Category: Politics

Categories
Reprints from others. Politics

Today’s Top Stories

Yes you did. Government overreach. FOX Photo.

Views: 22

 

  • Finland’s President Sauli Niinistö and Prime Minister Sanna Marin announced Thursday the country plans to apply for NATO membership “without delay,” arguing such a move would strengthen both Finland’s own security and the defense alliance as a whole. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said the accession process will be “smooth and swift” once Finland formally applies, and Pentagon spokesman John Kirby praised the decision as “historic.” The Kremlin, meanwhile, threatened to retaliate with “military-technical” measures if Finland follows through on the move.
  • The Interior Department canceled plans this week to auction off oil and gas leases for two regions in the Gulf of Mexico and one off the coast of Alaska, citing legal challenges and “a lack of industry interest” in the drilling rights. Industry groups disputed that characterization, noting the decision likely means the Biden administration will not auction off any leases for offshore drilling until at least 2023.
  • In light of ongoing shortages, President Joe Biden announced Thursday he had instructed his administration to crack down on any “price gouging or unfair market practices” related to baby formula, cut some restrictions on baby formula imports, and allow states to loosen certain Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) requirements.
  • North Korea conducted another set of ballistic missile tests on Thursday, according to Japanese and South Korean military officials. The country—which is currently dealing with an unmitigated COVID-19 outbreak—launched three missiles off its east coast yesterday, each traveling about 225 miles before landing in the sea between Japan and the Korean Peninsula.
  • At least 11 people were confirmed dead on Thursday after a boat believed to be carrying migrants capsized near Puerto Rico. A U.S. Coast Guard spokesman said a Customs and Border Protection aircraft spotted the makeshift vessel Thursday morning, and that at least 31 survivors were rescued.
  • The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Wednesday the producer price index—a measure of what suppliers and wholesalers are charging their customers—increased 0.5 percent in April on a seasonally adjusted basis, down from March’s 1.6 percent month-over-month increase and February’s 1.1 percent. Annual PPI inflation came in at 11 percent, just shy of last month’s record-high 11.2 percent.
  • The Senate voted 80-19 on Thursday to confirm Jerome Powell for a second four-year term as chair of the Federal Reserve. The central bank’s board of governors is nearly full, as the chamber also voted 91-7 this week to confirm economist Philip Jefferson to the board.
  • The January 6 Select Committee announced Thursday it had issued subpoenas to five Republican House members—Reps. Jim Jordan, Mo Brooks, Scott Perry, Andy Biggs, and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy—citing their refusal to voluntarily testify before the committee about their “relevant knowledge of the events on or leading up to January 6th.” It’s unclear whether the lawmakers will comply with the subpoenas—there’s little precedent of an investigative committee using such tactics against fellow House members—or whether the Justice Department will pursue contempt charges if they don’t.
  • The Labor Department reported Thursday that initial jobless claims—a proxy for layoffs—increased by 1,000 week-over-week to 203,000 last week.

A New Leader in the Philippines …

Ferdinand Marcos Jr., president-elect of the Philippines. (Photo by TED ALJIBE/AFP via Getty Images)

In 1986, Philippine ruler Ferdinand Marcos Sr. fled to Hawaii with his wife and kids, 90 of his closest friends, and a few essentials: jeweled cufflinks, gold bricks, tiaras, and crates of cash. (His wife Imelda’s 3,000-pair shoe collection stayed behind.) A military-backed, pro-democracy uprising had ended a decades-long rule characterized by human rights abuses and corruption that earned the family as much as $10 billion.

Marcos Sr. died three years into his self-exile, but his family has spent years working its way back into power in the Philippines—his son Ferdinand “BongBong” Marcos Jr. served as a provincial governor and senator and in 2016 lost a bid for vice president. This week, Marcos Jr. was elected president of the Philippines by about a 15 million vote margin, as public polling predicted. He’ll take office June 30, and President Joe Biden called Wednesday to congratulate him on the win.

“To the world: Judge me not by my ancestors, but by my actions,” Marcos Jr. said in a statement delivered by his spokesman this week. He campaigned on national unity and—with the help of social media—portrayed his father’s rule as a golden age. Fact check group Tsek.ph found 92 percent of false posts it checked about Marcos Jr. were favorable toward him, while 96 percent of posts with misinformation about his primary competitor were negative toward her. The independent news outlet Rappler—founded by journalist Maria Ressa, whom Charlotte profiled last year—has suggested Marcos Jr. conducted a disinformation campaign on social media to launder his family’s reputation, beginning as early as 2014.

Critics worry he’ll shut down efforts to investigate his family’s crimes. Amnesty International estimates Marcos Sr.’s security forces imprisoned more than 70,000 people, torturing many of them. The Presidential Commission on Good Government has recovered less than $4 billion of the wealth the Marcos family and associates accrued. Imelda Marcos, 92, was found guilty of graft in 2018 but posted bail and has appealed the conviction. As president, Marcos Jr. could close the commission and scrap the case against his mother.

Outgoing President Rodrigo Duterte’s “war on drugs” killed more than 7,000 people, according to Human Rights Watch, and he promised after leaving office to “search for drug peddlers, shoot them, and kill them.” Filipinos elected Duterte’s daughter, Sara Duterte-Carpio, as Marcos Jr.’s vice president, and he says he’ll allow International Criminal Court officials investigating Duterte’s killings into the country—“but only as tourists.”

… and in Hong Kong

A hop, skip, and a two-hour plane ride from the Philippines, Hong Kong also chose a new leader this week.

Britain returned Hong Kong to China’s sovereignty in 1997 under the “one country, two systems” agreement, under which Hong Kong could keep its political freedoms and market economy for 50 years. But this agreement has come under pressure in recent years as Beijing exerts more control over the “special administrative region’s” governance. Many critics regard the city’s new leader as a further departure from Hong Kong’s promised freedoms.

