Categories
Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Elections Government Overreach January 6 Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Uncategorized

Eastman explains it all. He did not urge Vice President Pence to reject electors whose certification was still pending.

Eastman explains it all. He did not urge Vice President Pence to reject electors whose certification was still pending. Eastman was on with Laura  Ingraham the other night and explained exactly what he told Mike Pence. Here’s part of his discussion with Ingraham.

“Several things,” Eastman replied. “Some people had urged that Vice President Pence simply had power to reject electors whose certification was still pending.” “I don’t believe that,” Ingraham shot back. “That’s one thing I don’t agree with.”

“I don’t either,” the lawyer said. “And I explicitly told Vice President Pence in the Oval Office on January 4th, that even though it was an open issue, under the circumstances we had, I thought it was the weaker argument and it would be foolish to exercise such power even if you had it.”

“What I recommended, and I’ve said this repeatedly,” he continued, “is that he accede to requests from more than 100 state legislators in the swing states to give them a week to try and sort out the impact of what everybody acknowledged was illegality in the conduct of the election.”

And from Eastman asking Pence to wait a week the far left took that to mean Pence needed to rig the election.

The full interview below.

 

Categories
America's Heartland Commentary Crime Links from other news sources. Opinion Stupid things people say or do.

Yes, Virginia it was a good shoot. You don’t drive forward towards the Police Officer.

Yes, Virginia it was a good shoot. You don’t drive forward towards the Police Officer. Sadly, a mother of two and pregnant for some reason would not listen to numerous requests from the police officer.

The policeman was notified by a store employee that a woman had committed a theft. What the officer didn’t know was that the person had put back the stolen items. How could they?

The woman then puts the car in gear and hits the accelerator. The police officer directly in front of the vehicle is hit and staggers for several feet. He fires and the rest is history.

 

WATCH: This former police chief breaks down what happened.

Categories
Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Crime Elections Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Reprints from others. Uncategorized

Raffensperger Testimony Supports Trump Defense in Georgia Case.

Raffensperger Testimony Supports Trump Defense in Georgia Case.

By JOEL B. POLLAK

Testimony this week in federal court by Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger reportedly contradicted claims that former President Donald Trump insisted he violate his oath of office by fabricating enough votes to win the state.

As Breitbart News has long noted, the media have misrepresented the January 2021 phone call between Trump and Raffensperger, quoting Trump as telling Raffensperger that he should “find” the votes necessary for him to win. In fact, Trump said “I just want to find” the votes, referring to his own state of mind. Moreover, the context was that Trump believed he actually had won the state of Georgia, and the votes simply had not been properly counted yet.

 

Raffensperger took the stand in a federal court in the Northern District of Georgia as part of a hearing on a motion by former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who is one of Trump’s 18 co-defendants in the criminal case in Fulton County, Georgia. Meadows argued that the case should be removed to federal court, because he was just working for the president, and therefore cannot be tried in state court under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

Meadows stunned many observers by testifying in his own defense. Raffensperger was subpoenaed to testify by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. According to George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley, Raffensperger testified that the call, while “extraordinary,” was a “settlement negotiation” in the context of an argument over whether to pursue another recount of votes — not a demand to make up new votes.

Turley wrote:

The call was misrepresented by the [Washington] Post and the transcript later showed that Trump was not simply demanding that votes be added to the count but rather asking for another recount or continued investigation. Again, I disagreed with that position but the words about the finding of 11,780 votes was in reference to what he was seeking in a continued investigation. Critics were enraged by the suggestion that Trump was making the case for a recount as opposed to just demanding the addition of votes to the tally or fraudulent findings.

Raffensperger described the call in the same terms. He correctly described the call as “extraordinary” in a president personally seeking such an investigation, particularly after the completion of the earlier recount. That is manifestly true. However, he also acknowledged that this was a “settlement negotiation.”

So what was the subject of the settlement talks? Another recount or further investigation. The very thing that critics this week were apoplectic about in the coverage. That does not mean that Trump had grounds for the demand. Trump’s participation in the call was extraordinary and his demands were equally so. However, the reference to the vote deficit in demanding continued investigation was a predictable argument in such a settlement negotiation. As I previously stated, I have covered such challenges for years as a legal analyst for CBS, NBC, BBC, and Fox. Unsupported legal claims may be sanctionable in court, but they have not been treated as crimes.

