By the grace of God I after working several hours outdoors this cold March day, I turned indoors to rest and happened to bump into a television news issue at HLN by MISTAKE! It was covering a local Minneapolis matter which stopped any further movement for the next countless hours. The Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin trial case was in its third day, or so, but I didn’t know this phony case was carried on television. Apparently the four police officers had visually recorded the scenery leading up the death of a common criminal involved in minor crimes…..who refused to leave a car….while being arrested. He refused to put his hands up when he refused to leave an auto, yelling, crying, shouting, refusing to do despite the CRIMES he committed which caused the police to arrive in the first place!
As expected all of the cameras fostered the same story, the same action….GEORGE FLOYD refused to enter a police car for the crimes had committed…none particularly threatening, but theft and corruption against the LAW, the core for arrest he was refusing to abide. George, a very keen and powerful appearing well over six feet high guy, was yelling wildly and loud and constant at first toward the officers the first fifteen minutes, but in action, refusing to be taken “downtown”. According to the visual recordings, three officers had to work together to maneuver Mr. Floyd toward a police car to be taken downtown, where Mr. Floyd verbally announced he didn’t want to go, and so REFUSED to co-operate with the three officers! (There might have been even a fourth, but I didn’t see it via the film shown on leftist HLN television).
HLN television apparently had no interest in dealing with TRUTH! I missed the name of the station’s host, but he had four professional fascist leftist liars likely under age 35, who posed or WERE to be stars to back up a fascist communist=nazi coup TO ADVANCE DISHONESTLY THE CAUSE OF POLITICAL POWER OF TODAY’S ONCE HONORABLE DEMOCRATIC PARTY of our USA!
Freedom can NEVER OCCUR AND SURVIVE IF HONESTY IN PRIVATE AND PUBLIC ISN’T PRACTICED AND PRESERVED BY ITS PEOPLE, BY BIG AND SMALL BUSINESSES BY THE ENTIRE NATION’S WORLD IN GENERAL!
ONLY Lefty fascists of the most narrow knowledge and highly greedy kind could bloviate like Joey Jackson, Areva Martin, Darrin Porche, and perhaps a fourth of the same, whose name I couldn’t catch, who all spoke to glorify the distruction of white Derek Clauvin, that police officer THE MADE UNDER ARREST.
These PROFESSIONALLY TRAINED FACSISTS who blab rather than seek TRUTH want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN ONLY UNDER BLACK LIVES MATTER, ANTIFA, DEM DICTATION BEGINNING WITH PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN.
Please, SEEK TRUTH, dear honorable American readers, all of our today’s American shapes, sizes, ages and sexes, SEEK HONESTY ALWAYS THE BEST YOU CAN…..Follow closely this fascist assault upon a police officer doing his duty as he was trained to do…..unfortunately, a criminal, a habitual one rather than a killer one, more civil than actually uncivil whatever his difficult social background had caused or come from.
George Floyd actually died by his own deeds, didn’t he! Had he simply yielded to the police for the crimes HE AS A CRIMINAL, had committed, he might be alive this very day. These officers on duty together had trouble with powerful, aggressive, resisting them fighting against his arrest which he was NOT supposed to do….HE EARNED HIS OWN DEATH.
These liar fascists at HLN will be covering the Fascist court attack on Minneapolis police officer, Derek Chauvin for the next many work days….It could be that the COURT OF MINNEAPOLIS JUSTICE is also Dem- Left corrupt….most every institution of power in our Minneapolis area IS FASCISTIC DEM these Obama-Biden days! TAKE NOTES AND COMPARE FROM DAY TO DAY WHO ISN’T TRUTH TELLING!
FASCISTS RELY UPON THE POPULATION TO BE STUPID….POORLY EDUCATED….MOST MINNESOTA INSTITUTIONS OF LEARNING PREACH FASCISM RATHER THAN TRUTH, AND GOOD!