Beijing loyalist and former Deputy Secretary for Security John Lee is best known for leading the brutal police crackdown on Hong Kong’s 2019 pro-democracy protests. He has also helped implement the city’s new National Security Law, which outlaws “secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces” and has led to the arrests of more than 150 people and squashed most pro-democracy political groups and independent news outlets. (The city’s foreign correspondents club recently suspended its human rights award for fear of violating the new laws.) The U.S. sanctioned Lee in 2020 for undermining Hong Kong’s autonomy and its citizens’ freedom of expression.

Lee’s election Sunday is the first since changes to Hong Kong’s election laws last year that Beijing implemented to ensure only “patriots” hold office. In his role as chief secretary last year, Lee led the vetting of members of the approximately 1,500-person committee that, this year, was responsible for electing him. The only candidate in Sunday’s election, he won 99 percent of the vote and will be sworn in on July 1 when his predecessor, Carrie Lam, steps down after a five-year term marked by crackdowns on pro-democracy protests and a tumultuous COVID-19 situation.

“[The election result] fully demonstrates the new vitality of the democratic practice in Hong Kong and the true democratic spirit,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said Tuesday. After all, a full 1,416 of Hong Kong’s approximately 7.5 million residents voted for Lee.

Other countries pointed out the disconnect. In a joint statement on Sunday, the G7 nations expressed “grave concern” over “a continued assault on political pluralism and fundamental freedoms.” Days after the election, Hong Kong national security officers arrested four prominent pro-democracy activists—including 90-year-old Cardinal Joseph Zen—under the national security law. They’ve since been released on bail pending investigation.

“I look forward to all of us starting a new chapter together, building a Hong Kong that is caring, open and vibrant, and a Hong Kong that is full of opportunities and harmony,” Lee said in a victory speech. He’s pledged to improve Hong Kong’s governance and housing, as well as enact laws fighting treason, secession, sedition, and subversion.

“In Lee, Beijing gets its ‘designated enforcer,’” said Samuel Chu, founder of pro-democracy advocacy group The Campaign for Hong Kong. “Lee is a puppet elected through a sham process who will face no political opposition, no independent and free press, and no freedom of speech, assembly, or expression. Today, John Lee won and the people of Hong Kong lost.”

Capital Tensions High After Draft Supreme Court Opinion Leak

When Politico published a leaked draft opinion from Justice Samuel Alito showing the Supreme Court was poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, it wasn’t just Washington, D.C. that was turned upside down. A couple of quiet neighborhoods in Maryland and Virginia, were too.

Abortion-access activists have organized a handful of protests outside conservatives justices’ homes in recent days, hoping to use public pressure to influence the court’s final ruling. Harvest and Audrey observed some protests outside Alito’s home in Alexandria and Brett Kavanaugh’s in Chevy Chase, and they report what they saw in

…

Loading

247
Post Views: 401
Categories
Leftist Virtue(!) Politics Reprints from others. The Courts

Supreme Court Suffers Another Major Roe v. Wade Leak – It Looks Great for Pro-Lifers

Views: 39

The justices pose for a group photo at the Supreme Court in Washington on April 23, 2021. (Erin Schaff – Pool / Getty Images).

By Abby Liebing for Western Journal  May 11, 2022 at 7:48am

Last week, Politico published a leaked draft of a Supreme Court decision, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, on the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case. The draft showed that the court could strike down the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

Now, as the court is set to meet on Thursday, Politico has published more leaked information — and it is good news for pro-lifers.

The outlet reported Wednesday morning that Alito’s draft opinion is still the only circulated draft in the abortion case and that no votes have changed while the court is waiting for the dissent opinion to emerge.

“[T]here’s no sign that the court is changing course from issuing that ruling,” the report said.

The initial draft majority opinion by Alito said “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Politico reported on May 2.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” the justice wrote. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

However, Politico noted at the time that the court’s votes on the Dobbs v. Jackson case could change.

“Under long-standing court procedures, justices hold preliminary votes on cases shortly after argument and assign a member of the majority to write a draft of the court’s opinion,” it said. “The draft is often amended in consultation with other justices, and in some cases the justices change their votes altogether, creating the possibility that the current alignment on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization could change.”

But the report Wednesday indicated no change in the votes.

Do you think Roe v. Wade will be overturned?
Yes: 97% (66 Votes)
No: 3% (2 Votes)
(From WJ site @ 11 am 5/11/22)

“Justice Samuel Alito’s sweeping and blunt draft majority opinion from February overturning Roe remains the court’s only circulated draft in the pending Mississippi abortion case, POLITICO has learned, and none of the conservative justices who initially sided with Alito have to date switched their votes,” the outlet reported.

“No dissenting draft opinions have circulated from any justice, including the three liberals,” Politico added.

The initial leak led to outrage among pro-abortion activists and joy among pro-lifers over the possibility of the court overturning Roe v. Wade.

But also shocking was that someone inside the Supreme Court would leak such information to the media.

University of Texas law professor Steve Vladek said these leaks indicate there is turmoil behind the Supreme Court’s closed doors.

“It’s hard to overstate how ugly this means things must be behind the scenes,” Vladeck tweeted.

Even Politico, which has published the leaked information, reported that the Supreme Court is facing a great crisis due to the leaks and the resulting furor, which has included protests targeting justices’ homes.

“This is the most serious assault on the court, perhaps from within, that the Supreme Court’s ever experienced,” one source told the outlet. “It’s an understatement to say they are heavily, heavily burdened by this.”

With the summer break coming, the justices have only about seven more weeks to craft a decision on abortion.

Loading

273
Post Views: 525
Categories
Politics Faked news Progressive Racism Reprints from others. The Courts

Did Alito and Barrett Claim That America Needs a ‘Domestic Supply of Infants’? Fake News.

