Judge Releases Hunter Biden Plea Deal. The judge who bitch slapped Hunter has released the full transcript of the under the table deal the government did with Hunter. We have this from Newsmax.
Noreika also released the diversion agreement, which included that the U.S. agreed to “not criminally prosecute Biden, outside of the terms of this Agreement, or any federal crimes encompassed by the attached Statement of Facts (Attachment A) and the Statement of Facts attached as Exhibit 1 to the Memorandum of Plea Agreement filed this same day.”
The Republican heads of three House committees on Monday announced in a letter they will investigate the circumstances surrounding Biden’s failed plea deal, the New York Post reported.
The rest of the story. Democrat congresswoman lashes out at Biden over ‘shameful’ Space Command decision: ‘I expected more’. The Space Command HQ was to be moved to Alabama. In a survey of locations, the present location was picked fifth.
“Huntsville finished first in both the Air Force’s Evaluation Phase and Selection. The GAO did the survey to see what location would be the best. Was it political? Three red states with four locations scored higher than Colorado.
Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Ala., released a statement late Monday sharply attacking Biden over the decision, calling it “shameful” and accusing him of bowing “to the whims of politics over merit.”
“This Administration’s decision to keep Space Command in Colorado bows to the whims of politics over merit. Huntsville’s merits won this selection process fair and square,” Sewell said. “In three separate reports, Huntsville reigned victorious, whereas Colorado did not come in second or even third.”
“This reversal is as shameful as it is disappointing. I expected more from the Biden Administration. A decision of this magnitude should not be about red states versus blue states, but rather what is best for our national security. To be clear, the Alabama Congressional Delegation stands united in opposition to this decision,” she added.
The Administration’s decision to keep Space Command in Colorado bows to the whims of politics over merit.
Huntsville won this selection process fair and square.
Large money-center banks appear to be in the vanguard of a movement to build a system of personal social credit scores.
This week, British bank Barclays became the latest to be accused of shutting the accounts of its customers for political or religious reasons. This followed revelations in April that Coutts, a private bank owned by British Bank NatWest, was alleged to have closed the accounts and publicized personal information of conservative politician Nigel Farage, one of the foremost Brexit advocates and a supporter of the policies of former U.S. President Donald Trump.
And British banks are not alone. Many say that America’s largest banks are in lockstep with UK banks in establishing political and social criteria for their customers and punishing those who don’t comply.
“Sadly, what we’re seeing now with NatWest and Barclays isn’t surprising,” Justin Haskins, director at the Heartland Institute, told The Epoch Times. “There is a mountain of evidence that shows many of America’s largest and most powerful banks are discriminating against customers because of their ideological, social, cultural, religious, or political views.”
“Through various environmental, social, and governance (ESG) policies and frameworks, banks regularly choose to screen out customers who are deemed ‘reputational risks’ or considered part of industries disfavored by elites and their powerful institutions,” Mr. Haskins said.
UK Ministers Find Fault With Discriminating Banks
In contrast to the United States, where regulators have taken no action, UK ministers have stepped in to defend their citizens against political discrimination.
“Andrew Griffith, the economic secretary of the UK, met with some of the major banks recently and got them all to commit to a principle of non-discrimination, based on lawful expression,” Michael Ross, counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), told The Epoch Times.
In addition, laws are currently in works to ban UK banks from discriminating against customers on a political or religious basis.
UK Treasury Minister Baroness Penn stated last week: “I think the point that we can all agree on is that the right to lawful freedom of speech is fundamental. And where that has seemed to be brought into question through the provision of services, we have cause to worry.”
UK Foreign Secretary James Cleverly stated that the closure of Mr. Farage’s accounts was “wrong on so many levels.”
“This completely undermines the trust we have in our banking and financial systems,” Mr. Cleverly said. “We are better than this.”
UK Home Secretary Suella Braverman posted to Twitter on July 19: “The Coutts scandal exposes the sinister nature of much of the Diversity, Equity & Inclusion industry. Apparently anyone who wants to control our borders & stop the boats can be branded ‘xenophobic’ & have their bank account closed in the name of ‘inclusivity.’”
A photograph taken on July 28, 2023 shows the headquarters of the private bank Coutts, in London.(Photo by HENRY NICHOLLS/AFP via Getty Images)
As part of the new UK regulations, banks that close customer accounts will be required to give a reason, and customers will have the right to appeal the bank’s decision. Banks who continue to discriminate may lose their licenses.