If Meadows succeeds in his bid to have the case removed to federal court, other defendants will do the same, and may ague that the charges should be dismissed because of the Supremacy Clause and on other grounds. However, Raffebsperger’s testimony could also be used to dismiss at least some of the Fulton County indictments, particularly regarding “Solicitation of Violation of Oath by Public Officer,” in reference to the phone call with Raffensperger.

Categories
Corruption How sick is this? Links from other news sources. Opinion Racism Reprints from others. The Courts The Law White Progressive Supremacy

Progressives Sought White Supremacy in 1898.

Progressives Sought White Supremacy in 1898.

by 

This article is from 2014, but very relevant today. Progressives are even worse today than they were in 1898.

Editor’s Note: In our Spring 2014  Civitas Review magazine, Civitas’ Susan Myrick looked back at a dark chapter in North Carolina history — the “White Supremacy” campaign of 1898. White progressive Democrats ran an avowedly racist campaign to remove blacks from political life. The photo on the front page of the web site is from the Wilmington race riot, the culmination of the campaign’s propaganda and incitement.

“What you do in this world is a matter of no consequence. The question is, What can you make people believe you have done?” ― Arthur Conan DoyleA Study in Scarlet

It shouldn’t have come as a surprise in 2013 that North Carolina Democrats and self-styled progressives reacted with fury when Republicans took over the General Assembly and the governor’s office. That’s because Democrats and Progressives reacted the same way when their hold on power was threatened more than a century ago.

A little over a year ago, on February 22, 2013, the Charlotte Observer broke the story of a leaked strategy memo from leftist group Blueprint NC that described the game plan “progressive” groups should use to “eviscerate” the Republican leadership. While the memo itself was scandalous, it exposed the liberal Left’s determination to regain the power that had been lost to conservatives in the 2010 and 2012 elections. No student of North Carolina history would underestimate what the Left will do in such circumstances.

To understand this, we must look back to the late 1800s, when Democrats in the legislature controlled almost every level of government, including the state’s county commissions. The County Government Act of 1877 provided that the legislature would appoint justices of the peace, who would then select county commissioners, giving the Democrats in the legislature control of the commissions, and thus of much of the rest of local government.

By the 1890s North Carolina had two other political factions, the Republicans, including most black voters, and Populists, who attracted many poor whites. These two groups devised a plan to defeat Democrats by creating a “Fusion” movement. In 1894 the two parties agreed to challenge every Democratic candidate and in their separate conventions voted on a slate of candidates that included candidates from both the Populist and Republican parties. In 1894, Fusion candidates won a majority in the legislature and won both U.S. Senate seats. During the Fusion era, African Americans voted and held elective and appointed office throughout North Carolina in this era. The Fusion plan worked again in 1896, when the alliance retained control of the legislature and elected a Republican governor, Daniel Russell. Russell, however, would be the last Republican governor in North Carolina until James Holshouser was elected in 1973.
Democrats – led by their Progressive wing – struck back in 1898 with the “White Supremacy Campaign.” The name was accurate: White supremacy was its main tactic and ultimate result.

Then as now, Progressives thought of themselves as having lofty goals for the betterment of the people. But in 1898, Tar Heel Progressives decided they could only attain their aims by playing the race card to divide and defeat the Fusion coalition. Furnifold Simmons, chairman of the Democratic Executive Committee, and Josephus Daniels, publisher of the News & Observer, were leaders of the White Supremacy Campaign. (See p. xx) The campaign stoked racial hatred, used intimidation as a weapon, and ultimately incited violence. These shameful tactics worked. The drive effectively rolled back the gains the Fusion alliance had achieved in the previous two election cycles.

The Democratic Party disenfranchised black voters and returned to its dominant role on all levels of government. The defeat weakened the Republican Party to the point that it took the GOP 112 years to gain control of both houses of the General Assembly. Yet Democrats and progressives still deny that it was their political forebears – their heroes – who acted in such a despicable way.

That’s the rub: North Carolina’s liberals/leftists must always work to distance themselves from their movement’s ugly roots: racism and bare-knuckle politics. Today’s liberals attempt to brand the White Supremacy Campaign as a conservative movement, but its leaders and members were mostly known Progressives. That’s also why today’s liberals gloss over the fact that during the era of segregation Democrats totally dominated the state.