Debunking Fake News. (Photograph by Erin Schaff/Getty Images.)

Views: 28

Article was originally here.

A viral tweet claims that Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Samuel Alito justified overturning Roe v. Wade in the leaked draft majority opinion because “the US needs a ‘domestic supply of infants.’”

Twitter avatar for @DrGJackBrownDr. Jack Brown @DrGJackBrown

BREAKING: In a brief re abortion, Supreme court Justices Amy Coney Barrett/Alito’s Draft, said US needs a “domestic supply of infants” to meet needs of parents seeking to adopt — that those who would otherwise abort must be made to carry to term — giving children up for adoption.

May 7th 2022

In a reply to the tweet, the tweet author shared a screenshot from the opinion showing the line in question.

Twitter avatar for @DrGJackBrownDr. Jack Brown @DrGJackBrown

Addendum:

Image

May 7th 2022

The draft was written by Alito, not Barrett and Alito as the tweet suggests. The section of the opinion from which the quote is pulled is a footnote, with the line not being written by Barrett or Alito, but coming from a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention paper on adoption. The line reads: “[N]early 1 million women were seeking to adopt children in 2002 (i.e., they were in demand of a child), whereas the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or within the first month of life and available to be adopted had become virtually nonexistent.”

This paper is cited in a paragraph summing up arguments from pro-life Americans, specifically being cited in a sentence noting that a newborn put up for adoption in the United States will likely find a home. The footnote appears in the following section, following the italicized portion (italicization added):

“Americans who believe that abortion should be restricted press countervailing arguments about modern developments. They note that attitudes about the pregnancy of un-married women have changed drastically; that federal and state laws ban discrimination on the basis of pregnancy,42 that leave for pregnancy and childbirth are now guaranteed by law in many cases,43 that the costs of medical care associated with pregnancy are covered by insurance or government assistance44; that States have increasingly adopted ‘safe haven’ laws, which generally allow women to drop off babies anonymously45; and that a woman who puts her newborn up for adoption today has little reason to fear that the baby will not find a suitable home46.”

From the context of the footnote, it’s clear that the CDC quote appeared in the footnote only to highlight the fact that unwanted babies put up for adoption in the United States will likely find a family—not, as the tweet implies, that domestic birth rates need to increase to meet adoption demands. What’s more, the paragraph in which the footnote appears is about the arguments of pro-life Americans, taking place in a summary of the public debate surrounding abortion. Immediately preceding the above paragraph is another summing up the beliefs of pro-abortion Americans, which reads:

“Defenders of Roe and [Casey v. Planned Parenthood] do not claim that any new scientific learning calls for a different answer to the underlying moral question, but they do contend that changes in society require the recognition of a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. Without the availability of abortion, they maintain, people will be inhibited from exercising their freedom to choose the types of relationships they desire, and women will be unable to compete with men in the workplace and in other endeavors.”

Following both summaries, the opinion continues:

“Both sides make important policy arguments, but supporters of Roe and Casey must show that this Court has the authority to weigh those arguments and decide how abortion may be regulated in the States. They have failed to make that showing, and we thus return the power to weigh those arguments to the people and their elected officials.”

Loading

255
Post Views: 413
Categories
Uncategorized Politics Reprints from others.

State budget problem no one told you about

The California state Capitol building. (Photo by David Paul Morris/Getty Images)

Views: 30

Originally appeared here.

California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Gabe Petek had some bad news for the Legislature last week. His office conducted an analysis of 10,000 possible scenarios of tax revenue collections to see how the state’s general fund would be affected.

“In 95 percent of our simulations, the state encountered a budget problem by 2025-26,” Petek wrote.

The “budget problem” is that the state has taken in so much revenue from its high tax rates that it has triggered the so-called Gann limit, a state appropriations limit that was approved by voters in 1979. An “appropriation” is a legislative authorization for spending, and the Gann limit, named after its proponent, Proposition 13 backer Paul Gann, was intended to prevent local and state government from intentionally raking in surplus tax revenue and then spending it all.

The Gann limit, also known as 1979’s Proposition 4, has specific and complicated rules about how revenue is counted and which types of appropriations are limited, but what it means is that surplus revenue can’t simply be spent on anything lawmakers choose.

Voters have had their say more than once about the state should be allocating tax dollars. Under 1988’s Proposition 98, a percentage of revenues must be spent on education, and under 2014’s Proposition 2, the Legislature must put money toward budget reserves. The Legislative Analyst’s Office determined that once the state appropriations limit (SAL) is reached, the “budget problem” kicks in with a vengeance. “We estimate that for every dollar of tax revenue above the SAL, the state faces approximately $1.60 in constitutional funding obligations,” Petek wrote.

So if the economy is strong and revenues continue to rise, the budget is in trouble by 2025-26, and if the economy goes into a recession and revenues fall, the budget is in trouble by 2025-26.

While this would seem to indicate that nothing lawmakers do will change the outcome, that’s not the case. The recommendation from the Legislative Analyst’s Office is for the Legislature to reject “the lion’s share” of $10 billion of proposals in the governor’s budget.

You might as well try to get a raw steak out of a lion’s jaws. Even the LAO admits that rejecting new spending programs is “the most jarring of the options” for the Legislature.

Still, the governor’s budget plan “is not a fiscally sustainable starting point,” Petek writes. Rejecting $10 billion of the governor’s “non-SAL-excludable spending proposals” would help by “constraining growth of the state’s spending base,” another way of saying new programs are an ongoing commitment, not a one-time expense. Rejecting the governor’s spending proposals would also help by “saving the unspent funds” to put the state on “more solid fiscal footing for whatever economic conditions the future holds.”

In a worse-case scenario, the LAO’s analysis found, the state’s budget reserves, estimated at $25 billion, “would be depleted within one year.”

