Categories
America's Heartland Back Door Power Grab Biden Biden Cartel Censorship Commentary Corruption Economy Education Elections Government Overreach Leftist Virtue(!) Lies Links from other news sources. MSM Opinion Politics

Case to watch. Biden social media case heads to Supreme Court.

Visits: 11

Case to watch. Biden social media case heads to Supreme Court. Even MSM has admitted that federal officials in the Biden administration have mettled in social media and how they should ban or delete what they think is misinformation. This from The Hill.

The Biden administration’s legal battle over social media content moderation will reach the Supreme Court on Monday, when the justices are set to hear arguments over whether federal officials violated the First Amendment by urging platforms to remove posts they deemed false or misleading.

Two Republican attorneys general brought the case in a challenge to the administration’s efforts to curb misinformation online — an effort they described as a government “campaign of censorship.” They purported federal officials “coordinated and colluded” with social media platforms to “identify disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content.”

Now the government lost before the 5th Circuit. Found that the White House, FBI and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention crossed the line into coercion.  After rehearing the case, the panel ruled that CISA did overstep also.

 

Loading

40
Categories
Biden Cartel Biden Pandemic COVID Daily Hits. Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

10 stories last week that should have been major news.

Visits: 36

10 stories last week that should have been major news. Vigilant Fox does this weekly special. I just changed the title.

#10 – Secret recording catches Pfizer saying the quiet part out loud.

#9 – Boeing whistleblower John Barnett said before his death: “If anything happens to me, it’s not suicide.”

#8 – Dr. Phil GOES OFF on the CDC and Department of Education.

#7 – Joe Rogan warns we are empowering ‘evil’ with terms like ‘minor-attracted person.’

#6 – New study unearths alarming findings for people who got vaccinated after COVID infection.

#5 – Judge who refused to remove Fani Willis from her junk RICO case against Trump donated to Fani Willis’s campaign.

#4 – 16 Female Athletes Sue NCAA for Allowing Men to Compete in Women’s Sports

#3 – Trudeau’s Canada threatens life sentences for “hate.”

#2 – Dr. Pierre Kory reveals why Big Pharma is ‘terrified’ of Vitamin D.

#1 – Australian government introduces frightening legislation to parents resisting the New World Order.

Loading

39
Categories
Back Door Power Grab Commentary Elections Government Overreach Links from other news sources.

One Law. One Page. Part 8. No Correcting Ballots.

Visits: 8

One Law. One Page. Part 8. No Correcting Ballots. If I could, I would not allow someone to correct an error on their ballot. California (and other states) law does allow incorrect or missing signatures to be counted, or “cured,” after a voter submits their ballot. Under my law that would end.

You make a mistake, Sorry. What’s next? Allow you to change who you voted for? No signature, no date, not counted is what should be a national law. No do over.

 

Loading

59
Categories
Biden Cartel Commentary Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

What say you? Income-based electric bills.

Visits: 18

What say you? Income-based electric bills. California average is $.35 cents per kilowatt. National average is $.18. I’m paying $.05.

California residents might find their electric bills looking a little different in the new year.

Typically, electricity bills reflect the amount of electricity a specific household uses. But, after Assembly Bill 205 passed last year, California could see electricity charges based off of income level instead.

The state’s three largest electric utility companies, Southern California Edison Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company and San Diego Gas & Electric Company, all proposed the plan, saying that low-income customers could save approximately $300 a year under this new law.

Alternatively, California households earning more than $180,000 a year would end up paying an average of $500 more a year on their electricity bills, according to the proposal.

PREVIOUS COVERAGECalifornia electric bills may soon be income-based

Here’s a breakdown of the proposed rate restructuring for SoCal Edison customers, based on income:

  • Above $180,000: $85/month
  • $69,000 – $180,000: $51/month
  • $28,000 – $69,000: $20/month
  • Less than $28,000: $15/month

The plan will break down monthly bills into a fixed rate, plus a reduced usage charge based on consumption, according to officials.

Supporters of the bill believe it to be a possible solution to many moderate and low-income families getting priced out of California by rising housing costs. Opponents worry the law could weaken incentives to conserve electricity or raise costs for customers using solar energy.

The California Public Utilities Commission’s deadline for deciding on the suggested changes is July 1, 2024, although officials said implementing it will still take some time before California residents see any changes to their electricity bills.

Loading

46
Categories
Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Crime Government Overreach January 6 Links from other news sources.

House May Refer January 6 Committee Members for Prosecution.

Visits: 29

House May Refer January 6 Committee Members for Prosecution. After all the phony claims, destroying evidence and not adding evidence to the report, it’s time for charges to be filed.

House Oversight Committee chairman Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) said Wednesday that he may refer members of the January 6 Committee to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution for hiding and destroying documents.