Today’s liberals even go so far as to suggest that racists in the Democratic Party, after the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were passed in 1964 and 1965 respectively, defected to the Republican Party. But there is no evidence to prove this assertion, in either voter registration changes or instances of prominent Democratic politicians who voted against these bills leaving the Democratic Party to join the Republican Party. For example, Democratic U.S. Sen. Sam Ervin was a segregationist who voted against both of Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Yet he continues to be hailed as a hero of the liberal Left, mostly for his role in the Watergate hearings. Indeed, both of North Carolina’s U.S. Senators and all of its congressional delegation (of which there were two Republicans) voted against these two pieces of legislation. It doesn’t matter to the progressive Left that the truth is Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in much larger percentages than did Democrats, and without strong Republican support the laws would not have passed. It doesn’t matter, because they know that if you repeat a lie enough, people won’t search for the truth and the progressive media is always at the ready to repeat lies to defeat conservatives.

Perhaps that is why liberals in North Carolina consistently call their enemies racists – to deflect attention from liberalism’s own sordid history. We heard their hate-filled rhetoric during the 2013 legislative session. The leaked strategy memo gave us a peek into North Carolina’s liberal/left organizational structure and revealed their desperation to get back the power they had held for generations.

It’s hard to deny that the left enthusiastically and relentlessly executed the Blueprint NC memo’s strategic plan: “Cripple their leaders ([Gov.] McCrory, [House Speaker] Tillis, [Senate President Pro Tem] Berger etc.)” and “Eviscerate the leadership and weaken their ability to govern.” A swarm of liberal, progressive and socialist groups rallied at the legislative building every Monday (and some other days) during the legislative session to protest the new legislative majority’s work and at the same time accuse them of racism and bigotry. We are even hearing William Barber, president of the NC NAACP describe these groups as the “fusion movement”.

Today, the tide has turned in North Carolina partisan politics. In the 2010 General Election, running in districts drawn up by Democrats, Republicans won majorities in both the state House and Senate but had to battle against Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue’s 19 vetoes. In 2012 they added to their numbers and gained the majorities they needed to override a Governor’s veto, thought that could be viewed as a luxury because a Republican was elected governor. And, it was the first time four Republicans were elected to the state’s Council of State in one year.

Moreover, the North Carolina Democratic Party is in a shambles. The party’s decline can be attributed to a list of disgraced politicos and a state party embroiled in controversy, including a sexual misconduct scandal, the forced resignation of the state party’s executive director, and the failed attempt to replace the state chairman ahead of the 2012 election. More recently, the party has fired the executive director hired in May 2013 to replace the one accused of sexual harassment, and the turmoil has continued this year. Some even suggest that William Barber, president of the NC NAACP and the leader of the coalition of groups that have protested against the legislature on Mondays during the last session, is the face of and de facto head of the Democratic Party. William Barber definitely has the progressive/liberal credentials and rhetoric to be such a leader.
What may be even more ominous for the liberal Left, but probably not as widely known, is who the voters of North Carolina voted for in the 2012 General Election. Using the Civitas Partisan Index model and comparing the votes for Democratic Party and Republican Party in Council of State races, we see a dramatic shift from 2008 to 2012 – more than five percentage points. In 2008, statewide, Tar Heels gave Democratic candidates 53.4 percent of the vote and 46.6 percent for Republican candidates; in the 2012 model, the average vote statewide was nearly even: 50.6 percent Democratic to 49.4 percent Republican. While it is true that historically, in Council of State races, North Carolinians tend to vote for Democratic candidates, in the 2012 CPI we see a possible shift in that voting pattern.

The liberal Left (and that always includes the mainstream media) is adept in defining the Right, whether it’s labeling the tea party as racists or charging that conservatives are waging war on women. History and the facts belie the liberal/left’s rhetoric concerning the workings and the history of the progressive movement in North Carolina. We only have to glance at history to get a clear picture of how progressives reacted when they lost power for a short time in the 19th century. It should be no surprise that they would react with such vitriol in the 21st.

Categories
Commentary Corruption Life Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Reprints from others. Stupid things people say or do.

Washington Post goes over some of the Joe Biden Lies.

Washington Post goes over some of the Joe Biden Lies. This is just a small sampling of Joe’s story telling.

By Gabriel Hays Fox News

The Washington Post’s chief fact-checker Glenn Kessler took exception to several stories President Biden has repeatedly told about his life to connect with audiences in a piece Thursday.