Meanwhile, British banks themselves appear to be turning against these policies, or at least of the unfavorable publicity they are now facing as a result.
On July 26, NatWest Chief Executive Alison Rose resigned after Mr. Farage’s allegations were substantiated and it was revealed that she had discussed Mr. Farage’s details with BBC news. Ms. Rose stated that she was guilty of a “serious error of judgment.”
On Thursday, Peter Flavel, CEO of Coutts, also resigned, saying he took “ultimate responsibility” for the closure of Mr. Farage’s bank accounts. The UK government data watchdog has promised an investigation, sending a letter to banks to remind them that customers’ personal information should be kept private.
John Edwards, the UK’s information commissioner, said: “The banking duty of confidentiality is over a hundred years old, and it is clear that it would not permit the discussion of a customer’s personal information with the media.
“We trust banks with our money and with our personal information,” Mr. Edwards stated. “Any suggestion that this trust has been betrayed will be concerning for a bank’s customers, and for regulators like myself.”
US Banks Also Discriminate, Experts Say
JPMorgan Chase, America’s largest bank, has also faced allegations of political and religious discrimination.
“We’re already seeing this happening in the U.S.,” ADF’s Mr. Ross said.
“Before this, there was obviously Sam Brownback and the National Committee for Religious Freedom,” he said, referring to accounts allegedly closed by JPMorgan Chase. “Chase also canceled Defense of Liberty a couple years ago, retired General Michael Flynn, the Family Council—all of them are designated either high risk or reputational risk.”
In May, longtime JPMorgan Chase shareholder David Bahnsen brought a shareholder action against the bank, claiming that it had closed the accounts of a religious organization established by former senator and U.S. Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback for political reasons.
While the action ultimately failed to gain majority support from shareholders, Mr. Bahnsen stated, “One thing I am certain of is that the next time a bank manager decides to close an account for somebody like Ambassador Brownback, they’re going to think twice about doing it. This was covered far and wide by both the left wing press and the right wing press, and I do not believe it looked good upon JPMorgan.”
In November 2021, WePay, a payment services company owned by JPMorgan Chase, abruptly canceled services they were providing for Defense of Liberty, a conservative organization, for an event featuring Donald Trump Jr. WePay said at the time that they would not serve anyone who promotes “hate, violence, racial intolerance, terrorism, the financial exploitation of a crime.”
This prompted Missouri Treasurer Scott Fitzpatrick to threaten to halt state business with the bank.
In July 2021, Family Council faced a similar denial of service.
“Although Family Council generally tries to avoid doing business with companies like Chase, at 10:29 am on July 7, 2021, our office received a terse email from our credit card processor—a company owned by J.P. Morgan Chase—saying, ‘Unfortunately, we can no longer support your business.’ At 10:30 AM they terminated our account, and we could no longer accept donations,” Family Council stated.
“For nearly two years we had used this company to process donations that our supporters made to Family Council and the Education Alliance via our websites. If you gave by credit or debit card, this company handled the transaction. Without a processor, it’s impossible for a nonprofit to accept donations online.”
On March 23, financial officers from 14 states wrote a letter to JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon expressing their “concern that the bank is engaged in what appears to be politically motivated de-banking of certain industries, individuals and groups.”
“A large number of our pension funds are direct shareholders of Chase, and as stewards of our states’ investment dollars, we are concerned that the company’s recent pattern of apparent politically motivated de-banking constitutes a breach of its fiduciary duty,” they stated. “Under the law, you and the other officers of the company must act to maximize profit and must not subordinate the company’s long-term financial well-being to extraneous personal or political ends.”
And on May 2, 19 State attorneys general wrote a letter to Mr. Dimon stating: “It is clear that JPMorgan Chase & Co. has persistently discriminated against certain customers due to their religious or political affiliation.
“This discrimination is unacceptable,” the AGs wrote. “Chase must stop such behavior and align its business practices with the anti-discrimination policies that Chase proclaims.”
Discrimination Could Spread Beyond Politics
Some say they are concerned that bank discrimination could spread beyond political and religious views to a broader social credit system that might also include things like environmental behavior and gun control.
“There is every reason to believe that current discriminatory practices in banking could soon expand to personal CO2 emissions or gun purchases,” Mr. Haskins said.
