collingdale, worked for the New Pennsylvania Project or New PA Project. She was arrested on Thursday.
According to officials Hill filed more than 300 voter registration forms using an app provided by the Pennsylvania Department of State, but 129 of those were rejected as invalid. She was also caught registering her dead father and a dead acquaintance to vote in the 2024 election.
BREAKING: Woman in Pennsylvania is charged for registering dead and even nonexistent (!!!) people to vote. She’s employed by New PA Project, an org Democrats started in 2021. pic.twitter.com/dA5O7SACws
YAWN! Blue States Bring Back Mask Mandates Ahead of ‘Quad-demic’
By Mark Swanson | 19 December 2024
Multiple blue states are reinstating mask mandates ahead of a surge of four viruses that some are calling a “quad-demic” — flu, COVID, RSV, and Norovirus.
RWJBarnabas Health, New Jersey’s largest hospital system, announced Monday anyone walking through their doors needs a mask, possibly a hospital-supplied covering.
Several counties in San Francisco began mask mandates last month that run through April 30, 2025.
New York City officials last month recommended masks on public transportation.
“We know these viruses are coming. We see them increase every year,” Dr. Joe Bresee, an infectious diseases expert, told DailyMail.com. “We are in store for increases in circulation in these four over the next couple of months and that would cause what we call epidemics.”
COVID activity is “low” nationally but on the rise, with 4% infections in early November rising to 5.4% during the week of Dec. 7. Hospital admissions for flu-like respiratory illnesses jumped 14% in a two-week period through the week of Dec. 7, according to the report.
Regardless, research has shown the efficacy of masks to reduce the spread of COVID infections is largely a myth.
The Cochrane Institute published results of a study in January 2023 that found “uncertainty about the effects of face masks.” Cochrane analyzed 78 global studies involving more than 1 million people.
“The pooled results … did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection,” Cochrane’s study found.
The Florida governor is doing it the right way and he’s letting us all know. “FL’s best-in-the-nation legislation combating illegal immigration generated the typical array of false media narratives,” DeSantis wrote on X. “That such narratives blew up shows that good policy pays dividends.”
“So far, the critics have been wrong. Florida’s economy has continued to grow despite warnings about the impact of SB1718. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the state’s gross domestic product increased by 9.2% last year, tops in the nation and outpacing the national average by nearly 3 percentage points. In 2024, Florida’s economic growth remains strong, surpassing the national average in the first two quarters of the year, with Florida being one of just a handful of states to post 6% growth or higher in both quarters. This comes despite the Florida Policy Institute warning that the E-Verify requirement alone could cost the state $12.6 billion in its first year,” Forbes wrote in November.
A Georgia appeals court has disqualified Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from her election-related criminal case against President-elect Donald Trump, although the indictment still stands.
Willis’s office charged Trump and his codefendants in 2023 for what they alleged was a scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election in Georgia illegally. They pleaded not guilty.
However, Willis’s case hit a snag in early 2024 after it was revealed that she had a romantic relationship with the case’s then-special prosecutor, Nathan Wade. A Fulton County judge in March ruled that Willis could remain as prosecutor if Wade resigned, which he later did.
Trump and multiple codefendants appealed the judge’s decision to the Georgia Court of Appeals, which rendered its decision on Willis Thursday morning.
“After carefully considering the trial court’s findings in its order, we conclude that it erred by failing to disqualify DA Willis and her office,” the Georgia Court of Appeals’s majority wrote in its decision.
The court added that a “remedy crafted by the trial court to prevent an ongoing appearance of impropriety did nothing to address the appearance of impropriety that existed at times when DA Willis was exercising her broad pretrial discretion about who to prosecute and what charges to bring.”
Earlier this year, Trump codefendant Michael Roman alleged in court papers that Willis and Wade were in a romantic relationship.
During a court hearing weeks later, both Wade and Willis admitted to being romantically involved, although the pair denied allegations that either of them benefited financially from the arrangement. They also disputed claims that their relationship started after Wade was hired as a special prosecutor and ended in the summer of 2023.
In rendering a decision to allow Willis to stay on the case, Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee wrote that an “odor of mendacity” persisted in light of the allegations against the district attorney and Wade.
McAfee also admonished Willis for the “unprofessional manner” in how she conducted herself during the evidentiary hearing and showed a “lapse in judgment.” He also chided her for what he described as racially charged statements she made at a church in Atlanta after Roman made the allegations against her.
However, the judge said he was not able to conclusively establish that there was a conflict of interest.
Throughout the court battle, Willis has defended her own conduct and Wade’s qualifications. During a CNN interview earlier this year, Willis said she believes the appeals court proceedings were only an attempt to slow down the case.
“I do think that there are efforts to slow down the train, but the train is coming,” Willis said at the time, adding that she does not believe her relationship with Wade impacted the case.
The case against Trump and the others, including former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, had been stalled for months as the appeals court considered the Willis removal petition.
The ruling Thursday now means that the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia will have to find another prosecutor to take over the case and decide whether to pursue it, though that could be delayed if Willis appeals to higher courts.
