Protecting our border BC Biden won't. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (Brandon Bell / Getty Images / File / Fox News)
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott accuses Biden administration of cutting razor wire at border. Texas National Guard installing more razor wire. The Governor has claimed that the Biden thugs turn around and cut the wire. So more National Guardsman have been sent to replace the wire.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1704614936218149361
In July, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Texas for installing a buoy barrier, which was designed to curb illegal immigration, on the Rio Grande. The barrier was developed as part of Abbott’s Operation Lone Star.
A federal judge initially told Texas to move the buoys, but the U.S. Court of Appeals stayed that decision. The case is still being deliberated through courts.
Stop the trespass. Border buoys float on the Rio Grande River in Eagle Pass, Texas. (Omar Ornelas / El Paso Times / USA TODAY NETWORK / File / Fox News)
Geter-Pataky dropped stacks of ‘illegal’ ballots into an absentee ballot box
On Monday, Democrat Mayoral candidate John Gomes filed a lawsuit challenging the results of his party’s primary in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and requesting a new Democratic primary.
This comes after a video surfaced showing a Democrat clerk inserting illegal ballots into a drop box, which prompted an investigation by the Bridgeport Police Department for “possible misconduct.”
The Gateway Pundit reported that Gomes’ campaign released a damning video on Saturday showing evidence of election fraud in the recent Bridgeport Democratic primary.
The video posted on Gomes campaign’s Facebook page shows a woman dropping stacks of ‘illegal’ ballots into an absentee ballot box outside the Bridgeport government center, where the city’s Registrar of Voters office is located, CT Mirror reported.
The Gomes campaign was able to identify the woman in the footage as Wanda Geter-Pataky, the Vice Chairwoman of the Democratic Town Clerk and a vocal supporter of incumbent Mayor Joe Ganim, who is seeking reelection.
Geter-Pataky sent one of her employees to make the fourth ballot drop while she watched
Gomes’ campaign claims that the video shows Geter-Pataky dropping off stacks of absentee ballots ahead of the September 12th primary.
“Video surveillance proving that the mayoral election was unequivocally stolen through corruption within City Hall by tampering with absentee ballots,” John Gomes said in a statement.
“This is an undeniable act of voter suppression and a huge civil rights violation. It’s time to restore lasting credibility to our city’s democracy. Once and for ALL. Enough is enough!” he added.
Gomes lost to incumbent Mayor Joe Ganim in the Democratic primary by a narrow margin of 251 votes, according to the most recent preliminary count posted on the Secretary of the State’s website. Ganim won the absentee vote tally 1,545 to 779, while Gomes led on the voting machines.
The Bridgeport Police Department confirmed that they are actively investigating the actions shown in the video.
“The Bridgeport Police Department are actively investigating information regarding possible misconduct based upon a video that has surfaced on social media,” the department told CT Mirror.
The police department is investigating how the video was obtained and released to the public.
“The Bridgeport Police Department immediately initiated an investigation to determine if any criminal wrongdoing has occurred. In addition, an internal investigation is being conducted to determine if any possible breach to our security video management system has occurred,” it added.
Bridgeport Police Chief Roderick Porter said the department takes “these actions seriously and we will pursue possible criminal prosecution and/or administrative discipline as it relates to any such security violations.”
In a press conference held on Monday, Christine Bartlett-Jose, the campaign manager for Democrat Mayoral candidate John Gomes, laid out a compelling case for why the recent Democratic primary election results in Bridgeport should be scrutinized and possibly invalidated.
“In this primary alone, the city of Bridgeport received over 4,000 absentee ballot applications, an unprecedented number in the city and possibly the state,” said Bartlett-Jose. She pointed out that the city had a lead of 470 votes based on incoming results on primary night. However, as absentee ballots were tabulated, their lead dramatically eroded, resulting in a two-to-one loss margin with an ultimate election difference of 251 votes.
