Categories
Biden Biden Cartel Commentary Crime Links from other news sources. The Courts The Law Un documented.

Supreme Court for now tells Texas to do the job the feds refuse to do. Arrest the undocumented.

Visits: 4

Supreme Court for now tells Texas to do the job the feds refuse to do. Arrest the undocumented. Looks as if the Democrats will have to figure out another way to get the undocumented to vote.

Supreme Court lifts stay on Texas law that gives police broad powers to arrest migrants at border.
A 6-3 Supreme Court decision on Tuesday lifted a stay on a Texas law that gives police broad powers to arrest migrants suspected of crossing the border illegally while a legal battle over immigration authority plays out.

The law allows police in counties bordering Mexico to make arrests if they see someone crossing illegally.  It could also be enforced elsewhere in Texas if someone is arrested on suspicion of another violation and a fingerprint taken during jail booking links them to a suspected re-entry violation. It likely would not come into play during a routine traffic stop, he said.

Loading

61
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?

Visits: 17

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.

Loading

72
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

Visits: 14

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.

Loading

95
Categories
Biden Biden Cartel Censorship Commentary Corruption Government Overreach January 6 Links from other news sources. Politics Reprints from others. The Law

Liz Cheney, Jan. 6 Committee Hid Trump Evidence.

Visits: 48

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

By Jim Thomas    |  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loading

157
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.

Visits: 6

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.

Loading

59
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

Visits: 23

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.

Loading

95
Categories
Education Life Links from other news sources. Politics The Courts The Law

Winning for now. California school district’s critical race theory ban, transgender notification policy stand for now, judge rules.

Visits: 10

Winning for now. California school district’s critical race theory ban, transgender notification policy stand for now, judge rules. In the last election three new board members joined the Temecula school board.

Board members Joseph Komrosky, Danny Gonzalez and Jen Wiersma, elected in 2022 as what was then a Christian conservative majority on the five-member board, voted in for the ban. Board members Allison Barclay and Steven Schwartz, who have often opposed initiatives of the board majority, voted no.

Here’s what I find interesting, and we will see if this will stand. California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued Chino Valley, and a judge last September granted Bonta’s request for a temporary restraining order to block that district from enforcing its policy. In the Temecula case, in which the district’s policy is based on Chino Valley’s, Keen made the opposite ruling.

Loading

61
Categories
Commentary Free Speech Government Overreach Links from other news sources. The Courts The Law

Ninth Circuit Lets Stand Ruling That Gun Ads Ban Is ‘Likely Unconstitutional’.

Visits: 15

Ninth Circuit Denies Request to Rehear Panel Decision, Lets Stand Ruling That Gun Ads Ban Is ‘Likely Unconstitutional’. The fanatics on the left again went to the 9th to try and get them to reconsider their earlier rulling.

Yesterday a request to rehear en banc a September 2023 three-judge panel ruling that found California’s ban on gun advertisements in junior sports magazines “likely unconstitutional.”

Second Amendment Foundation executive director Alan Gottlieb commented on the Ninth Circuit’s refusal to rehear the case en banc, saying, “It seems like it has been forever since the 9th Circuit has refused to hear a gun case en banc. Hopefully this is a new trend.”

Loading

74
Categories
Black Supremacy Commentary Corruption Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. The Courts The Law

Yes Virginia (Fani) You are the one who’s on trial.

Visits: 29

Yes Virginia (Fani) You are the one who’s on trial. As you all know a poor excuse for a local yokel prosecutor made up a bunch of charges and used the RICO act to go after the former President and 17 others. She was called to the stand and after a disastrous first day, she called in the calvary. Former Black Panther John Floyd, Daddy.

The state couldn’t take her personal attacks and lies. Plus disrespecting the judge and real lawyers (None took ten years to get their law license) in the room. So against the judges orders it was alleged that she prepped her father.

 

Loading

80
Categories
Commentary The Law Unions Weaponization of Government. Work Place

If I had one bill, one page. Prevailing wage. Page 2.

Visits: 7

If I had one bill, one page. Prevailing wage. Page 2. I would propose a bill that would do away with prevailing wage. Prevailing wage is a law that pays workers the region’s standards for hourly wages, benefits, and overtime, as calculated by the U.S. Department of Labor and Ohio Department of Commerce.

The overtime would stay, but companies would not be forced to pay a set high standard and would not be forced to be union. Example if a Union company is  paying on average say $35.00 an hour, and a non Union company is paying $ 20.00 an hour, you go with the non union company.

The law would read. Any local or state that uses prevailing wage, undocumented workers or states the job needs to be done by union workers would be denied federal funds for that project.

Loading

66
Verified by MonsterInsights