Kessler went through several recurring anecdotes that Biden has shared with crowds over the years and detailed how many of them were embellished or just plain not true. He declared, “But throughout his career… Biden’s propensity to exaggerate or embellish tales about his life led to doubts about his truthfulness.”

Kessler analyzed Biden’s recent recounting of a past fire at his house almost destroying his Corvette, anecdotes about being him arrested for standing up during the civil rights era, and a story about the circumstances that led him to be accepting of same-sex relationships.

Kessler stated that each of these folksy stories from Biden are part of his “tradition of embellishing his personal tales in ways that cannot be verified or are directly refuted by contemporary accounts.”

WASHINGTON POST SLAPS BIDEN WITH ‘FOUR PINOCCHIOS’ FOR FALSELY CLAIMING HUNTER NEVER MADE MONEY FROM CHINA

The Washington Post logo and President Biden

President Biden was called out by the Washington Post fact-checker for several embellished stories he has told audiences over his career. (Getty Images)

The fact-checker began with Biden’s most recent exaggerated story. He wrote, “At least six times as president, mostly recently in comments to Hurricane Idalia victims Wednesday, Biden has exaggerated the extent of a fire that occurred at his house in 2004.”

In those retellings, Kessler noted how Biden, then a U.S. senator from Delaware, had claimed “a couple firefighters” almost died, how his 1967 Corvette was nearly destroyed, and that a “significant portion” of his house burned.

The fact-checker corrected the record, saying, “The contemporary news accounts in the Wilmington News Journal and The Associated Press are much less dramatic.”

Citing the outlets, he added, “’Biden’s house on Barley Mill Road was reported hit by lightning at 8:16 a.m., emergency officials said,’ the News Journal reported. ‘There were no injuries and firefighters kept the fire contained to one room.’

“Cranston Heights Fire Co. Chief George Lamborn told the newspaper the flames did not spread from the kitchen. ‘Luckily, we got it pretty early. The fire was under control in 20 minutes.’”

BIDEN BLASTED FOR COMPARING KITCHEN FIRE IN HIS HOME TO DEVASTATING MAUI BLAZE: ‘ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING’

Biden in Maui

President Biden speaks after touring areas devastated by the Maui wildfires  in Lahaina, Hawaii, on Aug. 21, 2023. (Evan Vucci)

Kessler then mentioned Biden’s oft-used anecdote about his conversation with an Amtrak conductor. He wrote, “At least 10 times as president, most recently during an Aug. 15 speech in Milwaukee, Biden has told a heartwarming but implausible story about an Amtrak conductor named Angelo Negri who congratulated him for traveling more on Amtrak than he had on Air Force planes as vice president.”

As Biden has told the story, Negri congratulated the then-vice president for traveling 2 million miles on Amtrak trains, almost double the amount he has traveled on Air Force One.

Kessler corrected this, saying, “But it’s not possible this conversation took place as Biden describes… Biden did not pass the 1.2 million-mile mark until 2016; Negri retired from Amtrak in 1993, 16 years before Biden became vice president. Negri died in 2014, two years before Biden claims they had this conversation.”

The fact-checker also poked holes in one of Biden’s go-to gay rights stories. Kessler stated, “Three times this year — and at least seven times since 2014 — Biden has told a version, most recently on Aug. 10, of a story about words his father supposedly spoke after a teenage Biden saw two well-dressed men in suits kiss each other in downtown Wilmington in the early 1960s.”

However, the author noted, “Biden depicts a scene that would have been unusual six decades ago. He describes this exchange with his father usually as taking place in 1961. But back then, gay men generally did not kiss in public. Many people regarded homosexuality as deviant.”

“Moreover,” Kessler added, “Biden’s story has evolved over time. In 2014, in a New York Times article on his evolution on same-sex marriage, he was the father in the story, speaking to one of his sons.”

Categories
America's Heartland Corruption Education Emotional abuse How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Opinion Progressive Racism Reprints from others. WOKE Work Place

Oberlin College Lacrosse Coach Under Attack by Woke Administrators for Defending Women’s Sports.

Oberlin College Lacrosse Coach Under Attack by Woke Administrators for Defending Women’s Sports.

The head coach of Oberlin College’s lacrosse team says she was called “transphobic” and “unsafe,” and investigated by the woke college after questioning transgender swimmer Lia Thomas, a biological male, winning last year in the NCAA. “It is scientific that, biologically, males and females are different,” the lacrosse coach added. “I don’t believe biological males should be in women’s locker rooms. Where is the MeToo movement now? What happened to that?”