Bartlett-Jose stated that the campaign has gathered evidence indicating voter suppression and absentee ballot fraud. “Multiple complaints have been filed with the State Election Enforcement Commission, including the most recent and irrefutable piece of evidence—an incriminating video from City Hall security footage showing Wanda Gita Pasky, the vice chair of the Bridgeport Democratic Town Committee, depositing absentee ballots,” she said.
Gita Pasky’s involvement in this election is deeply concerning, according to Bartlett-Jose.
“She has been named in various complaints across many districts related to harassment, bullying, promises of Section Eight, rent rebate, groceries, just to name a few,” she added.
Gita Pasky was recommended by the State Election Enforcement Commission to the State’s Attorney’s Office for criminal investigation regarding the alleged misuse of absentee ballots in the 2019 primary election.
The campaign will be petitioning the court to file an injunction against the primary election results, which have yet to be certified by the Secretary of State.
“This step is essential to prevent potential tainted results from being finalized,” Bartlett-Jose emphasized. They will also be seeking a restraining order against the distribution of any additional absentee ballot applications from the Town Clerk’s Office.
John Gomes, the Democratic challenger, said, “Right now there is a black cloud over Bridgeport, there is no trust. We walk around and I don’t know what to tell the people.”
He added that the evidence is overwhelming and speaks for itself, especially the video footage. Gomes and his campaign are filing a lawsuit, not only seeking a judge to prevent last week’s election results from being certified but also asking for a new Democratic primary.
So, if they (Conn State Election Enforcement Commission) recommended a prosecution regarding absentee ballots for an election in 2019, doesn’t that suggest that Trump was correct about the 2020 election? — TPR
With talk of impeaching President Biden in the air, the media’s fake history this week is: Voters punished Republicans for even thinking about impeaching President Bill Clinton!
Even the casual news consumer will hear this lie at least 20 times this week.
ABC News:
“If the inquiry does lead to an impeachment vote, history suggests it won't necessarily be helpful for the impeachers. House Republicans lost five seats in the 1998 election a few weeks before impeaching President Bill Clinton. Democrats made those surprising gains even though the party that controls the White House usually struggles in midterm elections.”
CNBC:
“Politically unpopular impeachment hearings have hurt the party before. Republicans lost seats in the 1998 midterm elections following the impeachment proceedings into then-president Bill Clinton.”
The Financial Times:
“Rather than being damaged by the impeachment proceedings against him in late 1998, Clinton is widely seen to have benefited politically, including with a better than expected performance in that year’s midterm election.”
Reuters:
“Following the Republican-backed impeachment probe into Clinton, a Democrat, Republicans lost House seats in the 1998 midterm elections.”
MSNBC:
“None of the scandals from Obama’s time in office ever hit the impeachment threshold, not when there were enough senior GOP members around who knew that impeaching Clinton hadn’t worked out for them politically.”
Wrong, wrong, wrong!
That was pure White House spin, from a man willing to defend himself by smearing Thomas Jefferson. (See above.)
Let’s play back the tape.
Since President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the average midterm loss for the president’s party has been 27 house seats. But in 1994, Clinton lost an astounding 54 House seats – ushering in a Republican Congress for the first time in 40 years. Districts that had not voted for a Republican congressman since 1950 went Republican. The GOP was bound to lose some of those seats in the next few cycles.
Merely to maintain the historical average, Democrats should have gained at least two dozen House seats in 1998. In fact, they gained only five — and not a single senate seat. Indeed, the 1998 election was the first time in 70 years Republicans had won majorities in the House three elections in a row.
Peculiarly, Clinton’s flacks had spent the weeks before the election predicting Armageddon for the Democrats. So when they picked up a paltry five seats — instead of the two dozen predicted by history — they bellowed that they’d won a moral victory! (That’s when Republicans learned about the game of low expectations.)
Although Democrats had fallen 21 seats short of the historical average for midterm elections, they claimed the people had spoken: Voters just adored Clinton for getting oral sex from a White House intern, then committing multiple felonies!