It appears unlikely that prosecution against Trump will continue as he prepares to be president for the next four years. But 14 other defendants still face charges.
Prosecutors dropped two federal criminal cases against Trump since he won the presidency in November.
Meanwhile, a judge in New York has said he would not throw out Trump’s conviction in May on the case alleging 34 counts of falsifying business records, though the future of that case is uncertain.
Saying that someone like a public figure is a criminal and has committed a crime or crimes, takes you into murky waters. Just ask ABC and George.
Yes, calling someone a “criminal” without proof can be considered slander, as it is a false statement that could significantly damage their reputation and is generally considered a defamatory statement per se, meaning it is automatically harmful and does not require additional proof of damage to be actionable in court.
Key points to remember:
Slander is spoken defamation:
When a false statement damaging someone’s reputation is spoken, it is considered slander.
Defamation per se:
Certain types of statements, like accusing someone of committing a crime, are considered “defamation per se” because they are inherently harmful and do not require additional proof of damage.
Proof required:
To successfully sue for slander, you must prove that the statement was false, published to a third party, made with at least a negligent mental state, and caused actual harm to the person’s reputation.
Now that ABC and George settled, we’re hearing that MSM is going over all their Anchors comments about accusing Trump of crimes. CNN, and MSNBC most likely are the biggest worriers.
You can say nasty stuff and have 1st Amendment protection. But when you make false claims saying someone committed crimes and is a criminal, you are in very dangerous water.
Yes, calling someone a “criminal” without proof can be considered slander, as it is a false statement that could significantly damage their reputation and is generally considered a defamatory statement per se, meaning it is automatically harmful and does not require additional proof of damage to be actionable in court.
Key points to remember:
Slander is spoken defamation:
When a false statement damaging someone’s reputation is spoken, it is considered slander.
Defamation per se:
Certain types of statements, like accusing someone of committing a crime, are considered “defamation per se” because they are inherently harmful and do not require additional proof of damage.
Proof required:
To successfully sue for slander, you must prove that the statement was false, published to a third party, made with at least a negligent mental state, and caused actual harm to the person’s reputation.
Chairman Loudermilk Releases Second January 6, 2021 Report. A follow up to the first report. Worth going over.
December 17, 2024
WASHINGTON – Today, Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk (GA-11) released an interim report on his findings on the events surrounding January 6, 2021, as well as his investigation into the politicization of the January 6th Select Committee. This report outlines criminal recommendations against former Representative Liz Cheney.
TOP FINDINGS:
1. Former Representative Liz Cheney colluded with “star witness” Cassidy Hutchinson without Hutchinson’s attorney’s knowledge.
2. Former Representative Liz Cheney should be investigated for potential criminal witness tampering based on the new information about her communication.
3. Cassidy Hutchinson’s most outrageous claims lacked any evidence, and the Select Committee had knowledge that her claims were false when they publicly promoted her.
President Trump did not attack his Secret Service Detail at any time on January 6.
President Trump did not have intelligence indicating violence on the morning of January 6.
Cassidy Hutchinson falsely claimed to have drafted a handwritten note for President Trump on January 6.
Representative Cheney and Cassidy Hutchinson baselessly attempted to disbar Hutchinson’s former attorney.
4. Former Representative Liz Cheney used the January 6 Select Committee as a tool to attack President Trump, at the cost of investigative integrity and Capitol security.
5. The January 6 Select Committee was improperly constituted and lacked authority.
6. The January 6 Select Committee neglected or withheld evidence from its Final Report and deleted voluminous records it should have preserved.
7. The Department of Defense scapegoated the Washington D.C. National Guard to distract blame from senior leadership.
Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller dismissed President Trump’s order prior to January 6 to use “any and all” military assets to keep the demonstrations safe.
Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy intentionally delayed the D.C. National Guard’s response to the Capitol on January 6, despite authorization.
The Department of Defense Inspector General published a flawed report containing fabrications and ignored relevant information.
The Department of Defense and the Department of Defense Inspector General knowingly and inaccurately placed blame on D.C. National Guard leadership for the delayed response on January 6.
The Department of Defense Inspector General was not responsive to the Subcommittee’s requests and even obstructed the Subcommittee’s investigation.
The Subcommittee detected an inappropriately close relationship between the Department of Defense and its watchdog Inspector General.
8. The FBI and Capitol Police both failed to investigate the individuals responsible for building fake gallows on Capitol grounds on January 6.
9. The Subcommittee published more than 44,000 hours of CCTV footage from the Capitol.
10. The Subcommittee conducted an extensive review of the investigation into the two pipe bombs on January 5 and 6, and that report is set to be released within the next few days.
This interim report reveals that there was not just one single cause for what happened at the U.S. Capitol on January 6; but it was a series of intelligence, security, and leadership failures at several levels and numerous entities.
Over the course of the 118th Congress, this Subcommittee has interviewed hundreds of witnesses, scoured over millions of pages of documents, analyzed thousands of hours of surveillance videos, listened to hundreds of hours of radio communications, and conducted hearings.