Politico: Capitol Hill Riot Prosecution Might “Embarrass The Biden Administration” In The End
ED MORRISSEY at HotAir:
If so, the embarrassment will result only because the media and some prosecutors wildly inflated expectations. As violent and disturbing as the Capitol Hill riot was, only a small minority of the rioters took parts in specific, prosecutable assaults. The rest, Politico reports today, likely will get charged with misdemeanors … and never see the inside of a prison:
Americans outraged by the storming of Capitol Hill are in for a jarring reality check: Many of those who invaded the halls of Congress on Jan. 6 are likely to get little or no jail time. …
In recent days, judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys have all indicated that they expect few of these “MAGA tourists” to face harsh sentences.
There are two main reasons: Although prosecutors have loaded up their charging documents with language about the existential threat of the insurrection to the republic, the actions of many of the individual rioters often boiled down to trespassing. And judges have wrestled with how aggressively to lump those cases in with those of the more sinister suspects.
That’s not to say that there won’t be some defendants facing serious prison time. Thanks to video, some of which got published by the participants themselves, investigators have identified individuals who took part in assaults on police officers and can charge them with felonies. Thanks to extensive social-media postings, they have also identified organizers of violence. The Oath Keepers and Proud Boys contingent were a small minority of those who charged the Capitol, however. Most of the people who entered the building presumably just took advantage of the situation. That doesn’t alleviate their legal liability, but it also doesn’t make them part of a grand insurrection conspiracy — as prosecutors and administration officials claimed publicly.
That’s the problem that the White House will now face, Politico’s legal analysts Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney write. They fumbled the expectations game, choosing the immediate benefit of stoking outrage over the long-term credibility issues that failure to deliver will bring:
The prospect of dozens of Jan. 6 rioters cutting deals for minor sentences could be hard to explain for the Biden administration, which has characterized the Capitol Hill mob as a uniquely dangerous threat. … Justice Department prosecutors sent expectations sky-high in early statements and court filings, describing elaborate plots to murder lawmakers — descriptions prosecutors have tempered as new details emerged.
That’s not the only PR problem the Biden administration and its DoJ has created for itself. They also may get hoist by their own equity petard:
The resolution of the more mundane cases also presents acute questions about equity, since most of the Capitol riot defendants are white, while misdemeanor charges are often a vexing problem for minority defendants in other cases.
These are the reasons why the DoJ rarely discussed cases in public before filing charges, at least before the Hillary Clinton investigations. For the past six years or so, prosecutors and higher-ups have played politics with these investigations, and their credibility has suffered as a result. It might have been impossible to refrain from all commentary on an event as existential to the institutions of republican democracy as the assault on Congress, but the DoJ and the administration had a duty to refrain from hyperbole about it … and it might have been a safer political choice, too.
Just how embarrassing will this prove, though? Even if most of those charged only end up with misdemeanors and no jail time, convicting a few organizers on the more serious charges will likely make up for it. If prosecutors win convictions on felonies for conspiracy and violent actions against the ringleaders, that will still get the Biden administration enough cover to declare victory. Beware of the hyperbole in both directions.
Witnesses describe frustrating, emotional scene at 38th Street and Chicago Avenue in Derek Chauvin trial
Photo: Court TV via AP, Pool. In this image from video, Minneapolis Firrefighter Genevieve Hansen, wipes her eyes as she testifies as Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill presides Tuesday, March 30, 2021, in the trial of former Minneapolis police Officer Derek Chauvin, in the May 25, 2020, death of George Floyd at the Hennepin County Courthouse in Minneapolis, Minn.
Tommy Wiita Updated: March 30, 2021 10:26 PM Created: March 30, 2021 06:13 PM javascript:false
The Derek Chauvin trial continued on Tuesday. Testimonies from multiple witnesses who were at the scene on May 25, 2020, all concluded into a mutual feeling: frustration, sadness and anger. Onlookers grew increasingly angry as they begged Minneapolis Officer Derek Chauvin to take his knee off George Floyd’s neck, but Chauvin would not let up.
The witnesses — a man, two juveniles, two 18-year-olds (who were underage at the time of the incident) and a firefighter/medic for the city of Minneapolis — described how Chauvin was unmoved by their pleas to help Floyd. The teenager who shot the viral video, Darnella Frazier, was among those who testified on Tuesday. She stated in court that Chauvin gave the crowd a “cold” and “heartless” stare while his knee was pressed against Floyd’s neck.
“He didn’t care. It seemed as if he didn’t care what we were saying,” said Frazier, 18, one of several witnesses who testified through tears.