 

Loading

59
Categories
Biden Cartel Commentary Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Politics Uncategorized

Schumer goes on Senate floor and declares his support for the progrssive Hama terrorists.

Visits: 19

Schumer goes on Senate floor and declares his support for the progrssive Hama terrorists. Today Schumer went on the Senate floor and declared his loyalty for Hamas.

Schumer is calling for another country to ignore the elected leader and have another election hoping that the winner would be more sympothetic to Hamas.

What’s unbelieveable is that Schumer said that we would get involved with shaping Israel’s policy if he doesn’t get his way.

Schumer, the highest-ranking Jewish official in the U.S., said Netanyahu has “lost his way” and accused the prime minister of being “too willing to tolerate the civilian toll in Gaza.” Netanyahu, he went on, “no longer fits the needs of Israel after Oct. 7,” when Hamas terrorists slaughtered more than 1,200 Israelis, including women, children and infants.

Loading

59
Categories
Biden Cartel Government Overreach Gun Control Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Another California gun law struck down.

Visits: 11

Another California gun law struck down.

A California law barring people from buying more than one gun a month has been struck down.

In his March 11 ruling, a federal judge said that the one-gun-a-month (OGM) law does not adhere to requirements for gun restrictions outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court in a pivotal 2022 decision.

“Defendants have not met their burden of producing a ‘well-established and representative historical analogue’ to the OGM law,” U.S. District Judge William Q. Hayes wrote in the decision.

“The court therefore concludes that plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment as to the constitutionality of the OGM law under the Second Amendment.”

The U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen says that if a law regulates conduct covered by the Second Amendment, officials defending the law must show it is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

Defendants must provide “historical precedent from before, during, and even after the founding [that] evinces a comparable tradition of regulation,” the high court stated.

Justices instructed lower courts not to “uphold every modern law that remotely resembles a historical analogue” but that “analogical reasoning requires only that the government identify a well-established and representative historical analogue, not a historical twin.”

They also issued guidance for judges to consider “how and why the regulations burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to armed self-defense” and to examine “whether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense and whether that burden is comparably justified are central considerations when engaging in an analogical inquiry.”

The law, signed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2019, barred people who bought a handgun or semiautomatic centerfire rifle from a dealer from applying to buy another handgun or semiautomatic centerfire rifle for at least 30 days.

“Gun violence is an epidemic in this country, one that’s been enflamed by the inaction of politicians in Washington,” Mr. Newsom, a Democrat, said at the time.

“While Washington has refused to act on even the most basic gun safety reforms, California is once again leading the nation in passing meaningful gun safety reforms.”

Gun owners and groups sued in 2020, saying the law violated their constitutional rights.

After the 2022 Supreme Court ruling, defendants were ordered to provide historical examples of similar laws.

California officials offered four categories of historical restrictions, including regulations on selling guns to Native Americans and regulations on gunpowder.

Those regulations are not relevant to the law in question, Judge Hayes said.

Differing Objectives

The restrictions on Native Americans, for instance, “do not impose a comparable burden” to the California law, he wrote.

“The identified historical laws targeted only a narrow subset of the population perceived as dangerous, while the OGM law, with limited exceptions, affects all people acquiring handguns and semiautomatic centerfire rifles in California.

“Further, laws restricting the sale of arms to Native Americans impose neither a quantity nor time limitation similar to that of the OGM law.”

The gunpowder regulations were comparable because they “placed limits on the ownership and storage of gunpowder,” but “did not completely prevent people from purchasing gunpowder,” the state argued.

The regulations and the 2019 California law are “comparably justified” because both were imposed to “promote public safety,” the state said.

Judge Hayes, though, noted that officials have said previously that the California law was aimed at reducing firearms trafficking and disarming criminals, while the gunpowder regulations were put in place to prevent fires and explosions.

“Put simply, gunpowder regulations addressed fire-related risks, while the OGM law addresses risks associated with illegal gun trafficking and gun violence. Gunpowder restrictions and the OGM law are therefore not comparably justified,” he said.

Judge Hayes, a George W. Bush appointee, entered a stay of the order for 30 days to enable California officials to appeal.

“We are currently evaluating the decision, but it is important to acknowledge that the law limiting firearm purchases to one every thirty days remains in effect at this time,” a spokesperson for California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, told The Epoch Times via email.

“Another week, another California gun control law declared unconstitutional by a federal court,” Cody J. Wisniewski, vice president and general counsel of the Firearms Policy Coalition, said in a statement. Some of the group’s members are among the plaintiffs.

“California’s one-gun-a-month law directly violates California residents’ right to acquire arms and has no basis in history,” Mr. Wisniewski said. “Given it seems certain California will refuse to learn its lesson, we look forward to continuing to strike down its gun control regime and to defending this victory.”

