Categories
Commentary Elections Links from other news sources. Politics

Stories we missed. Republicans control all major offices in Louisiana.

Stories we missed. Republicans control all major offices in Louisiana. Something changed this past January. Republicans had a clean sweep. They took the Governor, Secretary of State, Treasure, and Attorneys offices. And some thought it may turn purple or blue. I see Red.

The result gives the GOP a 100 percent lock on all the state’s top offices as well as control of the state Senate and House of Representatives. The GOP is back after only having full control of the top positions between 2011 and 2015, before losing the governor’s office between 2016 and 2023.

The GOP also controls the second tier of state offices including, Agriculture Commissioner Mike Strain, and Insurance Commissioner Tim Temple. Strain also became the first Republican in state history to win the AG office.

 

 

Categories
Biden Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Links from other news sources. Politics The Courts The Law

Georgia Judge Dismisses Some Charges Against Trump, Beginning of the end?

Georgia Judge Dismisses Some Charges Against Trump, Beginning of the end? Could this be the start of the cases against Trump are starting to fall apart?

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee wrote in an order that six of the counts in the indictment must be quashed, including three against Trump, the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee.

The six charges in question have to do with soliciting elected officials to violate their oaths of office. That includes two charges related to the phone call Trump made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a fellow Republican, on Jan. 2, 2021.

Categories
Censorship Corruption Education Leftist Virtue(!) Politics Reprints from others. The Law

Embattled Ivy League Professor Amy Wax Alleges School Attempting To ‘Punish’ Her For Conservative Speech

Embattled Ivy League Professor Amy Wax Alleges School Attempting To ‘Punish’ Her For Conservative Speech

Prof Amy Wax
Brandon Poulter for the Daily Caller   
  • University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax alleges that the school is not adhering to free speech standards and is targeting her due to her conservative beliefs.
  • Wax has made controversial statements over the years, which the university has claimed have created a “hostile campus environment,” and the administration is attempting to sanction her.
  • “[U]Penn has zero interest in developing and adhering to principles of a consistent position on free expression, zero interest,” Wax told the DCNF.

University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) law professor Amy Wax alleged that the school does not adhere to free speech standards and is targeting the scholar because of her conservative beliefs.

Wax, who spoke to the Daily Caller News Foundation, has made several controversial statements outside of the classroom, and the university has claimed that her speech created “a hostile campus environment.” Former UPenn President Liz Magill signed off on sanctions against Wax, which Wax said was an attempt to sanction her for extramural speech, which is speech outside the classroom, and said that the school is “flagrantly in violation of the principles of academic freedom.”

“Penn has zero interest in developing and adhering to principles of a consistent position on free expression, zero interest. They can protect the people they basically agree with or favor, like the pro-Palestinians, anti-Israeli, antisemitic, and they can punish people like me. They have never articulated a consistent position,” Wax told the DCNF.

“Everybody says after October 7, universities are on the run, they’re going to change the way they do things or after the affirmative action case, they’re going to change the way they do things. I don’t see any evidence of that. I hear people doubling down on their conviction that everything they’re doing is right and good,” Wax continued.

Universities are dominated by left-wing professors, with one 2018 review of over 60 top colleges in the U.S. revealing that the professoriate is over ten to one Democratic to Republican. Wax pointed to the left-wing dominance of the universities as a reason she was being targeted for her more conservative speech, while radical left-wing speech had largely gone unquestioned.

As recently as 2015, UPenn awarded Wax with the school’s top teaching prize, the Lindback Award for Distinguished Teaching, according to a UPenn news article. “Cancel culture really started accelerating around, I think, around 2015, 2016,” Wax told the DCNF.

The Penn Law Council of Student Representatives held a student body meeting with then-UPenn Law School Dean Theodore Ruger in September 2019 to discuss “issues regarding Professor Amy Wax,” according to an email obtained by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a free speech legal organization.

“The objections to me had nothing really to do with the quality of my teaching. It had to do with my openly expressing views and opinions and discussing facts that were forbidden and deviated from this very narrow catechism,” Wax told the DCNF. Wax said that many of the ideas and thoughts she had expressed were discussed in mainstream conservative circles but are forbidden at universities.