Chauvin continued to kneel on Floyd while former Minneapolis police officer Tou Thao held the crowd of about 15 back, even when one of the onlookers identified herself as a firefighter and pleaded repeatedly to check Floyd’s pulse, according to witnesses and bystander video.
“They definitely put their hands on the Mace, and we all pulled back,” Frazier told the jury. When Frazier was asked by a prosecutor whether she saw violence anywhere on the scene, she replied: “Yes, from the cops. From Chauvin, and from officer Thao.”
Frazier also testified that she looks at her father and other Black men in her life and thinks of “how that could have been one of them.”
“I stay up at night apologizing to George Floyd for not doing more … not saving his life,” she said. “It’s not what I should have done; it’s what he should have done.”
Genevieve Hansen, the firefighter, teared up while on the witness stand as she recalled how she was not allowed to give any medical assistance or tell the police what to do, such as administering chest compressions because of their inactions.
“There was a man being killed,” said Hansen, who testified in her dress uniform and said she had emergency medical technician training. “I would have been able to provide medical attention to the best of my abilities. And this human was denied that right.”
Video was shown in court, hearing Thao tell Hansen after she announced she was a Minneapolis firefighter: “If you really are a Minneapolis firefighter, you would know better than to get involved.”
Hansen testified that the crowd was getting more upset and that the paramedics did a “load and go”— placing Floyd on a stretcher and quickly getting him away from the crowd so he could be treated elsewhere. The firefighter will resume the witness stand Wednesday morning.
Two friends — both were not shown in court, per the court’s order earlier Tuesday morning — were visiting Cup Foods last Memorial Day to get some snacks when they saw the incident happen in front of them. Both of them are in high school. One of them, identified as 18-year-old Alyssa Funari, felt like she “failed,” saying that she feels she could have done more to intervene.
“I felt like there wasn’t really anything I could do as a bystander,” Funari said, adding that she felt she was failing Floyd. “Technically I could’ve did something, but I couldn’t really do anything physically … because the highest power was there at the time,” she said, referring to the police.
Another child, who was identified as a nine-year-old currently in the third-grade, testified on Tuesday. The girl is a cousin of Frazier’s, who was at the scene that day of the incident. She told the court that she felt “sad and mad” about what happened. The defense did not cross-examine this witness.
Many testified about feelings of helplessness and guilt as Floyd gasped for air, pleaded for his life and finally fell limp and silent, his eyes rolling back in his head. The testimony was apparently aimed at showing that Chauvin had multiple opportunities to think about what he doing and change course. However, Chauvin’s attorney — Eric Nelson — sought to portray the bystanders as “angry” and “chaotic,” in an apparent attempt to show that the crowd posed a potential threat to officers at the scene that might have distracted them during their encounter with Floyd.
Donald Williams, one of the onlookers, testified that he called 911 after paramedics took Floyd away, “because I believed I witnessed a murder.” In a recording of the emergency call, Williams could be overheard yelling at the officers: “Y’all is murderers, bro!”
Williams was brought onto the stand on Monday before continuing Tuesday morning. During cross-examination, Chauvin’s lawyer pointed out that Williams seemed to grow increasingly angry at the police, taunting Chauvin with “tough guy,” “bum” and other names, then calling Chauvin expletives, which the defense lawyer repeated in court.
Williams, a professional mixed martial arts fighter, initially admitted he was getting angrier, but then backtracked and said he was controlled and professional and was pleading for Floyd’s life but wasn’t being heard.
Williams said he was stepping on and off the curb, and at one point, Thao, who was controlling the crowd, put his hand on Williams’ chest. Williams admitted under questioning that he told Thao he would beat the officers if Thao touched him again.
Witnesses also testified that no bystanders actually interfered with police.
Chauvin faces up to 40 years in prison if he is convicted. The court will resume on Wednesday starting at 9 a.m.
HOW GOOD A JUDGE IS BIDEN’S NOMINEE TO THE D.C. CIRCUIT?
Joe Biden has nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. She currently sits on the U.S. District Court in D.C.