“This is a win for gun rights and California gun owners,” Alan M. Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, another plaintiff, said in a statement. “There is no historical justification for limiting law-abiding citizens to a single handgun or rifle purchase during a one-month period, and Judge Hayes’ ruling clearly points that out.”

Loading

36
Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Elections Government Overreach Links from other news sources.

Push to Remove ‘Undocumented’ Identifiers on Connecticut Driver’s Licenses Raises Voter Fraud Concerns.

Visits: 17

Push to Remove ‘Undocumented’ Identifiers on Connecticut Driver’s Licenses Raises Voter Fraud Concerns. So, we now have Connecticut who wants to make it easier for the undocumented to vote.

Gov. Ned Lamont wants to eliminate the distinguishing marks on driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants, a change that would make it difficult to identify ineligible voters according to local election officials.

Loading

43
Categories
Biden Biden Cartel Censorship Commentary Corruption Government Overreach January 6 Links from other news sources. Politics Reprints from others. The Law

Liz Cheney, Jan. 6 Committee Hid Trump Evidence.

Visits: 46

Liz Cheney, Jan. 6 Committee Hid Trump Evidence. This came out Friday. Newsmax covered this.

By Jim Thomas    |  

In a press release on Friday, Chairman Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., of the Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight unveiled a previously suppressed interview conducted by the Jan. 6 Select Committee with Anthony Ornato, former White House Deputy Chief of Staff.

Ornato’s testimony reveals that former President Donald Trump advocated deploying 10,000 National Guard troops to safeguard the nation’s capital on January 6, 2021.The Select Committee conducted Ornato’s interview in Jan. 2022.

“This is just one example of important information the former Select Committee hid from the public because it contradicted what they wanted the American people to believe. And this is exactly why my investigation is committed to uncovering all the facts, no matter the outcome,” Loudermilk said.

The chairman added, “The former J6 Select Committee apparently withheld Mr. Ornato’s critical witness testimony from the American people because it contradicted their pre-determined narrative.”

The released interview highlights the White House’s frustration over the delayed assistance deployment. It contradicts the previous narrative presented by the Jan. 6 Select Committee that Trump incited the U.S. Capitol attack.

“Mr. Ornato’s testimony proves what Mr. [Mark] Meadows has said all along: President Trump did, in fact, offer 10,000 National Guard troops to secure the U.S. Capitol, which was turned down,” Loudermilk said.

Meadows “wanted to know if she [D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser] needed any more guardsmen,” Ornato testified. “And I remember the number 10,000 coming up of, you know, ‘The president wants to make sure that you have enough.’ You know, ‘He is willing to ask for 10,000.’ I remember that number. Now that you said it, it reminded me of it. And that she was all set. She had, I think, it was like 350 or so for intersection control, and those types of things not in the law enforcement capacity at the time.”

The distinction between the Select Committee’s findings and Ornato’s testimony turns on the word “ordered” instead of “offered.” While the Select Committee said that Trump did not “order” 10,000 troops to be deployed, reported NBC News, according to Ornato’s testimony, he did “offer” them.

The Federalist uncovered further details, revealing that the Jan. 6 Committee had suppressed exonerating evidence regarding Trump’s push for National Guard deployment.

When the D.C. mayor declined Trump’s offer of 10,000 troops, Ornato said the White House still requested a “quick reaction force” out of the Defense Department if needed.

As events unfolded on Jan. 6, Ornato recounted the Trump administration’s urgent appeals for the force’s deployment from Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller.

“So, then I remember the chief saying, ‘Hey, I’m calling the secretary of defense to get that [quick reaction force] in here,” Ornato testified. Later, he said, “And then I remember the chief telling Miller, ‘Get them in here, get them in here to secure the Capitol now.'”

The testimony contradicts claims made by Committee member Liz Cheney, the former Republican representative of Wyoming, who asserted there was “no evidence” supporting the White House’s desire for National Guard troops on Jan. 6.

Loading

120
Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Commentary Government Overreach Links from other news sources.

Wisconsin appeals court says regulators must develop PFAS restrictions before mandating clean-up.

Visits: 9

Wisconsin appeals court says regulators must develop PFAS restrictions before mandating clean-up.

The DNR came in and told a Dry Cleaner that they had to test the groundwater for PFAS. The DNR told them to run tests, but not which ones. You could be looking at hundreds of different tests.

 

Well the feds wanted them to run them all. At their cost.The dry cleaner along with Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the state’s largest business group, sued the DNR in 2021. They argued the agency lacked any basis in state law or rules to impose such mandates. The DNR countered that it could unilaterally force testing because the Spills Law gives the agency broad authority to protect the environment.

Waukesha County Circuit Judge Michael Bohren sided with the dry cleaner in 2022, saying the DNR needs to impose limits on PFAS through the rule-making process. He ordered that the ruling be stayed until all appeals are exhausted. His decision was upheld by the Appeals Court.

Loading

42
Verified by MonsterInsights