It would be a good idea, Petek, wrote, for lawmakers to apply “close scrutiny to the governor’s spending proposals,” and if it’s not possible to reject them all, to at least adopt a “high threshold for new programs.” The LAO recommends approving only proposals that “address a well-defined problem with a policy strategy that has been evaluated and found to be cost-effective.”

As long as we’re indulging in daydreams, the state should cut its  highest-in-the-nation tax rates and stay within the spending limits in the state constitution.

 

Loading

222
Post Views: 302
Categories
Corruption Elections Faked news Politics The Courts

80 ‘Suspicious Actors’ and ‘Material Witnesses’ Under Scrutiny by Jan. 6 Defense Attorneys

Views: 30

Attorney Brad Geyer seeks information on unidentified “suspicious actors” at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (Brad Geyer/Graphic via The Epoch Times)
By Joseph M. Hanneman May 6, 2022 Updated: May 7, 2022

Defense attorneys are seeking to identify and investigate 80 suspicious actors and material witnesses, some of whom allegedly ran an entrapment operation against the Oath Keepers on January 6, 2021, and committed crimes including the removal of security fencing, breaching police lines, attacking officers, and inciting crowds to storm into the Capitol.

In a motion (pdf) and supplement (pdf) filed after 11 p.m. on May 5 in federal court in Washington, attorney Brad Geyer listed 80 people, some of whom he said could be government agents or provocateurs. The people are seen on video operating in a coordinated fashion across the Capitol grounds on January 6, the attorney alleged.

Geyer’s suggestion of an entrapment scheme will resonate with dozens of January 6 defense attorneys, coming shortly after two men were acquitted of an alleged plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D). There was a hung jury on charges against two other defendants. The jury in that case was allowed to consider FBI entrapment as a defense.

Geyer, who represents Oath Keepers defendant Kenneth Harrelson, is seeking a court order from U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta compelling federal prosecutors to help identify the individuals and disclose whether they were working for law enforcement or any government agency on January 6. Geyer wrote that the information is exculpatory, which compels the government to produce it. Other Oath Keepers defendants are expected to join in the motion.

The May 5 filing comes on the heels of an April 12 Oath Keepers motion that alleged at least 20 “assets” from the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) were embedded in the crowds on January 6.

Epoch Times Photo
More than a dozen ‘suspicious actors’ flagged by defense attorneys line up on the east steps of the U.S. Capitol, shortly before they pushed past police and climbed to the Columbus Doors on Jan. 6, 2021. (Attorney Brad Geyer/Screenshot via The Epoch Times)
According to the new filing, video evidence the defense gained access to only recently shows that some of the 80 people attacked police, other people, and members of the Oath Keepers; entered the Capitol on the west side “with apparent permission or acquiescence of government actors”; opened the Columbus Doors on the east side of the Capitol “from the inside, possibly with even further assistance of government actors”; and deployed “sophisticated crowd-behavior techniques,” orienting themselves between protesters and police.Suspicious actors are seen on video “associating, conferring and traveling with others, engaging in behavior to confuse law enforcement through body masking, facial masking, clothing changes, and disorienting skirmishing behavior,” Geyer wrote.

The suspected people used earpieces, satellite phones, and other communication equipment. “Often it appears that these communications devices do not seem to be affected by capacity restriction or sophisticated jamming that was evident throughout the day,” Geyer wrote.

“If it can be established that these SAs [suspicious actors] were government agents, this could amount to entrapment defense that will dispose of this 7th indictment prior to trial,” the motion said.

“If it can be established that SAs, even without established government agency, from the west or elsewhere, were let into the Capitol and/or were assisted in opening the Columbus Doors from the inside—a reasonable inference from video evidence—a reasonable jury might conclude that one or more SAs had government sponsorship,” Geyer wrote.

Eleven members of the Oath Keepers were charged on January 12 with seditious conspiracy, obstruction of a government proceeding, and other counts. The government alleged the Oathkeepers committed the crimes to prevent the certification of Electoral College votes from the 2020 presidential election.

See video:
Two Oath Keepers defendants of the original 11 accepted deals offered by prosecutors and pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy and obstruction. Another Oath Keepers member from North Carolina was charged May 4 with the same counts and pleaded guilty on May 5. All three are expected to assist the FBI with its ongoing January 6 investigations.

Geyer suggested the Oath Keepers who entered the Capitol Rotunda through the famous Columbus Doors atop the east stairs were entrapped by suspicious actors who boxed them in and attempted to push them into the Capitol after the doors were opened from the inside.

“Prima facie evidence of an entrapment scheme (very possibly without formal government agency) is becoming impossible to ignore on video,” Geyer wrote.

Video shot by a French television crew, and surveillance footage under court seal raise “significant concerns of informants, influencers, and inciters whose activities are now clearly observable,” said a footnote in the motion.

Suspicious Examples

“The now observable behavior suggests the exact kind of specialized training, coordination, logistical support, timing, and common goals and objectives that the government attributes to the Oath Keepers,” Geyer wrote. “Conduct alleged against the Oath Keepers seems to have been perpetrated by others before the Oath Keepers were brought in front of the Columbus Doors.”

The new video evidence “not only exculpates defendant Harrelson and the Oath Keepers in compelling ways, it also shows a large group of SAs that actually carry out the crimes of which the Oath Keepers are accused and which is the centerpiece of the government’s case,” the motion said.

The many unidentified individuals in the court filing are referred to by the hashtag nicknames assigned by the Sedition Hunters website.

“James Dean Wannabe” stood on a column near the Columbus Doors and led “vicious attacks by SAs on police with chemicals and mace,” Geyer wrote.