Chairman Loudermilk released his first January 6, 2021 report, “Initial Findings Report” on March 11, 2024 which focused on identifying and reviewing the numerous security failures on and leading up to, January 6, 2021, and reviewed the creation, operation, and claims made by Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Select Committee to investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. Click here to view the Initial Findings Report.
Sore Losers: Senate Dems want to Eliminate the Electoral College Via Constitutional Amendment.
There’s a good reason why a jackass symbolizes the misnamed “Democratic” party!
I walked away too.
Senate Democrats, having failed to defeat President-elect Donald Trump in the 2024 election, want to change the rules.
Ironically, however, those same Senate Democrats do not seem to understand that their arguments for destroying a core principle of our federal republic would also justify eliminating the Senate itself.
Monday on the social media platform X, the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, announced a “bill to abolish the Electoral College, restoring democracy by allowing the direct election of presidents through popular vote alone.”
Durbin, who has also proposed arming illegal immigrants, joined two of his colleagues, Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii and Democratic Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont, in introducing a proposed constitutional amendment that, if adopted, would abolish the Electoral College.
“In 2000, before the general election, I introduced a bipartisan resolution to amend the Constitution and abolish the Electoral College. I still believe today that it’s time to retire this 18th century invention,” Durbin said.
Fortunately, the authors of the Constitution understood the tyrannical threat posed by people like Durbin.
Hence, an amendment is required to eliminate something as fundamental to our federal republic as the Electoral College, which appears in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Under Article V, two thirds of both houses of Congress, plus three fourths of the states, must approve said amendment.
In other words, Senate Democrats have no chance of abolishing the Electoral College, that perennial object of their unhinged fixation.
Still, their behavior requires explanation. And voters need to understand why they must never allow Democrats to succeed in their sinister quest.
First, the reason for Monday’s announcement seems obvious. Senate Democrats hope to change the narrative surrounding Trump’s victory.
According to the Associated Press, with all states finallyhaving counted at least 99 percent of votes from the 2024 election, Trump will win the national popular vote by more than two million votes. Thus, Senate Democrats’ constitutional amendment would not have changed the outcome.
Still, Trump has generated significant momentum and stands poised to reenter the White House as popular as ever. Senate Democrats, therefore, needed to rally their own voters around their shopworn lie of defending “democracy.”
Moreover, recent history has proven that Democrats prosper amid the electoral chaos they create. And eliminating the Electoral College would sow unfathomable chaos.
Imagine how presidential elections would unfold if determined by the national popular vote. Imagine waiting on California, for instance, to finish counting its votes more than a month after Election Day.
As it stands, California awards 54 electoral votes — no more, no less. So we know in advance exactly the degree to which Californians will influence the election’s outcome.
But what if California Democrats had an incentive to find as many votes as possible? Would any Republican trust the outcome of elections conducted in that manner?
Second — one marvels at the irony — Senate Democrats’ argument for abolishing the Electoral College also applies to the Senate.
“I’m excited to partner with my friends and colleagues Senator Schatz and Chair Durbin on this important constitutional amendment, which will help empower every voter in every state,” Welch said, per The Hill.
But the Senate itself does not reflect the will of “every voter in every state” — far from it.
In fact, the Electoral College, which awards electoral votes based on a state’s population, comes exponentially closer to reflecting the will of “every voter in every state” than the Senate ever has or ever will.
Indeed, regardless of population, two senators per state hardly sounds like “democracy.”
And that is the point: America’s constitutional republic incorporates democratic principles, but it is not a democracy, and it must never become one, lest we endure the unbridled tyranny of electoral majorities.
Instead, America’s constitutional system provides for a meaningful division of power between the national and state governments. The Electoral College, by empowering the people of all the states to conduct their own elections and award their electoral votes as they see fit consistent with the Constitution, helps prevent the tyrannical consolidation of states into a single, omnipotent national government.
Thus, Democratic leadership must never succeed in eliminating the Electoral College. Should they do so, they would create a convincing argument for abolishing the Senate itself. At that point, the federal constitutional structure would have collapsed, and the Union would likely dissolve.
Pass a law that bans any electric battery not made in the USA. Give companies two years to comply. Until the mining of minerals can be be done here, allow the minerals from non Communist/Socialist countries.
Use what’s left of Biden’s $7.5 billion plan to build charging stations and shifting the money to battery-minerals processing and the “national defense supply chain and critical infrastructure.”
Finally give the $7,500 tax credit to those who buy American made hybrid or gasoline fueled cars.
The SDCSO confirmed that state law allows cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The sheriff argued this has already been debated and decided on at the state level, and that her authority is clearly laid out.
The post asserted the sheriff’s office “will not change its practices based on the Board resolution” and dismissed the county board’s attempt to dictate law enforcement policy.
“California law prohibits the Board of Supervisors from interfering with the independent, constitutionally and statutorily designated investigative functions of the Sheriff, and is clear that the Sheriff has the sole and exclusive authority to operate the county jails.”
Today’s outrageous decision to turn San Diego County into a “Super” Sanctuary County is an affront to every law-abiding citizen who values safety and justice. The Board of Supervisors’ 3-1 vote to embrace this radical policy is a direct betrayal of the people we are sworn to… pic.twitter.com/LypCR5S1GX