“Banks and other financial institutions have already started to discriminate with gun companies, either through higher fees or rates or by refusing to do business entirely, and every large bank in the United States, from Bank of America to Citi and Wells Fargo, have said they have started the process of phasing out CO2 emissions from their entire business model, including lending and banking services,” he said. “This will take a few decades to complete, but if these banks go through with their plans, individuals and companies that rely on fossil fuels—almost everyone today—will be greatly affected.”
“The policies they use to do this are very expansive policies, like ‘reputational risk’ or ‘politically exposed person,’” Mr. Ross said. “There’s not really a limiting principle there, and so we can certainly see it aimed at any sort of political opponent or anyone who has views that activists or even government actors think are unpopular.”
“We’ve been carefully monitoring Chase, which de-banked General Flynn and de-banked other conservatives, then last fall de-banked Ambassador Brownback’s organization,” Scott Shepard, a director at the National Center for Public Policy Research, told The Epoch Times.
“We’ve seen similar behavior at Bank of America, along with Bank of America sharing private information about the transactions of customers without warrants.”
“And just this last week, they de-banked a couple of doctors who are out talking about the inefficacy of [COVID-19] vaccines, that they won’t stop transmission, that they won’t make takers immune, etc., and the bank still hasn’t explained why,” Mr. Shepard said. “We’ve seen similar behavior at Bank of America, along with Bank of America sharing private information about the transactions of customers without warrants. And last week, we found out that that happens all the time; [FBI Director] Chris Wray says so.”
At a Congressional hearing on July 12, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) asked Mr. Wray: “George Hill, former FBI supervisory intelligence analyst in the Boston field office, told us that Bank of America, with no legal process, gave to the FBI gun purchase records with no geographical boundaries for anybody that was a Bank of America customer. Is that true?”
To which Mr. Wray replied: “A number of business community partners all the time, including financial institutions, share information with us about possible criminal activity, and my understanding is that that’s fully lawful.”
Some have argued that, as private companies, banks are free to do business with whichever customers they choose. However, this position has been challenged on the grounds that financial services are critical to the ability of people and organizations to be able to function in modern society.
“Banks in particular receive a ton of bailouts and public benefits from the government and from taxpayers here,” Mr. Ross said. “They do this so that they can serve the public.”
“So when they turn around and start weaponizing these financial services to cut off people with views they don’t like, they’re breaking the public trust,” he noted.
“The American banks that seem to be leading these de-banking and discrimination policies are the too-big-to-fail banks,” Mr. Shepard said. “If you’re backstopped by American taxpayers, you get to keep your profits but we cover your losses—you may not discriminate against the viewpoint of any American.”
The Epoch Times requested comments from JPMorgan Chase, NatWest, and Barclays for this article but did not receive a response by the time of publication.
The most embarrassing revelation of the “Facebook Files” released by House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan yesterday (described in more detail here) involves the news media:
In one damning email, an unnamed Facebook executive wrote to Mark Zuckerberg and Cheryl Sandberg:
We are facing continued pressure from external stakeholders, including the White House and the press, to remove more Covid-19 vaccine discouraging content.
We see repeatedly in internal communications not only in the email above, but in the Twitter Files, in the exhibits of the Missouri v Biden lawsuit, and even in the Freedom of Information request results beginning to trickle in here at Racket, that the news media has for some time been working in concert with civil society organizations, government, and tech platforms, as part of the censorship apparatus.
In the summer of 2021, the White House and Joe Biden were in the middle of a major factual faceplant. They were not only telling people the Covid-19 vaccine was a sure bet — “You’re not going to get Covid if you have these vaccinations” is how Biden put it — but that those who questioned its efficacy were “killing people.” But the shot didn’t work as advertised. It didn’t prevent contraction or transmission, something Biden himself continued to be wrong about as late as December of that year.
If you go back and give a careful read to corporate media content from that time describing the administration’s war against “disinformation,” you’ll see outlets were themselves not confident the vaccine worked. Take the New York Times effort from July 16th, 2021, “They’re Killing People: Biden Denounces Social Media for Virus Disinformation.” You can see the Times tiptoeing around what they meant, when they used the word “disinformation.” In this and other pieces they used phrases like, “the spread of anti-vaccine misinformation,” “how to track misinformation,” “the prevalence of misinformation,” even “Biden’s forceful statement capped weeks of anger in the White House over the dissemination of vaccine disinformation,” but they repeatedly hesitated to say what the misinformation was.