This defies common sense. It also defies the exit polls. As Paul West wrote in the Baltimore Sun, “Only about one in five voters listed moral and ethical values as their chief concern in deciding whom to support in House races. Those voters favored Republican candidates by a 6-to-1 margin.” Thus, the Democrats’ 21-seat shortfall.
But Clinton defenders had beaten their own low expectations, and used that little theatrical performance to announce, as George Stephanopoulos did, that impeachment was “over.” (It wasn’t.)
And that’s the lie the media has been repeating ever since.
Noticeably, the Democrats’ fairy tale about the 1998 election didn’t help Clinton’s vice president, Al Gore. Thanks to Clinton, he became the first incumbent president or vice president in a hundred years to lose a presidential election in peacetime and a good economy. (Mind you, that was before we knew Gore was a deranged conspiracy theorist who believes the Earth is in serious peril from cow flatulence.)
Ronald Reagan was so popular he not only won a 49-state landslide re-election for himself, but he also won a symbolic third term for his boob of a vice president, George Herbert Walker Bush (who immediately blew it by breaking his own “no new taxes” pledge).
What was the mystery factor to explain Gore’s historic loss?
The media may have lied to the public about Clinton’s vaunted popularity, but Gore’s pollsters got paid not to lie to him. And they told him the truth: His association with Clinton was killing him.
After the election, Gore pollster, the inestimable Stanley Greenberg, told Vanity Fair magazine that if Clinton had helped, he would have “had Bill Clinton carry Al Gore around on his back.” (This was when one man could still actually carry Al Gore on his back.) But his research showed that whenever Clinton was mentioned, Gore’s numbers took a nosedive.
Steve Rosenthal, political director of the AFL-CIO, also blamed Clinton for Gore’s loss, saying polls showed that voters who cared about character voted for Bush.
Poor Gore had done everything he could to distance himself from Clinton. He publicly denounced Clinton’s sexual exploits with the intern. He refused to be seen with Clinton on the campaign trail. He chose Sen. Joe Lieberman as his running mate — the guy who famously became the first Democrat to denounce Clinton’s behavior with Lewinsky on the Senate floor. Also, there was Gore’s huge, embarrassing smooch with his wife on stage at the Democratic National Convention.
But when voters looked at Gore they just couldn’t forget the purple-faced lecher.
And that’s the true story of how the Clinton impeachment helped Republicans hold the House through seven election cycles and defeat an incumbent vice president.
That doesn’t mean the GOP should impeach Biden (except for violating federal immigration law). But the Clinton impeachment is anything but a cautionary tale for Republicans. Unlike the Democrats, our side doesn’t impeach presidents for nonsense.
Let’s hope that all who were there and especially those who disagreed with the cowardly retreat are allowed to talk. And the hearings must be open to the public.
The judge maintained that President Barack Obama exceeded his authority when he created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program by executive action in 2012.Credit...Al Drago for The New York Times
A revised version of the federal policy known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which prevents the deportation of thousands of immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, has once again been deemed illegal by a federal judge who gave the same ruling previously.
U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen said in his decision Wednesday that on July 16, 2021, the court vacated the DACA program created by the 2012 DACA Memorandum, which prohibited the U.S., its departments, agencies, officers, agents and employees from granting new DACA applications and administering the program.
Hanen’s decision then was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Wednesday, reaffirmed by him. Send them home.
When White Progressive Supremacist supporter goes too far. Other Progressives call out the New Mexico Governor. Recently the Governor claimed she was suspending the Constitution because Liberals were the cause of many gun crimes and drug trafficking’s.
1st amendment wins again. President Biden getting his COVID-19 shot. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images/File)
Winning. Biden weaponizing DOJ and Social Media ruled a violation of the 1st Amendment. It does my heart to see these rulings. What a way to end the week.
The Biden administration “ran afoul” of the First Amendment by trying to pressure social media platforms over controversial COVID-19 content, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled Friday.