“I was blown away that a male was allowed to compete with women in NCAA swimming,” Oberlin College lacrosse coach Kim Russell said in an eight-minute video documentary shared by the Independent Women’s Forum.

Watch Below.

“When Lia Thomas won, I reposted a post that said, ‘Congratulations to Emma Weyant, the real woman who won the NCAA 500-yard freestyle event.’ One of my own players took that post and sent it in an email to my athletic director,” Russell explained.

Oberlin College Women's Lacrosse Coach Kim Russell

Oberlin College Women’s Lacrosse Coach Kim Russell

School administrators responded to the complaint by calling Russell into their offices for a series of disciplinary meetings, and the lacrosse coach recorded each one.

In one instance, Natalie Winkelfoos, Associate VP for Athletics, can be heard telling Russell, “Unfortunately, you fall into a category of people that are kind of filled with hate in the world.”

 

 

“It’s acceptable to have your own opinions, but when they go against, you know, Oberlin College’s beliefs, it’s a problem, for your employment,” Creg Jantz, Senior Associate Director of Athletics, told Russell in another instance.

Russell said school administrators later demanded that she write a letter of apology to the team, and to the Department of Athletics.

“I hope you feel remorse for it,” Winkelfoos said in another audio recording.

The lacrosse coach said she began to write her apology letter, but then stopped herself from doing so.

“I’m not writing a letter of apology, I’m not sorry,” Russell said in the documentary. “I really believe that women should be competing against other biological females.”

 

 

Russell, who has been coaching for 27 years, said she was then told that she had to attend a meeting with her entire team, the athletic director, the Title IX director for the Athletics Department, the head of the department’s Diversity, equity, and inclusion (D.E.I.) office, and the Title IX and director of D.E.I. for the entire college.

“There was a very dark energy,” Russell explained of the meeting. “Chairs were set up in a huge circle, I felt like I was burned at the stake.”

“It was, what I would call the ‘mob mentality,’ where a few people on the team spoke about how much they were upset with what I had posted, and how dare I post that,” the coach said. “I love these kids, and to have many of them say all these things that, to me, were attacking who I was as a person, it made me sad.”

The documentary also featured several audio clips of student lacrosse players lecturing Russell.

 

 

“Everyone has their views,” one student said. “But what the focus should be here isn’t what the view is, it should be the impact that that caused, the impact that that post had,” one student could be heard preaching in an audio clip.

“I still feel like we’re just kind of, like, justifying your actions a little, instead of, like, a true apology,” another student lectured. “Especially at Oberlin, where there is such a high, like, LGBTQ+ population, I just feel like I would like a little more accountability.”

“It’s not good enough just to work for, like, women’s issues or white feminism, you know? It has to, like, your feminism, has to be inclusive for everybody,” another said.

 

 

During the meeting, Russell felt that nobody was really listening to what she had to say. After that, when the season was finished, Russell was called in for yet another meeting, where she was given a letter that informed her she had damaged her credibility and would need to change her behavior immediately.

“I believe that there are so many people who are afraid of losing their jobs that they are just going to do what they have to do to keep working,” Russell said in the documentary. “It is my job to be a voice for everyone who is too afraid, who needs to keep their job.”

“It is scientific that, biologically, males and females are different,” the lacrosse coach added. “I don’t believe biological males should be in women’s locker rooms. Where is the MeToo movement now? What happened to that?”

“Do I believe I’m at risk of being fired, of having a storm hit me?” Russell said. “Yes. Am I ready for the storm? Yes.”

Russell is not the first person Oberlin College has attacked.

As Breitbart News previously reported, the leftist school had to pay $36.59 million in court-ordered defamation damages to a mom-and-pop bakery it slandered as racist — after previously fighting desperately to avoid paying the judgment.

In 2019, Meredith Raimondo, now an ex-dean, had orchestrated a woke mob into slandering the family that runs Gibson’s Bakery as racists for calling the police on three black students for allegedly shoplifting a bottle of wine.

Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Crime Government Overreach How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Progressive Racism Reprints from others. The Courts The Law

Judge’s order in Mark Meadows case “could be very bad news” for Fani Willis.

Judge’s order in Mark Meadows case “could be very bad news” for Fani Willis.