Wax previously made controversial statements, including saying that America should let fewer Asians immigrate to the country due to their “indifference to liberty,” and that different racial “groups have different levels of ability” and that unequal outcomes are “not due to racism,” according to a June 2023 UPenn memo obtained by The Washington Free Beacon. She also said that diversity, equity and inclusion officers “couldn’t be scholars if their life depended on it,” and that they are “true believer bureaucrats.”

“People are afraid now to express a lot of this stuff in public because they will be censured or even lose their job or their livelihood,” Wax told the DCNF. “There is a myth, a fairy tale in the universities that all people are equal in their latent ability, whatever that means, and their achievement, and that is just completely contrary to fact.”

Wax said allegations that she made students uncomfortable in the classroom were unfounded and that Ruger targeted her for extramural speech. She pointed out that the recently leaked memo of the faculty senate didn’t list any speech in the classroom.

The memo recommends that Wax receive a public reprimand from university leadership, a loss of her named chair and a requirement to note when she publicly speaks, she is not speaking for the university. It also recommends a one-year suspension at half pay and a loss of summer pay in perpetuity. The memo claims that Wax’s speech should be treated as “major infractions of University behavioral standards.”

Magill, who signed off on the recommendation to sanction Wax in the leaked memo, argued at a Dec. 5 congressional hearing that the university had been lenient on antisemitic speech due to the school’s adherence to free speech principles. Magill also defended the Palestine Writes Festival at the school, which involved one speaker who likened Zionism to Nazism and one who said “most Jews” are “evil.”

“Liz Magill lied to Congress because it has never adhered to First Amendment standards,” Wax told the DCNF. “But the fact that they’re bringing this case against me is directly contrary to First Amendment standards.”

Free speech issues on college campuses have been a source of fierce debate since the Oct.7 terrorist attacks against Israel. Former Harvard President Claudine Gay wrote that students “had a right to speak” after over 30 student groups signed a letter blaming the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks on Israel and also alluded to free speech at the Dec. 5 congressional hearing on antisemitism.

Harvard University previously rescinded an offer to a student in 2019 for alleged racist comments made when he was 16 years old, and disinvited feminist philosopher Devin Buckley from campus in 2022 because of her views on trans issues.

MIT President Sally Kornbluth allegedly told MIT Israel Alliance President Talia Khan that the university could not evenly apply the code of conduct due to fear of possibly “losing faculty support.” MIT previously disinvited speaker Dorian Abbot, a geophysicist at the University of Chicago, due to his criticism of affirmative action. 

“The far left holds power in the universities, and they are not about to relinquish it,” Wax told the DCNF.

UPenn did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comments.

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

Liz Cheney, Jan. 6 Committee Hid Trump Evidence.

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

By Jim Thomas    |  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Biden Cartel Commentary Elections Links from other news sources. Politics Reprints from others.

California’s Huntington Beach stays on MAGA path after divisive campaign.

California’s Huntington Beach stays on MAGA path after divisive campaign. I just love articles from the left when they’re crying.

The Washington Post Story by Reis Thebault

Southern California’s oceanside Republican stronghold continued its rightward march this week, as voters appeared likely to approve two controversial ballot measures that are sure to draw ire and, in one case, legal action from the state’s liberal leaders.

Huntington Beach, a city of about 200,000 south of Los Angeles, was poised to pass a pair of charter amendments that effectively ban Pride flags from flying on municipal property and require voter identification for local elections — despite warnings from California’s attorney general and secretary of state that such an ID law runs afoul of state law and would lead to a court battle.

As of Thursday, with most ballots counted, the initiatives led by wide margins, and their chief opponents had conceded.

A third measure, which was also backed by Huntington Beach’s far-right council majority, would have modified the city’s budget cycle and given its mayor the power to unilaterally cancel council meetings. That initiative appeared on track to fail as of late Thursday, showing that voters may have embraced the council’s culture-war priorities but were not as willing to go along with everything the elected officials suggested.