In its 75-page ruling, the appeals court, said that President Biden, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FBI and the surgeon general cannot “coerce” social media platforms to remove content it deems problematic.
A Pennsylvania state judge ruled that an election worker cannot sue former President Trump over statements he made sowing doubt in the 2020 election results while in office, finding the statements are protected by presidential immunity.
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Judge Michael Erdos said Trump’s immunity covered a tweet he issued and comments he made remotely from the White House during a Pennsylvania state Senate committee hearing in November 2020. The statements, made without evidence, claimed fraud in Pennsylvania’s election tabulations.
“Other legal proceedings may examine the propriety of his statements and actions while he was the President and whether, as the plaintiffs in this and other cases contend, it was this conduct which served as the actual threat to our democracy,” Erdos ruled. “But this case is not the proper place to do so. Here, Trump is entitled to Presidential immunity.”
James Savage, a Pennsylvania voting machine supervisor in the 2020 election, filed two lawsuits — which have since been consolidated — alleging that Trump, Rudy Giuliani, two poll watchers and others conspired to defame him. Savage says their statements led him to receive death threats and suffer two heart attacks.
Erdos ruled Trump has immunity for the tweet and the remarks at the state Senate hearing because both statements were made while he was serving as president. But the lawsuit also contains claims over a letter Trump wrote to the House Jan. 6 committee last October, which Trump is not immune from as it was written after leaving office.
Erdos ruled the two earlier statements were part of Trump’s official duties, as he was speaking to the public on matters of public concern.
“Here, then-President Trump’s Gettysburg remarks and his tweet were public,” Erdos wrote. “Moreover, the topic of these statements—claims from third parties and the President himself about irregularities in the Presidential election which on their face called into question the integrity of the election and whether now-President Joseph Biden had been duly elected—was undoubtedly a matter of great public concern.”
Trump potentially faces a looming indictment in the Justice Department’s probe of the transfer of power following the 2020 election and the lead up to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Trump’s unfounded claims of mass electoral fraud are also the subject of several other civil lawsuits, which remain tied up in other courts and for which he has similarly asserted immunity.
“We are pleased with the Court’s decision to honor the long-standing principle of Presidential Immunity,” Trump legal spokeswoman Alina Habba said in a statement.
“Today, the Court made it clear that it is well within the President’s discretion to address the integrity of our election without fear of liability,” Habba continued. “We expect that the rest of Mr. Savage’s claims will similarly be disposed of as they are without merit.”
An election worker verifies a ballot on a screen inside the Maricopa County Recorders Office, Thursday, Nov. 10, 2022, in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Matt York)
A practice used by some, if not all, Arizona counties to verify signatures on early ballots may be illegal.
And that could result in election officials across the state have to change their procedures – and potentially result in more signatures on ballot envelopes being questioned.
Yavapai County Superior Court Judge John Napper, said state law is “clear and unambiguous” that election officials must compare the signatures on the envelopes with the voter’s actual registration record. And that, he said, consists only of the document signed when a person first registered along with subsequent changes for things like altering party affiliation.
And what that means, the judge said, is it is illegal for county election officials to instead use other documents to determine if the signature on that ballot envelope is correct and should be accepted.
John Napper
Napper’s conclusion is not the last word.
Strictly speaking, he only rejected efforts by Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to have the lawsuit by two groups challenging the process thrown out. Napper has not issued a final order.
“We look forward to the issue being litigated,” said Paul Smith-Leonard, spokesman for Fontes.
But the judge, in his ruling, made it clear that he is not buying arguments by the secretary of state that the rules in the Elections Procedures Manual allowing the comparison of signatures against other documents – the practice now widely in use – complies with what state law clearly requires.
And Kory Langhofer, who represents those challenging the practice, said Napper’s refusal to dismiss the case means “there’s nothing left to fight about.”
Central to the fight is a section of law which requires the county recorder, on receiving early ballots, to “compare the signatures thereon with the signature of the elector on the elector’s registration record.”