As soon as the inner doors to the Rotunda opened, James Dean Wannabe shot inside the door and began violently pulling protesters into the Capitol, the document said. He also helped to trap Oath Keepers member James Dolan into a tight space with a Capitol Police officer, the report alleged. He was later seen on the east steps after changing clothes and removing his hat.

“Lemony Kickit” and “Lemon Zest,” both known for their colorful hats, appeared at the first and second breach points of the day near Ray Epps, the alleged provocateur who was captured on video on January 5 and 6 imploring protesters to go into the Capitol.

Video also showed Lemony Kickit and Lemon Zest pushed at police and breached the police line on the east steps before they moved up the stairs to the Columbus Doors.

Columbus Doors Were Closed

Videos referenced in Geyer’s motion show that the 17-foot-high, 20,000-pound bronze Columbus Doors were closed when the crowd gathered at the bottom of the steps and then breached the police line. When the crowd reached the top, the fortress-like doors were still shut. It’s not clear when, or why, the doors were opened.

That significant revelation backs up arguments made in January by attorney Jonathon Moseley, who told prosecutors his client, Kelly Meggs, could not have breached the doors because they are controlled from inside the Capitol.

“The outer doors cast from solid bronze would require a bazooka, an artillery shell, or C4 military-grade explosives to breach,” Moseley wrote in a letter to federal prosecutors. “That of course did not happen. You would sooner break into a bank vault than to break the bronze outer Columbus Doors.”

Epoch Times Photo
The 17-foot-high bronze Columbus Doors at the U.S. Capitol were closed when protesters and suspicious actors pushed past police on the east steps on Jan. 6, 2021. The 20,000-pound doors can only be opened from inside. (Attorney Brad Geyer/Screenshot via The Epoch Times)

The towering Columbus Doors that lead into the Rotunda on the east side of the U.S. Capitol are secured by magnetic locks that can only be opened from the inside by using a security code controlled by Capitol Police, Moseley wrote in an eight-page memo in January.

The two inner doors are secured by magnetic locks and cannot be opened from the outside. Twice within an hour on January 6, suspicious actors opened the inner doors from inside the Rotunda, surveillance video shows.

According to Geyer’s filing, a large number of suspicious actors controlled the scene directly in front of the Columbus Doors after the giant doors were opened. They chased away regular protesters with pepper spray and moved other actors into place. The Oath Keepers, each of whom was shadowed by at least one suspicious actor, were positioned and coaxed toward the entrance.

Six to eight suspicious actors attacked police with mace in preparation to breach the entrance, Geyer wrote.

“The dynamic of the crowd makes this almost invisible or fleeting to almost all publicly available camera angles, so most people in the crowd could not have known these chemical assaults occurred and certainly no one could have known who was standing on the steps which is where the Oath Keepers were positioned at exactly this moment.”

The net effect is that the Oath Keepers, who had come up the east stairs, were swept into the Capitol with the group of suspicious actors, the document alleged. The actors attacked police, breached the doors, and led a crowd inside the Rotunda.

Epoch Times Photo
Members of the Oath Keepers were flanked and followed into the U.S. Capitol by suspicious actors on Jan. 6, 2021. (Attorney Brad Geyer/Screenshot via The Epoch Times)

Some of the video evidence referenced in the court motion was redacted from the document because it is part of the more than 14,000 hours of video under a protective court seal.

The court filing will bring fresh attention to the issue of provocateurs at the U.S. Capitol. Epps, a former Oath Keepers member from Arizona, denies he was working as a government informant on Jan. 5 and 6.

Federal prosecutors announced earlier this year they would disclose more information about Epps, whose photo was removed from the FBI’s Jan. 6 most-wanted list. He has not been arrested or charged, despite urging crowds to enter the Capitol and being present when police lines were breached by protesters.

Some of the suspicious actors on Geyer’s list were also seen in the hallway outside the Speaker’s Lobby where Ashli Babbitt was shot at 2:44 p.m. on Jan. 6. There are a number of other unidentified individuals who stood near Babbitt before she tried to climb out of the hallway and was shot and killed by Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd.

Three witnesses to the Babbitt shooting were removed from the FBI’s most-wanted list in April 2021 without explanation. Those men have not been identified or charged.

        Does anyone else smell a barn-full of rats here?

Loading

207
Post Views: 321
Categories
Corruption Back Door Power Grab How sick is this? Politics Polls The Courts

Clarence Thomas Responds To Supreme Court Leak – And Bully Left-wing Activists

Views: 18

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas isn’t backing down.

Amazing how fast these PROFESSIONALLY printed signs showed up. Coincidence?

While speaking in Atlanta, he addressed the Roe v Wade draft leak for the first time.

Justice Thomas said that the Supreme Court can’t be “bullied” into giving decisions.

Fox News reported:

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas dismissed the idea of pressuring the court for desirable outcomes at a judicial conference Friday.

Thomas spoke at the 11th Circuit judicial conference in Atlanta this week, where he discussed the Supreme Court’s leaked draft opinion for the first time. The opinion would overturn Roe v. Wade if made official, sparking panic among Democrats and protests against the court.

“We can’t be an institution that can be bullied into giving you just the outcomes you want. The events from earlier this week are a symptom of that.,” Thomas said, according to reports.

Chief Justice John Roberts agreed with him:

“A leak of this stature is absolutely appalling,” Roberts said. “If the person behind it thinks that it will affect our work, that’s just foolish.”

Immediately after the leak, Democrats attempted to bully the court into ruling in favor of Roe v Wade.

A far-left group doxxed the addresses of Supreme Court Justices who are votes against Roe v Wade – they have protests planned at their houses.

Plus, Democrat Chuck Schumer announced that a vote would be held attempting to make abortion up to birth a federal law.

Breitbart reported:

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Thursday announced the Senate will vote on abortion legislation, via the Women’s Health Protection Act, Wednesday.

This legislation “would enshrine abortion on demand and up-to-birth in federal law as well as void all state laws aimed at protecting the lives of the unborn.”