Any editor will tell you this language is a giveaway. Journalists wrote expansively about “disinformation,” but rarely got into specifics. They knew that they couldn’t state with certainty that the vaccine worked, that there weren’t side effects, etc., yet still denounced people who asked those questions. This is because they agreed with the concept of “malinformation,” i.e. there are things that may be true factually, but which may produce political results considered adverse. “Hestiancy” was one such bugbear. Note the language from the unnamed Facebook executive above, which describes the press lashing out “Covid-19 vaccine discouraging content,” not “disinformation.”
This is total corruption of the news. We’re supposed to be in the business of questioning officials, even if the questions are unpopular. That’s our entire role! If we don’t do that, we serve no purpose, maybe even a negative purpose. Moreover, think of the implications. News outlets wail about “disinformation” when they’re aware the public has tuned them out. When people don’t listen to reporters, it’s usually because they suck. You can do the math, as to why the current crop embraces censorship. A more embarrassing outcome for our business would be hard to imagine.
We are now being told that producing food is bad for the planet. To “save” the planet, globalists insist, farms must be shut down across the globe.
A family with starving children, Wikimedia Commons.
Under the guise of reducing “methane emissions,” thirteen nations have signed a pledge to engineer global famine by gutting agricultural production and shutting down farms. Announced earlier this year by the Global Methane Hub — a cabal of crisis engineers who exploit public panic to destroy the world food supply — those thirteen nations are:
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Germany, Panama, Peru, Spain, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and Uruguay.
Imagine no meat production from Australia, Brazil and the USA. This is the goal of the globalists. And they admit it’s all part of the climate fraud which has been thoroughly exposed as a quack science hoax, by the way. As Luis Planas, Spain’s Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food says, “I am glad to see the shared commitment by the international community to mitigate methane emissions from agriculture as a means to achieve the goals we signed for in the Paris Agreement on climate.”
“Food systems are responsible for 60% of methane emissions,” warns Marcelo Mena, CEO of the Global Methane Hub. She is saying that farming is destroying the planet. Hence, their demand to shut down farms. Without farms, you have no food. And without food, you get exactly what Kamala Harris called for over the weekend: “Reduced population.”
The depopulation agenda is no longer even a secret. They are bragging about it.
And here’s their logic: FOOD = GLOBAL WARMING. So they are attacking food and shutting it down.
Starving child in Africa.
Cows and chickens to be replaced by crickets and insect larvae
Enjoy the crunchy fake meat patties and Cricket McNuggets. Soon, you’ll be eating bugs because meat will be wildly unaffordable due to the governments shutting down farms and ranches. As journalist Leo Hohmann explains:
We can presume from this language that among the practices being considered are replacing a major portion of the beef and dairy cattle, pork and chicken stocks that populations rely on for protein with insect larvae, meal worms, crickets, etc. The U.N., World Economic Forum and other NGOs have been promoting meatless diets and the consumption of insect protein for years, and billionaires have invested in massive insect factories being built in the state of Illinois, in Canada and in the Netherlands, where meal worms, crickets and other bugs will be processed as additives to be inserted into the food supply, often without clear labels that will inform people of exactly what they are eating.
Hohmann also refers to the Deagel forecast which projects an almost 70 percent reduction of the U.S. population by 2025, saying:
There is no more efficient way to depopulate than through war, famine and plagues. Isn’t it interesting that all three of these time-tested methods of murder are in play right now?
In a related story, Michael Snyder from The Economic Collapse Blog writes:
Global food supplies just keep getting even tighter, and global hunger has risen to extremely alarming levels… According to the United Nations, nearly 30 percent of the global population does not have constant access to food right now, and there are approximately 900 million people that are facing “severe food insecurity”…
Chinese children starving.
Gee, add to that the next global PLANdemic, and you can see (if you take off your leftist blinders) where this is headed. And the BIDEN REGIME is particpating in it!–TPR
When I was growing up, “I’m sorry,” was the requisite response to “you apologize to your sister right this minute” after you yanked out a handful of her hair or accidentally (on purpose) broke her favorite Barbie. There was no genuine remorse or promise of reform required. “I’m sorry” bought you half-hearted forgiveness, got you out of major trouble, or both.
It was basically BS.
As a mother and a career linguist, “I’m sorry” wasn’t an option if my daughters injured, outraged, or offended each other — whether carelessly or intentionally. The phrase was trite, I explained; meaningless. Instead, because I believe that words matter deeply, I chose to encourage this alternative: “I feel bad about what I did, and I’ll try not to do it again.” (Without the trying part, it would be almost as platitudinous as “I’m sorry.”)