By Areeba Shah.

U.S. District Court Judge Steve Jones on Tuesday ordered Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and former president Donald Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows to offer opinions on a key matter essential to addressing Meadows’s argument that his Georgia prosecution should be tried in federal court.

Jones asked both parties to provide their views on whether “a finding that at least one (but not all) of the overt acts charged occurred under the color of Meadow’s office [would] be sufficient for federal removal of a criminal prosecution under [the federal removal statute].”

When Meadows took the stand on Tuesday, he argued he was acting in his capacity as Trump’s top White House aide when he reached out to Georgia officials following the 2020 elections. Fulton County prosecutors, on the other hand, asserted that Meadows’ actions went well beyond the responsibilities of his federal position.

Meadows was charged in Willis’ sprawling racketeering indictment, which accuses him and 17 others of conspiring to subvert the results of the 2020 election in Georgia.

In court documents, his legal team has already revealed their plans to seek the dismissal of the charges from a federal judge if the case is transferred to federal court, according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Even if a judge doesn’t dismiss the charges, the shift to federal court would provide Meadows with a broader and potentially more conservative pool of jurors and bar cameras from entering the courtroom.

The pivotal point of contention for the removal hinges mainly on whether Meadows can prove that he was indicted for actions he carried out in his capacity as a federal official.

Clark Cunningham, professor of law at Georgia State University, also weighed in on X, formerly Twitter, arguing that this order “could be very bad news” for Willis.

“If I were the DA, I would ask grand jury for a superseding indictment that removes the name of Mark Meadows from Acts 5, 6, 7, and 19 of Count 1 (but continuing the allegations as to Donald Trump),” he wrote.

The first three alleged overt acts by Meadows (Acts 5, 6 and 7) are not necessary to establish his liability under RICO, but keeping them in the indictment now runs an “enormous risk” for the DA of losing the removal issue, in light of Judge Jones’ order, since these overt acts come closest to meeting the test for federal officer removal, he added.

Cunningham explained that Acts 5 and 7 involve White House meetings between Trump and state legislators, for which Meadows made “plausible claims” on the witness stand that his role was limited to what the Chief of Staff typically does. Act 6 alleges only that Meadows asked a member of Congress from Pennsylvania for the phone numbers of the leaders of the state legislature in Pennsylvania, again saying this was a typical task for a chief of staff.

“Act 19 alleges that Trump & Meadows met together with another White House staffer, John McEntee and asked him to prepare a memo for a strategy to disrupt the January 6 session of Congress,” Cunningham wrote. “Meadows testified firmly that Act 19 did not describe anything he had done and it is not worth continuing to try and prosecute Meadows for Act 19.”

Jones ordered that Willis and attorneys for Meadows file their briefs by 5 p.m. on Thursday.

Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption How sick is this? Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Reprints from others.

Biden Falsely Claims to Have Convinced Strom Thurmond to Vote for the Civil Rights Act.

Biden Falsely Claims to Have Convinced Strom Thurmond to Vote for the Civil Rights Act.

By PAUL BOIS-Breitbart.

President Joe Biden made a false claim on Monday when he said that he “literally” convinced former Dixiecrat Sen. Strom Thurmond (SC) to vote for the Civil Rights Act.

The president made his outlandish claim while speaking on the 60th anniversary of the founding of the civil rights legal group, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

“Pause for just a moment. I thought things had changed. I was able to literally, not figuratively, talk Strom Thurmond into voting for the Civil Rights Act before he died, and I thought, ‘Well maybe there’s real progress,’ But hate never dies. It just hides, it hides under the rocks,” he said.

Strom Thurmond, who switched to the Republican Party after years as a Democrat, voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 before Joe Biden had entered politics, being that he was just 21 years old at the time. Strom Thurmond also died in 2003, many decades after the passing of civil rights.

Thurmond not only voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he also holds the record for the longest-ever filibuster opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

AG on X: “Any idea what Biden is talking about? Strom Thurmond voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he died almost 40 years later, and Biden was in college at that time… https://t.co/wxns7kZE4u” / X (twitter.com)

According to Fox News, a White House spokesperson later said the president was “instrumental in getting Thurmond’s vote for the Voting Rights Act, in 1980.”