The run-up to Tuesday’s election roiled Huntington Beach, which has long cherished its reputation as a laid-back surf town, and deeply divided its residents. Even as demographics have driven much of surrounding Orange County to the left, Huntington Beach has retained its historically conservative bent, and registered Republicans still outnumber Democrats there.

But the current council majority, elected in 2022, has pushed the city further right, with Tuesday’s ballot measures just the latest in a growing list of MAGA priorities that conservatives have championed.

And while the council’s majority did not appear to pull off a clean sweep, members say the results further validate their approach to local governance, which has included weighing in on polarizing subjects more often found in national political debates, including immigration policies and LGBTQ rights.

“The results show that our voters believe in the direction our city is headed — one of unity, patriotism and the restoration of election integrity,” Gracey Van Der Mark, Huntington Beach’s mayor and one of the council’s four conservatives, said in a statement. “As an elected representative, it is important to me that I advocate for the wants and needs of our community. The passing of these measures reassures me that I am on the right track.”

For opponents of the measures, who sought to convince their right-leaning hometown that its leadership had gone too far, the results were a bitter end to a discordant campaign that pitted neighbors against each other and had both sides harking back to a time when city politics wasn’t so acerbic.

Protect Huntington Beach, a community activist group that formed to protest the charter amendments, reported that dozens of its signs urging the public to vote “no” on the measures were vandalized with stickers and spray paint in the run-up to Election Day. In a statement, the group said its members were “deeply saddened at the outcome of the election.”

But the group, which is made up largely of retirees and includes several former city leaders, grew quickly in recent months. Organizers said they would look to build on their momentum ahead of the November contest, when the council’s three Democratic members are up for reelection and are facing a slate of Republicans looking to consolidate control of the body.

“Protect HB is not going anywhere,” the group’s statement said. “Our job is not done. We feel it has only just begun.”

Categories
America's Heartland Commentary Education Elections Just my own thoughts Opinion Politics The Law

One Law. One Page. Part 7. College students go home and vote.

One Law. One Page. Part 7. College students go home and vote. Very simple law for all fifty states. If you live in one state but go to school in another, or outside of your home district, you have to vote in your home state.

No registering in the state your going to school in unless you sign a form that you intend to live in that state for at least a year after graduation. This is where a mail in ballot would be legal.

Each state has its own set of voting laws – some states require voting ID, some have different voter
registration and early vote deadlines, and different methods to vote(e.g by mail, early in person,
in person on election day). We need the same rule for all 50 states.

Categories
Biden Commentary Elections Opinion Politics

Winning: Biden LOST a primary – and more Democrats are voting for “uncommitted”

President Biden made his second gaffe on the week at campaign events in New York, claiming he spoke with the late German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, who died in 2017, at the G7 meeting in 2021. (Screenshot/Biden speech).

The good news for Democrats is that President Joe Biden managed to get through Super Tuesday without a loss to “uncommitted” or to so-called “spiritual guru” Marianne Williamson. The bad news is that his one loss in the campaign primary season was even more embarrassing by comparison.

In American Samoa, Biden managed to get beaten by entrepreneur and really, really, really long-shot contender Jason Palmer by 11 votes.

The worst Super Tuesday news for Democrats, though, were the “uncommitted” votes that shadowed Biden’s results. After a whopping six-digit number of ballots were cast for “uncommitted” in Michigan’s Feb. 27 primary, several states that allowed some form of uncommitted vote on Tuesday saw huge swaths of voters show how shaky Biden’s support is in his own party.

Minnesota, for instance, has a large Muslim and progressive population centered around the Minneapolis-St. Paul area that’s ready, more than willing, and able to use their votes to send Biden a message about supporting Israel in its war against the terrorist killers of Hamas. Almost 19 percent voted “uncommitted,” according to Axios.

North Carolina was also a surprising double-digit uncommitted result, with 12.7 percent of Democrats voting “no preference.”

Five other states allowed some form of uncommitted on Super Tuesday. Besides Minnesota’s high and a low in Iowa, which recorded only 3.9 percent uncommitted Democrats, it was the choice of anywhere between 6.0 percent of Democratic voters in Alabama to 9.4 percent in Massachusetts, according to Axios.