This nomination was 100 percent expected. In fact, there has been speculation that Biden promised to nominate Judge Jackson to pacify radicals unhappy with the selection of Merrick Garland for Attorney General (as if the selections of radical race mongers Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke for top DOJ jobs weren’t enough). Garland’s move to the Justice Department opened up a seat on the D.C. Circuit.
There is also speculation that Judge Jackson is being groomed for the Supreme Court. Such speculation is reasonable when a youngish judge is placed on the D.C. Circuit (Jackson is 50). After all, three current Justices — Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Brett Kavanaugh — took that path to the Supreme Court. So did Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
What about Judge Jackson’s credentials? On paper, they are stellar. She has an undergraduate degree (magna cum laude) from Harvard and a law degree from there as well (cum laude). She was an editor of the Harvard Law Review and clerked for Justice Breyer on the Supreme Court.
Jackson has worked, among things, as an assistant federal public defender, appellate litigator at a major law firm, and vice chair of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. She also has almost a decade of experience as a federal district court judge.
Judge Jackson is a left-liberal, but doesn’t appear to fall outside the mainstream of left-liberal thinking on legal issues. All of this — her credential and her ideology — point in the direction of Senate confirmation.
However, Ed Whelan, who follows these things much more closely than I do, raises a salient point. He contends that Judge Jackson is a mediocre jurist at the district court level.
He writes:
Jackson is not highly regarded as a judge. Inquiries I have made recently of folks knowledgeable about her work confirm that she continues to have a middling reputation. This criticism, I’ll emphasize, is on grounds of quality, not ideology. Indeed, she is not regarded as ranking high among the ten or so district judges that President Obama appointed to the federal district bench in D.C. . . .
This assessment of Jackson finds support in her record on appeal:
Jackson has a striking record of reversals by the D.C. Circuit—including by liberal judges—in her high-profile rulings:
*In 2019, Jackson issued a 122-page opinion in support of her preliminary injunction (in Make the Road New York v. McAleenan) barring the Department of Homeland Security from enforcing its decision expanding the reach of its expedited-removal process to the statutory limit. Jackson ruled (among other things) that plaintiffs had sufficiently established that her court had jurisdiction over the challenge to the decision; that Congress “did not intend to commit implementation of the expedited removal process it authorized entirely to agency discretion”; that plaintiffs had procedural claims under the Administrative Procedure Act; and that the DHS decision was arbitrary and capricious.
The D.C. Circuit reversed Judge Jackson. All three judges on the panel agreed that she got things very wrong. They differed only on which error required vacating her injunction.
In her majority opinion, Judge Patricia Millett, joined by Judge Harry Edwards—both are liberals appointed by Democratic presidents—held that Congress did indeed commit to DHS’s “sole and unreviewable discretion”—that’s the statutory language—the judgment whether to expand expedited removal to the statutory limit. The DHS decision was therefore not subject to review under the APA, and Jackson’s preliminary injunction was improper. . . .
*In 2018, in what the Washington Post hailed as a victory for federal-employee unions, Jackson wrote a 119-page opinion enjoining executive-branch officials from implementing provisions of three of President Trump’s executive orders that (in the Post’s summary) “aimed at making it easier to fire employees and weaken their representation.”
But in a unanimous ruling by an ideologically diverse panel (in American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump), the D.C. Circuit held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to decide the case, as a federal statute vests adjudication of federal labor disputes in the Federal Labor Relations Authority, subject to direct review only in the D.C. Circuit. Judge Thomas Griffith wrote the panel opinion, which was joined most notably by Obama appointee Sri Srinivasan as well as by Bush 41 appointee Raymond Randolph.
*In a 118-page ruling in 2019, Brown ruled that the House Judiciary Committee could sue in federal court to enforce its subpoena to compel former White House Counsel Don McGahn to testify. After a divided D.C. Circuit panel ruled that the constitutional separation of powers forbade federal courts from enforcing the subpoena, the en banc D.C. Circuit rejected the panel’s conclusion. But the panel—again divided, with the same two appointees of Republican presidents in the majority—then ruled that the House lacked statutory (or equitable) authority to enforce its subpoena.
(Emphasis added)
There is a good chance, then, that Judge Jackson is an affirmative action nominee for the D.C. Circuit. In other words, she was selected because of her race, which trumped her mediocre record.