The vote is likely to fail bigly. Democrats need 60 Senate votes to pass the legislation. And polling shows that public opinion may be at odds with Schumer: Democrats have failed to secure a majority consensus among voters to enact abortion legislation, a Wednesday Politico/Morning Consult poll revealed. Only 47 percent support codifying Roe v. Wade. Fifty-three percent of the electorate either oppose abortion legislation or have no opinion.

Democrats are desperate!

You go,  Justice Thomas!

Loading

213
Post Views: 391
Categories
How sick is this? Back Door Power Grab Corruption Elections Politics

Psaki Confirms: Biden Meant It When He Called A Large Portion of Americans an ‘Extremist Group’

Views: 24

We, as a country, ARE in DIRE DISTRESS.

On Wednesday, Joe Biden falsely characterized MAGA Republicans as the “most extremist” political group in U.S. history. Later that day, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki confirmed that Biden meant what he said.

The name-calling started on Wednesday morning, when Joe Biden sent up a test balloon for a new way to attack conservatives, Republicans and Trump supporters by calling them “ultra MAGAs.”

It isn’t likely his new sobriquet will be echoed by many, but later in his address, he made an even worse attack on half of America’s voters by calling the MAGA movement the “most extremist political organization … in recent American history.”

“What are the next things that are going to be attacked?” Biden said, attacking the idea of eliminating Roe v. Wade. “Because this MAGA crowd is really the most extreme political organization that’s existed in American history — in recent American history,” Biden said.

This is truly an outrageous — not to mention false — claim.

Later, during her White House press conference, Biden spokeswoman Jen Psaki essentially noted that Biden meant what he said. Psaki reiterated that Senator Rick Scott, the Republican from Florida, has offered an extreme economic plan, according to the White House transcript.

When asked directly about his attack on MAGA, Psaki did not back down, and added, “I think he — I answered this a little bit earlier, but I’m happy to reiterate. You know, he has been struck by the hold his predecessor seems to have on far too many members of the party.”

Do you think Biden’s statement reveals what Democrats really think of Americans?
Yes: 98% (1205 Votes)
No: 2% (20 Votes)

“But he is still going to call out where he sees extremist actions and extremist rhetoric,” Psaki exclaimed.

This really is a disgusting calumny. RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel had it right when she tweeted in reply to Biden saying, “Outrageous! This is from a man who repeatedly praised segregationists. Biden promised to unite the country, but it’s been smears and lies instead.”

 

Regardless of whether Biden is serious about his name-calling, it is certainly a serious accusation, one that is outrageously partisan and false. MAGA followers and Trump voters are in no way “extremists.” Indeed, they epitomize a century of conservative policy ideals of low taxes, small government, local control, Christian and family values and rugged individualism.

Related:
White House Gives Approval to Crowds Mobbing SCOTUS Justices’ Homes: No ‘Official US Government Position on Where People Protest’

Further, the MAGA movement has been marked by peaceful protests since it inherited that mantle from the peaceful, non-violent Tea Party movement that preceded it. And that is even if one does blame MAGA for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

Contrast the MAGA movement with the two decades of protests spawned by the leftist Occupy Wall Street, Antifa, Defund the Police and Black Lives Matter movements — each of which have resulted in billions in property damage, an erosion of trust in both government and fellow citizens, rapes and even murders. If you want extremism and danger, those currently active groups will give it to you by the handful.

But those political extremist movements are far from the only ones in recent memory that are built on hate, anti-Americanism, property damage, bombings and murder. One must only remember the many outrages of groups like the Weather Underground, the SDS, the Black Panthers, the Animal Liberation Front, the Earth Liberation Front, and the Nation of Islam, to name just a few. And that is not to even mention the ages-old Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party. Each and every one of those groups has real — not figurative — blood on their hands, and all have been plying their extremism in recent memory.

Indeed, if you look throughout U.S. history, at nearly every dangerous extremist group that has been responsible for murders, bombings and mayhem, you will find they are leftists and anarchists. Rarely does one find center-right groups sponsoring violence.

Going back to the 1880s, when the anarchist movement began to spread across Europe and the U.S., bombings, assassinations and militant attacks hit Americans hard. Who now remembers when anarchists destroyed the Los Angeles Times headquarters building in 1919, killing 21 and injuring another 100? Or the 1920 Wall Street bombing that killed 30 and injured 143? If you are interested, a history of these attacks can be seen at Breitbart News.

In light of facts and history, Joe Biden has no historical grounds to call today’s MAGA movement the most extreme in U.S. history. It is simply a lie.

Meanwhile, Biden himself is arguing in support of abortion on demand for any reason at any time during a pregnancy, fostering the creation of a Ministry of Truth that will have police powers to shut down the free speech of Americans, teaching radical sexual identity politics to tiny children, putting an end to American sovereignty and opening the southern border to the entire world, and more.

Just who is the extremist here?

Loading

182
Post Views: 274
Categories
COVID Biden Pandemic Opinion Politics Reprints from others.

Pfizer’s New 80,000-Page Data Dump Is A Nightmare.

Setting the story straight with just the facts.

Views: 42

Pfizer tested their COVID vaccine on rats and then let pregnant women take it

You probably didn’t know that Pfizer dumped 80,000 pages of documents this week.

That’s because the American corporate media refused to cover it — and that’s because almost all of them took money from the Biden regime to promote the experimental vaccines and kill any critical coverage of them.

Anyway, it turns out that Pfizer’s COVID vaccine was not 95% effective: the data shows it has a 12% efficacy rate.

Let me repeat: 12%. That’s a “1” followed by a “2.”

But wait: it gets worse.

There were no human clinical trials to determine if the experimental COVID vaccines were safe for pregnant women. They were excluded from all the trials.