Political Cartoons - Campaigns and Elections - Biden's 2024 Run ...

The huge number of “uncommitted” Democrats underscores Biden’s vulnerability. Only four of the states that allow an “uncommitted” vote (or the equivalent) have the slightest chance of swinging either way, and for the most part they’re considered pretty safe — Iowa and North Carolina in the Republican column, Colorado and Minnesota in the Democratic.

Colorado and Minnesota saw 8.1% and 18.9 % of Dems telling Biden to go full lunatic and support a murderous Hamas against Israel, a key U.S. ally, or he doesn’t get their vote.

Actually closer to FIVE MORE YEARS! - Imgflip

However, according to Axios, Colorado and Minnesota saw 8.1 and 18.9 percent of Democrats, respectively, telling Joe Biden to go to the fringe and support a murderous terrorist group against a key U.S. ally or he doesn’t get their vote. In a general election, those kinds of numbers can turn a state that leans Democratic into a potential toss-up, and toss-ups like Michigan (where “uncommitted” drew 13 percent of Democratic votes) into Republican victories.

Considering the fact that both Biden and Trump became near-certain locks for their parties’ nominations with Super Tuesday, the attacks from Trump are only going to get more brutal from here. Without his own party being willing to turn out for him, this could get very ugly for the incumbent very quickly.

 

PHOTO Vote Democrat Or Else MemePolitical Cartoons - Around the World - Biden Defeats Trump ...

Categories
Commentary Elections Just my own thoughts Opinion Politics

Most states have the voting results in a few days. Except for California who takes weeks to count and translate all the undocumented ballots.

Most states have the voting results in a few days. Except for California who takes weeks to count and translate all the undocumented ballots.

With millions of undocumented voting and counting all the dead folks who vote in California, it’s a long process counting all these ballots. California can eliminate the wait tomorrow.

If California had only the legal folks voting at the polls where the machines count the votes, the 30 days or so would not happen.

Also with partisans sitting on the ballots for 30 days is a recipe for fraud.

Most of the state’s 22 million registered voters cast mail ballots — and to an extensive review process that requires more than placing a ballot through a machine.

Categories
Biden Cartel Just my own thoughts Opinion Politics

Time is now. Deter China. Place a military base in Taiwan.

Time is now. Deter China. Place a military base in Taiwan. It’s a known fact that Biden has no issues with China. If he was serious, he would place a military base their now.

At the very least, place part of our fleet and Airforce fighter jets. Maybe a Nuclear sub or two. Countries like China respect and fear strength.

We were in Taiwan up to 1979 with our military. Now’s the time to return. Peace through strength.

Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Corruption Elections Government Overreach January 6 Politics Reprints from others. The Courts The Law Trump Weaponization of Government.

Winning – MAGA edition: Supreme Court rules states can’t kick Trump off the ballot

Winning – MAGA edition: Supreme Court rules states can’t kick Trump off the ballot

The decision swiftly ended the legal fight over whether states could bar Trump from their ballots based on the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday handed a sweeping win to former President Donald Trump by ruling that states cannot kick him off the ballot over his actions leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — bringing a swift end to a case with huge implications for the 2024 election.

In an unsigned ruling with no dissents, the court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court, which determined that Trump could not serve again as president under Section 3 of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

The provision prohibits those who previously held government positions but later “engaged in insurrection” from running for various offices.

The court said the Colorado Supreme Court had wrongly assumed that states can determine whether a presidential candidate or other candidate for federal office is ineligible.

The ruling makes it clear that Congress, not states, has to set rules on how the 14th Amendment provision can be enforced against federal office-seekers. As such, the decision applies to all states, not just Colorado. States retain the power to bar people running for state office from appearing on the ballot under Section 3.

By deciding the case on that legal question, the court avoided any analysis or determination of whether Trump’s actions constituted an insurrection.

The decision comes just a day before the Colorado primary.

Minutes after the ruling, Trump hailed the decision in an all-capital-letters post on his social media site, writing, “Big win for America!!!”

Get out the legal vote. Tenor Photo.