If so, this won’t derail her nomination. Democrats will tout her “diversity.”
Republicans aren’t likely to call Jackson on the ground that she is mediocre. Indeed, as Whelan suggests, conservatives should perhaps be glad happy that Biden didn’t select someone more formidable for such an important judgeship and for possible grooming as a Supreme Court Justice.
Still, it’s unsettling to think that the quality of the appellate bench — especially that of the all-important D.C. Circuit — might be diluted in the name of diversity.
The great comedian Chris Farley had a recurring “Saturday Night Live” sketch in which he nervously and incompetently interviewed celebrities. “Remember when you were with the Beatles? … That was awesome!” he “asked” Paul McCartney in 1993, after fidgeting for a suitably awkward amount of time. “Yeah … it was,” replied McCartney, who played it straight.
That happened for real last Thursday, but without any self-awareness or comedy, when the entire White House Press Corps either effusively praised or more-than-gently handled President Joe Biden for the duration of his first press conference. Biden had his own struggles in the slow and painful press conference, repeatedly having to read off notecards to get through the few mild foreign policy topics, and occasionally getting lost in “rhetorical cul-de-sacs,” as Fox News’ Bret Baier kindly put it. But somehow it was the media performance that stood out as particularly cringe-inducing.https://7ed449825995b4195422b6b227c6c6f9.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html
“[T]he perception of you that got you elected — as a moral, decent man — is the reason why a lot of immigrants are coming to this country and entrusting you with unaccompanied minors,” PBS’ Yamiche Alcindor, the second “reporter” to be called on, asserted Farley-style. Comedian J.P. Sears joked, in a sketch offering constructive notes for the “people running Biden,” that Alcindor sounded like she was worshiping a dictator, and suggested that reporters go ahead and leave the over-the-top compliments out of their questions.
Alcindor’s posture toward the inhabitant of the White House has not always been that of a very supportive fan. Her questions of President Donald Trump were always hostile, and never failed to accept Democrat narratives, no matter how false those narratives were. At this press conference, nobody so much as muttered quietly about her sycophancy. In fact, two more reporters riffed off her preposterous assertion.
“How far are you willing to go to achieve those promises that you made to the American people?” asked the Associated Press’s Zeke Miller, who also heads the White House Correspondents Association, pressuring Biden to help the media and other Democrat activists to end the Senate filibuster. Miller views his job, accurately, as an adjunct of the Biden White House, heading up its media division, as opposed to something independent from the Democratic Party.
Alcindor wasn’t sure Miller made his lobbying for that major Democrat policy goal clear enough, so she spelled it out for Biden as if he were a remedial student. “[W]hen it comes to the filibuster, which is what Zeke was asking about, there’s — immigration is a big issue, of course, when it — related to the filibuster, but there’s also Republicans who are passing bill after bill, trying to restrict voting rights. Chuck Schumer is calling it an ‘existential threat’ to democracy. Why not back a filibuster rule that at least gets around issues including voting rights or immigration?” she advocated, using Democrat talking points and slogans, from her perch as a “reporter.”https://7ed449825995b4195422b6b227c6c6f9.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html
These media activists were completely the opposite with Trump. They weren’t professional or honest or trying to get at the truth. They were the adversarial political opposition, working relentlessly against him every single day and at each press availability.
In any case, the rest of the Biden press conference was bad, too. As Michael Goodwin noted, no one asked him why he was reading from prepared talking points, unlike previous presidents. No one peppered him about the health reports he’s kept hidden, even when he repeatedly lost his train of thought.
Not only did the media not push back against his radical agenda, they seemed to think that nothing he proposed was radical enough. “Why don’t you, when will you, why haven’t you? Over and over, the aim was not to ask a question but to speed up an agenda,” Goodwin wrote. Here’s more:
The man who campaigned on unity is hell-bent on permanent polarization, meaning cancel culture and the supercharged racial climate are here to stay.
Biden gave license to the worst instincts on the left with his repeated sneering references to all Republicans and especially Donald Trump. At one point, he actually accused Trump of letting immigrant children ‘starve to death on the other side’ of the Mexican border.