It must suck to have a mom who’s a writer.
Like just about everything else in the world, words have gotten wonky since COVID came to town. Almost out of the gate, we were told to shelter in place, a phrase once employed only in life-or-death, bombs-are-falling, get-under-your-desks emergencies. Suddenly it meant, “You know, you should really probably stay at home unless you’re out of Pantene, your dog swallowed a sock, or someone in your circle needs a margarita to go.”
Some words saw their actual, official definitions altered to fit the emerging narrative. Merriam-Webster quietly decided that an “anti-vaxxer” was no longer simply a person who opposes the use of some or all vaccines, but henceforth would also describe those who oppose regulations mandating them. So basically, you can be quadruple-juiced and pro-medical freedom, and you might as well start making homemade granola and get yourself some nice bell-bottom jeans and a tie-dyed top, you dirty hippy.
It’s right there on the website!
Similarly, the CDC changed its definition of “vaccine” mid-pandemic from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease” to “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” Convenient, right? They never said it protected you from anything. It’s right there on the website!
When I asked ChatGPT to tell me what a breakthrough case of COVID was, it described this unicorn-level occurrence as “when a person who has been fully vaccinated against the virus later becomes infected with the virus.” The AI chat platform nearly tripped over itself to add: “It is important to note, however, that breakthrough cases are still relatively rare. Vaccines have been shown to be highly effective in preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19, even against new variants of the virus.” Never mind the countless analyses that have found that your risk of severe illness, hospitalization, and death increases with each booster. It’s just those pesky breakthrough cases. (Oh, and you’re a domestic terrorist if you say or even think otherwise.)
By literal definition, disinformation is “false information deliberately and often covertly spread in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth.” And yet the Center for Countering Digital Hate (the irony!) boldly baptized 12 individuals the “Disinformation Dozen” for promoting proven therapeutics, acknowledging natural immunity, pointing out the abysmal failure of the so-called vaccines, and encouraging natural remedies. A proper logophile (or domestic terrorist) might dub them the “Inconvenient to Pharma Dozen.” But semantics.
There was no vaccine law.
Curiously, the definition of a mandate is “an authoritative command.” A law, on the other hand, is “any written or positive rule prescribed under the authority of [a] state or nation.” It’s essentially the difference between, “Hey, kid, get off my lawn,” and, “You’re under arrest for criminal trespassing.” There was no vaccine law, I’ll remind you. And yet students, pilots, travelers, teachers, frontline medical workers, and millions of employees from countless fields lined up for an experimental gene therapy injection because they were commanded authoritatively to do so.
Is anyone else as angry about this as I am?
At least 1,553,187 people: the current number of COVID vaccine injuries reported to VAERS.
Last but certainly not least, we have our two best pandemic friends, “safe” and “effective”. Synonyms for safe include harmless, risk-free, trustworthy, sound, and reliable; some recommended substitutes for effective are powerful, useful, successful, valuable, and potent. If it was a known, documented fact that at least 1,553,187 people — the current number of COVID vaccine injuries reported to VAERS — lost life or limb visiting a certain theme park, would you rush to purchase an annual pass? (And also, might you briefly question why it was still open to the public?) If you discovered that a specific type of birth control actually increased your odds of becoming pregnant, would you make it your go-to contraceptive or recommend it to your child-phobic friends? These are comical things to consider — and yet you can’t drive down the highway, scroll through social media, or peruse a single mainstream news site without encountering at least a handful of helpful reminders to get your safe and effective COVID booster.
If we hear something often enough, it becomes accepted as fact. To wit: If you swallow your gum, it takes seven years to digest. (Altogether untrue.) Sugar makes you hyper. (Zero studies support this.) Lightning never strikes twice. (Ask this guy who’s been zapped seven times.) Iraq was teeming with weapons of mass destruction. (Whoops.)
Rudyard Kipling said, “Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind.”
Indeed, words and drugs can radically impact our emotions, thoughts, and behaviors. Let’s choose both wisely.
[* It is clear from the word choices, UPPER CASE WORDS, and quotation marks that this person’s article is saying the opposite of what he claims to be for or against. He is mocking at least half the country. — TPR]
I mean, what kind of country have we become? One in which federal prosecutors can take “evidence” before a “grand jury,” and that grand jury can “vote to indict” a former president for 37 alleged “crimes”? Look at all the other people out there in America, including Democrats like Hillary Clinton and President Joe Biden, who HAVEN’T been indicted for crimes on the flimsy excuse that there is no “evidence” they did crimes. THAT’S TOTALLY UNFAIR!