None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Instead, they tested it on 44 rats.

Twitter avatar for @seancondevSean Conway – UAP 🇦🇺 ACT Bean Candidate @seancondev

What was the basis for Pfizer and the FDA to declare the mRNA vaccine ‘safe and effective’ for pregnant and breastfeeding women? Just 44 rats.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1521717172229136384/pu/vid/854×480/hzvXaT05tKigZ3hn.mp4?tag=14

Pfizer deliberately cut off the clinical data trial before the bad news could be collected. We already know that Pfizer vaccine’s RNA is reverse-transcribing itself into your DNA. We already know that the vaccines increased the risk of getting COVID in children, the CDC intentionally withheld clinical data from the public, and a Moderna gene sequence patented in 2017 was found in the COVID virus spike protein.

Twitter avatar for @CramerSezCramerSez @CramerSez

#PfizerDump #Pfizer #BREAKING #BreakingNews PFIZER DATA DUMP PROVES THEY KNEW DRUG WAS ONLY 12% EFFECTIVE, AT BEST. They also knew it could cause harm to the unborn.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1521308028158554112/pu/vid/432×240/WolMi03A_IImERDq.mp4?tag=12

Pregnant women in the U.S. military who were coerced into taking the jab have suffered horrific side effects and “congenital malformations” in their babies. There were more than 18,900 babies born with abnormalities in 2021.

We know this because a few brave whistleblowers got their hands on the Deparment of Defense’s medical database.

Twitter avatar for @seancondevSean Conway – UAP 🇦🇺 ACT Bean Candidate @seancondev

What was the basis for Pfizer and the FDA to declare the mRNA vaccine ‘safe and effective’ for pregnant and breastfeeding women? Just 44 rats.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1521636098107002880/pu/vid/320×568/tPPtmSdQ5tkMrwan.mp4?tag=12

More than 18,900 babies. Just think about that.

There’s much more news to come out about the COVID vaccines — and all of it is bad. For example, doctors around the world are starting to notice an explosion in the cancer rates among the vaccinated.

Twitter avatar for @Psu10231Psu1023 @Psu10231

Covid Vaccines are causing cancer.

Like I said: lots of doctors are noticing that cancers are increasing dramatically. Here’s a chart with data pulled from VAERS that will make your heart sink.

Let me finish with this thought: perhaps it wasn’t a good idea to re-program the DNA of half the world to produce spike proteins to “fight” a virus with a 99% survival rate?

Loading

215
Post Views: 292
Categories
Corruption How sick is this? Politics The Courts

Roe v Wade Opinion: Republicans Decry Supreme Court Leak, Democrats Call to End Filibuster

Amazing how fast these PROFESSIONALLY printed signs showed up. Coincidence?

Views: 27

It’s amazing how fast these PROFESSIONALLY printed signs showed up. The leak was not made public until Monday afternoon, yet by dark protesters already had professionally printed signs. Coincidence?

 

Republicans in Congress on May 2 decried the leak of a Supreme Court opinion which would end legal protections for abortion, while Democrats called for the end of the Senate filibuster to preempt the court’s ruling.

Politico published a leaked opinion on May 2 authored by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. The opinion, written in February, shows that Alito believed at the time that four other justices have voted in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade, the decades-old Supreme Court precedent which prohibited states from making laws restricting access to abortions.

The leak is unprecedented and represents a major breach of decorum and trust within the court, which is known for its cordial fellowship.

“The Supreme Court’s confidential deliberation process is sacred & protects it from political interference. This breach shows that radical Democrats are working even harder to intimidate & undermine the Court. It was always their plan. The justices cannot be swayed by this attack,” Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) wrote on Twitter.

“This leak is outrageous & dangerous. I pray & remain hopeful SCOTUS stays true to this potential decision, but this unprecedented, intentional leak is malicious & threatens the independence of our highest court,” Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.) wrote on Twitter.

“This unprecedented leak of a draft ruling is an effort to overtly inject politics into the court itself. This individual should not be celebrated. They should be held accountable for their egregious breach. I am praying for the safety of all the Justices during these extraordinarily challenging and unprecedented times,” Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) wrote on Twitter.

Democrats, in the meantime, called for the end of the filibuster so that the Senate can pass the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would legalize abortion up to the point of birth nationwide.

“Congress must pass legislation that codifies Roe v. Wade as the law of the land in this country NOW. And if there aren’t 60 votes in the Senate to do it, and there are not, we must end the filibuster to pass it with 50 votes,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) wrote on Twitter.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), responding directly to Sanders on Twitter, wrote: “Let’s change the rules of the Senate to pass a federal law legalizing the killing of unborn children right up to the day of delivery.”

“This is utterly shameful but we can stop it. The Senate MUST end the filibuster and codify Roe,” Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) wrote on Twitter.

“There is no time left to wait. We need to abolish the filibuster and codify Roe v. Wade, ” Rep. Chuy García (D-Ill.) wrote on Twitter.

A number of Democrats called for the passage of the act but did not mention ending the filibuster to do so: Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Penn.), Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.), and Rep. Don Breyer (D-Va.)

A small number of Democrats in Congress called for the expansion of the Supreme Court as a way to fight back.

“There is no other recourse. We must expand the court,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) wrote on Twitter.

“#ExpandTheCourt and pass the Women’s Health Protection Act!” Rep. Andy Levin (D-Mich.) wrote on Twitter.

Several Republican lawmakers celebrated the opinion, while Democrats lamented what the decision would bring about.

“I was a senior in high school when Roe v. Wade was decided,” Rep. Billy Long (R-Mo.) said in a statement. “I didn’t understand abortion then, and I don’t understand it now. Killing an innocent human life is simply incomprehensible to me. I am optimistic that these reports are true, and that the Supreme Court will do the right thing, finally overturning this travesty of a decision.”