He said it in a room full of 30 supposed journalists and not a single one challenged him or even asked whether he meant it literally. In fact, not a single one challenged him on any of his falsehoods.
The term for people who lobby for Democrat policies in this clumsy of a manner is “Democrat activists in the propaganda field,” certainly not reporters, or journalists. They need to be treated as what they are.
It’s time to stop acting like these political activists are professionals who do honest journalism. Continuing that pretense is not doing a favor to the public. It’s not true. With very few exceptions, these people are not there to do journalism, and we need to be honest about that with the public. Not everyone is as bad as everyone else, but nearly the entire press corps is somewhere on the Democrat activist scale, from lefty to fringe, from shrewd to clumsy and clownish.
What To Do
It’s easy to complain about the obvious reality that our political media are completely corrupted and engage in propaganda, not journalism. But as they are the largest, most powerful, and least accountable political advocacy group in the country, Americans also need to do more than complain as the press harms the country.
They need to be treated as what they are. So for the love of all that’s holy, stop calling them the “mainstream media” when they are anything but mainstream, with views far to the left of the average American, and they’re not media but propagandists and political activists. If you hear anybody else refer to the “mainstream media,” rhetorically slap that 1980s term out of their mouth.
Average Americans need to stop reading and watching the corrupt corporate media. They should immediately stop subscribing to them, stop advertising with them, and stop paying attention to them. Reporters at these outlets quite obviously hate many Americans and the values they hold, and it’s time most Americans realized that and acted appropriately in response.
If forced to engage with the work of these corrupt political actors, Americans should learn to identify the leftist talking points and assumptions in reporter questions and develop a reflexive suspicion toward them, without fail. Assume out of the gate that the narrative these leftists activists are pushing is not true.
Whether it’s claims about Brett Kavanaugh being a serial gang rapist, or claims about the Covington children attacking an innocent bystander, or claims about the 2016 election being won because Trump colluded with Russia, or any of the other daily false narratives they push, simply assume that the opposite is more likely to be true and only change your mind if you get real evidence from real reporters. When they all tell you in unison that indefensibly mild voter security reforms are the same thing as, and we’re not joking here, starving and dehydrating voters, assume they’re lying with every bone in their body.
It also goes without saying that average Americans should never, ever speak with a corporate reporter. Their decades-long track record of hostility, glee in destroying lives, and general mendacity means you’re an idiot if you engage with them.
If You’re A GOP Official, Grow A Spine
Now, if you’re a conservative leader of some kind, or an elected Republican official, the requirements are much higher. Maybe you don’t have Trump’s courage in taking on the media, but you must still do your part.
As a start, stop thinking of the corporate press as anything other than Democrat partisan activists and propaganda pushers. Have some self-respect and recognize this reality. My goodness, is it embarrassing to see the fealty and subservience that Republican and conservative “leaders” have in the face of the propagandists.
On Sunday, Rep. Michael Waltz taught a master’s class in how to handle propaganda from a CNN host.
Waltz knew the details of the issue the corrupt CNN host was pushing propaganda about, and had the confidence of his viewpoint to fight back.
Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky always does an excellent job of understanding media’s false assumptions enough to immediately push back on them.
These men retain their composure, and their principles, and recognize the media as the corrupt activists they are. Yes, it requires preparation and nimbleness, but it can be done.
Consider Other Creative Responses
Another option, a great option, is to starve these corrupt actors from getting your free help. There is no need to respond to whatever your most powerful and unaccountable political opponent says you have to respond to, particularly on their own corrupt and partisan terms. Treat them as your primary political opposition, because they are.
Conservative leaders should have lists of fraudulent reporters and the outlets they work for. Sometimes media outlets are 95 percent hack, with one easily controlled lackey who is less bad than his colleagues. They put that lackey out there to work with gullible congressmen.
If the media outlet publishes lies and propaganda, as they so frequently do, they shouldn’t expect a quote from any self-respecting congressional GOP office for a while. Maybe ever. When the lackey can’t get quotes, even though he’s not as bad, it might lead to some internal pressure. If it doesn’t, leave them behind.
If you must respond, respond in such a way that the only quote they can publish or air is one ripping them to shreds as the propagandists they are. When the entire media establishment went to war against Rep. Devin Nunes on account of his exposure of their fake narrative of treasonous collusion with Russia to steal the 2016 election, his office seemed to have fun with the situation.