It’s like Republican Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin wrote in a tweet Friday: “These charges are unprecedented and it’s a sad day for our country, especially in light of what clearly appears to be a two-tiered justice system where some are selectively prosecuted, and others are not.”
TWO TIERS! One tier in which President Trump keeps getting indicted via both state and federal justice systems and another in which the people I don’t like keep getting not indicted via all the things Fox News tells me they did wrong.
It’s like America has become a banana republic, as long as you do as I’ve done and refuse to look up the definition of “banana republic.”
Sure, they’ll tell you that the indictment came via a special counsel investigation, and that the federal special counsel statute keeps such investigations walled off from political influence.
But that’s complete nonsense, unless we’re talking about special counsel John Durham, who was appointed by Attorney General Bill Barr while Trump was president and tasked with investigating the NEFARIOUS LEFT-WING CRIMES committed in the Trump-Russia probe. Durham was above reproach, and the fact that The New York Times reported he “charged no high-level F.B.I. or intelligence official with a crime and acknowledged in a footnote that Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign did nothing prosecutable, either” is something I will ignore.
This is a WITCH HUNT, and I believe that because Trump said so!
Current special counsel Jack Smith, on the other hand – he’s bad news. I know this because Trump has said repeatedly that Smith’s investigation is a witch hunt, and I’ve never known Trump to lie about anything.
Keep in mind, in 2016, Trump said: “I’m going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law.”
So after he said that, you expect me to believe he didn’t protect classified information? Just because, according to the indictment, there’s a recording of him holding a classified document in his office at his club in Bedminster, New Jersey, and saying to two staff members and an interviewer: “See, as president I could have declassified it. … Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.”
You call that “damning evidence.” I call it, “What about Hunter Biden’s laptop?”
Putting Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Hunter Biden in prison? Now THAT makes sense!
Now I can already hear all the libs out there whining and saying that if it were Biden or Hillary or Hunter getting indicted, I wouldn’t be saying a word about two tiers of justice or the weaponization of the Department of Justice or anything like that.
Well, those whiners would be right, but the difference is I believe Biden and Hillary and Hunter are all guilty and should be locked up for life, whereas with Trump, I believe he is great and innocent and the best president America has ever known.
It’s like this: If Hillary got indicted for murder, I would say, “Yes, she is absolutely a murderer. Lock her up.”
But if in some outrageous scenario President Trump were indicted for murder just because he told a bunch of people that he did a murder, I would say: “HOW DARE YOU CHARGE THIS MAN WITH MURDER WHEN OTHERS IN THE U.S. HAVE NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH MURDER! THERE ARE CLEARLY TWO TIERS OF JUSTICE, ONE IN WHICH MY FAVORITE PRESIDENT, WHO SAID HE MURDERED SOMEONE, IS CHARGED WITH MURDER AND ONE IN WHICH PEOPLE WHO HAVEN’T MURDERED ARE NOT CHARGED WITH MURDER!”
And that, my liberal friends, makes perfect sense to me and my MAGA companions. So watch out. The Trump Train’s a comin’.
[* I have not done any editing for grammar errors. This snide, self-important turkey is representative of the amount and level of pandering being done on behalf of the Leftist regime. –TPR]
WASHINGTON, DC - May 26, 2023, Capitol police stop childrens choir because it was offensive to some Richard Craniums.
Thanks to the Western Journal.
Capitol Police have come under scrutiny after stopping a children’s choir from singing the national anthem inside the U.S. Capitol.
A video of the May 26 incident has gone viral on social media, showing the moment Capitol officials approached David Rasbach, who was leading the Rushingbrook Children’s Choir in their performance of “The Star-Spangled Banner.”
The video shows a female officer in the background apparently instructing a congressional staffer to stop the singing. The staffer then approaches Rasbach, speaks into his ear, and Rasbach halts the choir.
🚨The Rushingbrook Children's Choir sang the National Anthem in Statuary Hall. a Capitol Police officer stopped them mid-song. Capitol Police claims they didn't stop the choir. The choir director tells the whole story in my exclusive interview here. 🚨https://t.co/ZRNbWy75lapic.twitter.com/ijiq4pw3X8
Rasbach, alongside Micah Rea — who organized the children’s trip from South Carolina to Virginia and Washington D.C. — explained what actually happened to The Daily Signal.