Whatever the president meant, it represents yet another serious gaffe in his long string of serious gaffes. For instance, he has often publicly said that his son Beau died in Iraq even though he died of brain cancer after having previously served in Iraq. As Breitbart News reported, the president made a similar claim in 2022 while giving a speech in Colorado to designate Camp Hale as a national monument. He had been discussing the many sacrifices that soldiers make before citing his son Beau as an example.

“I say this as a father of a man who won the Bronze Star, the conspicuous service medal, and lost his life in Iraq,” Biden said.

The following month, the president once again claimed that Iraq was “where my son died.”

In May of this year, the president used the backdrop of a conversation with U.S. servicemen to once again falsely claim Beau died in the Iraq War. The president reportedly made his claim during a visit with troops at Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni in Japan.

“My son was a major in the U.S. Army. We lost him in Iraq,” he reportedly said.

According to the New York Post, the traveling press corps were “kept far enough away that the remarks were inaudible.”

“The White House press office did not put out an official transcript, almost allowing the error to escape public notice,” according to the Post.

In late September 2022, the president appeared to call out for now-deceased Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-IN) when giving a speech at a White House event.

“Jackie, are you here? Where’s Jackie?” Biden asked.

“I didn’t think she was going to be here,” he added.

 

Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Crime Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Reprints from others.

National Archives Has 5,400 Biden Emails With Pseudonyms.

National Archives Has 5,400 Biden Emails With Pseudonyms.

By Jeffrey Rodack   

The National Archives and Records Administration acknowledged it has about 5,400 emails that potentially show President Joe Biden hid behind phony names while vice president, the New York Post is reporting.

The existence of the records was confirmed by the NARA and came in response to a June 2022 Freedom of Information Act request by the Southeastern Legal Foundation.

Specifically, the SLF, a nonprofit constitutional legal group, requested emails relating to the accounts of Robin Ware, Robert L. Peters, and JRB Ware — pseudonyms Joe Biden was known to use in the White House during his time as vice president under Barack Obama, the Post said.

The legal foundation sued the NARA for the release of the records on Monday. The group claims the records could show Joe Biden may have provided government information to his son, Hunter Biden.

Kimberly Hermann, SLF general counsel, said in a statement: “All too often, public officials abuse their power by using it for their personal or political benefit. When they do, many seek to hide it. The only way to preserve governmental integrity is for NARA to release Joe Biden’s nearly 5,400 emails to SLF and thus the public. The American public deserves to know what is in them.”

Stephannie Oriabure, director of NARA’s archival operations division, wrote the SLF on June 24, 2022, saying: “We have performed a search of our collection for vice presidential records related to your [June 9, 2022] request and have identified approximately 5,138 email messages, 25 electronic files and 200 pages of potentially responsive records that must be processed in order to respond to your request,” according to the lawsuit.

The SLF said none of the emails or documents have been turned over to the group.

On Aug. 17, Rep. James Comer, House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chair, demanded that NARA release records from Joe Biden’s years as vice president from times that overlapped with the activities of his son’s activities in Ukraine, particularly emails that were signed with the pseudonyms “Robert Peters,” “Robin Ware,” and “JRB Ware.”

Comer, R-Ky., in a letter to NARA Archivist Colleen Shogan, also requested that all unredacted documents and communications in which Hunter Biden, Eric Schwerin, or Devon Archer are copied; and for all drafts of a speech Joe Biden delivered to the Ukrainian Rada, or parliament, in December 2015.

BY Jeffrey Rodack

 

Categories
Biden Cartel Biden Pandemic Commentary Corruption COVID Emotional abuse Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Medicine Opinion Politics Reprints from others. Science

Worth Posting again. Masks really don’t work that well.

Worth Posting again. Masks really don’t work that well.

Just in case you missed it, we did a similar story several months back. With the latest hysteria that’s going on out there with the fanatics about the alleged resurgence of COVID, I thought it best to remind folks on masking up. This from the Cochrane Institute.

Data collection and analysis

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

Main results

We included 11 new RCTs and cluster‐RCTs (610,872 participants) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID‐19 pandemic; two from Mexico, and one each from Denmark, Bangladesh, England, and Norway. We identified four ongoing studies, of which one is completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Many studies were conducted during non‐epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID‐19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high‐income countries; crowded inner city settings in low‐income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high‐income country. Adherence with interventions was low in many studies.

The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster‐RCTs was mostly high or unclear.

Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks

We included 12 trials (10 cluster‐RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low‐certainty evidence).