“This draft is harrowing and blatantly ignores 50 years of settled law with a complete disregard to the fundamental rights of women. We can not go back to a time when women couldn’t make decisions about their own bodies,” Rep. Colin Allred (D-Texas) wrote on Twitter.

Original here:

Isn’t it amazing how this was leaked to a LEFT-LEANING website?

And how quickly the demonstrators appeared with PROFESSIONALLY crafted signage?

The SCOTUS responds:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday responded to the leak of a draft ruling and confirmed its authenticity, issuing a statement from Chief Justice John Roberts, who called the leak “a betrayal of the confidences” of the institution. “To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations,” Roberts wrote, “it will not succeed,” adding that the “work of the Court will not be affected in any way.”

Roberts also said he directed the Marshal of the Supreme Court to carry out an investigation into the leak and the individual who leaked it to the press. Should the leaker be identified, it’s not clear what punitive actions will be taken against them, although Roberts said the leak could be considered a significant breach of trust.

Source:

Loading

211
Post Views: 301
Categories
Back Door Power Grab Corruption Elections Politics The Courts

Surprise, surprise! Nonprofit behind ‘Sedition’ lawsuits is Leftist funded and run.

Views: 57

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., talks to the media about her suspended accounts on Twitter, during a news conference, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, July 20, 2021. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)
By Mark Tapscott for Epoch Times April 27, 2022
Updated: April 29, 2022

Just minutes after Donald Trump was sworn in as president in January 2017, Free Speech for People (PFS), working with RootsAction, another obscure left-wing activist group, launched the website ImpeachDonaldTrumpNow.org.

The Trump impeachment website remains live today, but PFS has moved on from years of seeking to drive the embattled Trump from the Oval Office to now trying to remove four of his strongest congressional supporters from their respective November 2022 ballots.

Although officially a nonpartisan educational nonprofit, PFS’s most notable activities since being organized in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision have all been directed at Trump and other Republicans.

Most recently, PFS made headlines with litigation it filed against four House Republicans and one Arizona Republican state representative seeking to have state courts remove the officials’ names from the November ballot.

An Arizona Superior Court judge rejected PFS’s request to remove U.S. Reps. Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar, both Arizona congressmen, and Arizona state Rep. Mark Finchem from the November ballot.The PFS lawsuit stated that the lawmakers’ alleged efforts in support of the January 2021 breach of the U.S. Capitol amounted to participation in an insurrection seeking to bring down the federal government.

Biggs and Gosar are seeking reelection to the U.S. House, while Finchem seeks to be elected as Arizona’s secretary of state.

Judges in North Carolina and Georgia are hearing similar suits brought by PFS-backed plaintiffs seeking the ouster of Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) from the November ballots in their states.

An analysis by The Epoch Times and the Capital Research Center (CRC) of available public records for PFS reveals a top leadership with deep ties throughout far-left precincts of liberal and progressive nonprofit political activism and funding from numerous well-known and some not-so-familiar liberal foundations.
A total of 91 grants to PFS from left-wing foundations with a value in excess of $7.3 million were found by CRC using the Foundation Search database.

Among the grants received between 2012 and 2019 were these: two grants (totaling $750,000) from the Schumann Media Center in New York; nine grants ($485,000) from the National Philanthropic Trust of Jenkintown, Pennsylvania; four grants ($375,000) from the Gaia Fund of San Francisco; five grants ($365,000) from the Madrona Foundation in Seattle; six grants ($255,000) from the Clements Foundation in Wilmington, Delaware.

Other notable grants during the period included four totaling $249,148 from the Tides Foundation in San Francisco; three grants ($205,000) from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund in New York; two grants ($60,000) from the Rockefeller Family Fund; and four grants ($54,670) from the Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund in Boston.

The funding from the Tides Foundation is notable because, in the 1970s, the San Francisco nonprofit pioneered the dark money fund that first provided a way for liberal donors to send large sums to support favored and oftentimes extremely controversial causes but without their names being publicly linked to the recipients.

The contribution is instead officially credited to Tides.

Such “donor-advised” funds are now common across the ideological and political spectrum.

The PFS 2020 IRS 990 tax return indicated that President John Bonifaz received nearly $217,000 in compensation that year, while legal director Ronald Fein was paid more than $159,000 for the period.

The depth of PFS links throughout the vast network of far-left liberal and progressive political activist nonprofits is seen in this analysis by InfluenceWatch, a CRC publication that specializes in reporting on such connections:

“Free Speech For People is led by a team with strong ties to the political left. John Bonifaz, founder of Free Speech for People, is the founder and former executive director of the National Voting Rights Institute (NVRI), a left-of-center electoral advocacy group.

“PFS chairman Ben Clements also sits as a board member for Stop Handgun Violence and works on the advisory committee of the Boston chapter of the American Constitution Society.

“Steve Cobble, [former] senior political adviser for Free Speech for People, [was] an assistant fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, a left-wing think tank.

“Cobble is also a co-founder of Progressive Democrats of America, an organization that aims to support the Democratic Party and advocate for an agenda focused on fighting climate change and expanding public healthcare.”

Other PFS officials have similarly left-wing backgrounds. Alexandra Flores-Quilty, who is PFS’s campaign director, was previously executive director of We the People, an activist group that organizes mass protest marches against Trump.

Kristen Eastlick, CRC vice president, told The Epoch Times that “while this organization [PFS] was founded in the wake of the Citizens United decision, the group’s agenda has expanded beyond generic campaign finance activism into partisan hackery—from their effort to launch ImpeachDonaldTrump.org as soon as he took the oath of office to their efforts to remove individuals from appearing on ballots.”

“Free Speech for People might be the name, but if political speech is the bedrock form of free speech, then eliminating the people’s election options is an assault on that freedom,” she said.

Loading

267
Post Views: 388
Verified by MonsterInsights