When they had arrived at the Capitol that day, the choir had been briefly stopped by Andrew Tremel, the visitor operations manager at the Architect of the Capitol; Rea told the Daily Signal.
Tremel was informed that the choir had been given permission to sing and, after speaking into his earpiece, he told them they could do so, Rea said.
Rasbach, alongside Micah Rea — who organized the children’s trip from South Carolina to Virginia and Washington D.C. — explained what actually happened to The Daily Signal.
Rushingbrook Children's Choir were singing the National Anthem in the Capitol and were stopped by Capitol police.
They were told that "certain Capitol police said it might offend someone/cause issues."
— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) June 2, 2023
The Twitter hate-squad quickly claimed that the choir wasn’t stopped but merely asked to move from a high-traffic area. Really? Why were they allowed to assemble there in the first place if it was interfering with a “high-traffic area??? –TPR
Rasbach then reportedly asked the officer: “How do you think this is going to affect these children? Their first time visiting their Capitol and then they have this disappointment.”
“She shrugged her shoulders, saying, ‘They sounded beautiful, but… They can go outside and sing,” he said of her response.
According to Rasbach, the female officer went on to claim that multiple people had complained about the offensiveness of the anthem.
Rasbach explained to the Daily Signal that the choir was given permission to sing in the Capitol by Reps. William Timmons and Joe Wilson of South Carolina, as well as House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
The three lawmakers have since responded to the incident online, condemning the Capitol Police and reaffirming their support for the choir group.
We recently learned that schoolchildren from South Carolina were interrupted while singing our National Anthem at the Capitol. These children were welcomed by the Speaker’s office to joyfully express their love of this Nation while visiting the Capitol, and we are all very…
— Congressman William Timmons (@RepTimmons) June 2, 2023
It is unfortunate that the Rushingbrook Children’s Choir was prevented from finishing a wonderful rendition of our National Anthem. I will be introducing a bill which permits the singing of our National Anthem on all federal property bc love for one’s country should be celebrated
Just learned kids were interrupted while singing our National Anthem at the Capitol. Unacceptable.
These children were welcomed by my office because your Capitol is back open, particularly for school groups. @RepTimmons, @RepJoeWilson, & @RepRussellFry, and I look forward to…
Naturally, the Capitol Police immediately blamed the staffer and McCarthy for their actions:
“Although popup demonstrations and musical performances are not allowed in the U.S. Capitol without the proper approval and permit, due to a miscommunication, the U.S Capitol Police were not aware that the Speaker’s Office had approved this performance,” USCP said in a statement to Newsweek.
The Capitol Police also responded to the incident, placing most of the blame on the congressional staffer, who they labeled a liar.
“Recently somebody posted a video of a children’s choir singing the Star-Spangled Banner in the U.S. Capitol Building and wrongfully claimed we stopped the performance because it ‘might offend someone,’” Capitol Police said in a statement to the Daily Signal.
“Here is the truth. Demonstrations and musical performances are not allowed in the U.S. Capitol,” they claimed, adding: “Of course, because the singers in this situation were children, our officers were reasonable and allowed the children to finish their beautiful rendition of the Star-Spangled Banner.”
They then said that the congressional staffer “lied to the officers multiple times about having permission from various offices.
“The staffer put both the choir and our officers, who were simply doing their jobs, in an awkward and embarrassing position.”
Rea and Rasbach have both responded to the statement with a fierce rebuke, with Rea calling it a “bald-faced lie.”
“You can see clearly in the video, they literally stopped him before they finished singing ‘The Star-Spangled Banner,’” Rea said. “That is absolutely, irrefutably wrong.”
“[The female officer] did everything she could to stop us and not let us continue singing, period,” he said, adding that the staffer did nothing wrong and did not lie to Capitol Police.
“That is not true—he did not lie to anybody,” Rasbach said in response to the Capitol Police’s statement about the staffer.
The two also refuted the claim that musical performances aren’t allowed in the Capitol, pointing out that as recently as March 29 a group of 80 pastors sang in the Rotunda. Sean Feucht, a Christian pastor and singer, also held performances in the Capitol in February and March, as the Daily Signal noted.
The Capitol Police have since apologized to the choir in a separate statement to Newsweek, this time blaming the incident on “miscommunication.”