Langhofer, in his court filing, acknowledged that there is nothing in state law that explicitly defines what is a “registration record.”
But he argued that “most naturally” means the state or federal documents by which someone signs up to vote and provides certain other information. And what it also includes, Langhofer said, are updated state or federal forms.
Only thing is, he said, is the most recent version of the Elections Procedures Manual, prepared by the Secretary of State’s Office, says county recorders “should also consult additional known signatures from other official election documents in the voter’s registration record, such as signature rosters or early ballot request forms.”
In some cases, Langhofer said, counties are using signatures on early ballot envelopes from prior elections for their comparisons.
Pima County Recorder Gabriella Cazares-Kelly doesn’t go that far. But she said her office relies on much more than the voter registration record.
It starts, she said, with the fact that some people register to vote when they get a driver’s license. But those licenses, she noted, can be good for up to 45 years.
“As everybody should know, signatures vary by time and place and how much time you have,” Cazares-Kelly said. “You will change your signature a number of times throughout your life, going from adolescent to full adulthood.”
And she said even her own signature changes given having to sign “a hundred documents a day.”
So other documents can be helpful.
“We receive other notifications from the voters,” Cazares-Kelly said.
“Every single time we receive something in writing, it goes into their voter file,” she continued. “So every single thing that has a signature on it, it is another indication, another touch point, another opportunity to update what those signatures look like.
Cochise County Recorder David Stevens said his office also relies on signatures on other correspondence it has received from a voter. He also said that ballot signatures can be compared with those on file with the Motor Vehicle Division.
Fontes, in asking Napper to dismiss the lawsuit, argued that other documents listed as acceptable in the Elections Procedures Manual are within the definition of a “registration record.” And if the judge wasn’t buying that, Fontes said that phrase is ambiguous, meaning that the manual can interpret it as part of his duties.
Napper was having none of that.
“The language of the statute is clear and unambiguous,” the judge wrote. “The common meaning of ‘registration’ in the English language is to sign up to participate in an activity.”
And Napper derided the idea that other documents submitted by a voter fit that definition.
“No English speaker would linguistically confuse the acting of signing up to participate in an event with the act of participating in the event,” the judge wrote.
“Registering to attend law school is not the same as attending class,” he continued. “Registering to vote is not the same as voting.”
Nor was Napper impressed by the claim that the phrase “registration record” is ambiguous, allowing the secretary of state some latitude to interpret it.
“Pursuant to the statute, the recorder is to compare the signature on the envelope with the voter’s prior registration,” he said, quoting from the law. “If they match, then the vote is counted.”
The judge also noted there is a procedure in state law that allows county election officials, if they question whether a signature on a ballot matches the official record, to contact the voter. That allows the voter to verify that it is his or her signature and offer an explanation that could be related to age, illness or injury.
Langhofer represents the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. It has backed various measures to impose new identification requirements on voters while opposing efforts to restore the state’s permanent early voting list.
Also suing is an organization called Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections. It bills itself as opposing laws changes in election laws that seek to give one group a partisan advantage and enforcing “constitutional standards against voting laws and procedures that threaten or dilute the right of qualified citizens to vote.”
Reuters says that that founders of RITE, formed last year, include former U.S. Attorney General William Barr, Karl Rove who was a top adviser to former President George W. Bush, and hotelier Steve Wynn.
Mostly White Progressive Supremacists rioting. Again. GP Photo
Over 60 Lions of Liberalism ( Antifa ) arrested in Georgia riots. Leftists always love a good riot. It never fails. Build something good, and they will come. Bringing their violent acts with them.
Well we see that they have been rioting the past year or so trying to shit down a police training center. Allegedly the government has stepped in. Over 60 Antifa militants have been indicted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act over the Atlanta “Cop City” riots and attacks on officers.
I see one of the rioters works for a noted hate group. Tom Jurgens, appears to be a staff attorney for a far-left extremist organization, the Southern Poverty Law Center.