“Although popup demonstrations and musical performances are not allowed in the U.S. Capitol without the proper approval, due to a miscommunication, the U.S Capitol Police were not aware that the Speaker’s Office had approved this performance,” the statement read.
“We apologize to the choir for this miscommunication that impacted their beautiful rendition of ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’ and their visit to Capitol Hill.”
The USCP has shielded murderers [Ashli Barrett was shot — in a crowd of on-lookers, no less! — and Roseanne Boyland was beaten to death by USCP (video of the attack exists and was known as early as late January 2021) then dragged inside the Capitol (presumably to make it appear she was inside the building when she died.)] When is the USCP and those who direct it going to be held accountable? This latest attrocity with the children shows they just don’t give a f*ck about the rest of us who don’t share their ideology.
Professor no longer in the classroom after allegedly forcing Christian students to fund Planned Parenthood
A Christian student, who sued his business professor for forcing her class to fund an entity which fundraised for Planned Parenthood and other progressive political causes, said that his Christian beliefs propelled him to fight back.
“For me, as a Christian, it’s our calling. We’re supposed to expose the bad things that happen and not just sit back and… be abused. That’s our job,” he said.
Barbieri is one of two students suing his former business marketing professor, Amy Wisner, who identifies as an “intersectional feminist.” The university told Fox News Digital that Wisner is no longer employed at the institution. Her Instagram similarly reflected that she is a “former business communication professor.”
Nathan Barbieri speaks with Fox News Digital about suing his former professor for allegedly violating his First Amendment rights. (Fox News Digital)
According to the lawsuit, the “far-left” professor compelled each of her 600 students to pay $99 for a membership, which collectively could have amounted to at most $59,400 for an entity called ‘The Rebellion Community.'”
Wisner said, “The Rebellion community is a safe place to coordinate our efforts to burn everything to the f—ing ground,” according to the lawsuit. A post of Wisner’s Facebook page said, “100% of membership fees are donated to Planned Parenthood.” Other causes it supported included those “dismantling oppressive systems.”
The university said that its business school personally refunded students for their contributions to “The Rebellion Community,” but Barbieri said it wasn’t enough.
“Intersectional feminist” Amy Wisner formerly taught business classes at Michigan State. (Fox News Digital)
“I funded that. And until that money is brought back, until it is out of [the professor’s] hands, it’s still with Planned Parenthood, or it’s still being going towards an unethical organization,” he said.
The lawsuit is seeking to bring about a policy change at the university.
ADF’s senior counsel Tyson Langhofer said, “We’re basically asking for all the money that she received to be given back to the students and then to ensure that this doesn’t happen again. Nathan has two more years at the school. He doesn’t want professors to be able to do this. So we’re asking the court to order the university not to allow this to happen in the future.”
“I hold true to my Christian beliefs,” said Barbieri. “[My faith] really pushed me to get out there and do something about it, because I knew if I didn’t, you know, and if nobody else did, what stops this from happening again and again.”
The second student who sued the professor, echoed Barbieri’s concern. “I shouldn’t have to pay for my professor’s political activism… This is a matter of free speech and I hope that the university changes its policy so that other students never have to pay expensive fees toward causes they don’t believe in,” Nolan Radomski told Fox News.
Additionally, the “Rebellion Community” is controlled by the professor herself, which raised additional ethical concerns, the lawsuit said.
“I’ve seen a lot of bad actions in my litigation, but this is definitely one of the top ones because she’s got 600 students at her mercy, and she did abuse that power,” the ADF attorney said.
Former Michigan State University professor (left) and one of the students behind lawsuit, Nathan Barbieri. (Instagram/screenshot | Fox News Digital)
“Not only was it wrong in what she was doing. I mean… you shouldn’t be taking money for political activism from your students, especially forcefully because you can’t pass the class without this. But definitely finding out, seeing Planned Parenthood and organizations like that are completely against my religious and my political beliefs really struck me,” Barbieri said.
ADF counsel explained that “professors can’t force students to fund political organizations as a requirement for an academic course.”
“What Professor Wisner did here was completely out of the ordinary. She basically fabricated a requirement, put it on the syllabus to join this website, which had nothing to do with the course, and she could have used the free platform that the university provides, which every other professor uses,” ADF counsel said. “And then to do that solely that so she could fund her own political activism. And so not only did she use this as her own ideological mechanism to force the students to listen to her activism, but then she forced them to fund her outside activism and kind of double down on that. And I think that’s a that’s a problem. And public universities just can’t allow that to happen.”