As an example, the Daily Beast took one of their many leaks from Rep. Adam Schiff’s office to write a hit on Nunes for linking the Democrat information operation of the “Steele dossier” to a later Democrat information operation even more focused on Ukraine. Asked for comment, Press Secretary Jack Langer responded, “The Daily Beast and its regular cabal of Democrat leakers don’t seem to realize they are claiming that Rep. Nunes made the same argument behind closed doors that he’s repeatedly made in public.”
Betsy Swan and Sam Brodey rewrote that statement, quite insufficiently, as “A Nunes spokesperson said the congressman has made the argument described above in public.” So Langer shared his actual biting quote with another media outlet, which published a fun story debunking the false narrative set by the activist reporters, with additional commentary from Langer:
‘The Daily Beast does not practice journalism, it’s just a Pravda-like messaging apparatus for the Democrats and resistance leakers,’ Langer told the Wire. ‘They flout fundamental journalism ethics and won’t even print responses they themselves request if the statements counter their narrative. They’re scribes and mouthpieces for their ridiculous anonymous sources, and they’ll regurgitate whatever dreck these unknown people spoonfeed to them.’
Embrace The Vibrant Media Space, At Long Last
The non-leftist media ecosystem is more vibrant and built out, thanks to the failures of the corporate media. Right-of-center political groups and leaders should stop giving their news items to corrupt major media, as if they’re nerdy and socially awkward high schoolers trying to convince themselves that the hot chick will get busy with them if they play it right.
They need to work with the real journalists at non-leftist outlets. The Trump administration, for all of its success in recognizing the corruption of corporate media, failed at this spectacularly.
The political organizations on the right need to be much more aggressive in responding to the falsehoods, lies, and defamations that routinely come against them from the political media. Where is the GOP war room that recognizes its main opponent is the media, not the Democrat Party that serves as the mere political arm of the media? Apart from the political concerns that the right half of the country should have with the corrupt media, this is a deadly serious situation for the future of the country itself.
“It should be borne in mind that the first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news,” wrote Judge Laurence Silberman of the D.C. Circuit for the Court of Appeals. “It is fair to conclude, therefore, that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy.”
That press conference was so horrific that it should serve as a wake-up call of how dire the situation is, with its weak, sycophantic questions after years of hyena-like behavior. The White House press corps, like most of the rest of the media, is an embarrassment. It pushes propaganda. Treat them like the propagandists they are.Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. She is Senior Journalism Fellow at Hillsdale College and a Fox News contributor. She is the co-author of Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway
American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten speaks to the media as then-Senator Kamala Harris (at right) listens in Detroit, Mich., May 6, 2019. (Rebecca Cook/Reuters)
Tuesday was supposed to be a big day for a lot of kids in Oakland — they were supposed to be going back to school. Some of them were to be going to school for the first time. Unfortunately, it’s not going to happen.
A deal between the school district and the teachers’ union had provided for reopening all of Oakland’s elementary schools, but, in spite of the deal, more than half of teachers are declining to return to the classroom, and so most of Oakland’s schools will not reopen as scheduled. Out of 50 pre-K and elementary schools covered by the agreement, only 21 — fewer than half — will reopen.A substantial number of teachers — almost a fifth — have indicated that they do not intend to return to school as required in mid April. While acknowledging the damage this is doing to children — isolation, depression, and other mental-health issues — Oakland School Board Director Shanthi Gonzales pleaded powerlessness, telling the San Francisco Chronicle, “I wish more teachers were volunteering.” That is what you get when the school district works for the teachers and not the other way around: schools in which the interests of children and their families take a distant second place to the desires of the public-sector unions that dominate Democratic politics around the country and run the show practically unopposed in California.
This isn’t bare-knuckle labor politics — it’s political child abuse.
The Centers for Disease Control has said that schools can be safely reopened while maintaining social distancing of as little as three feet. And, as we all know, the pronouncements of the CDC are the gold standard for our progressive friends — right up until they run into the demands of an important Democratic constituency, at which point, they become trash. American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten says she’s “not convinced” by the CDC’s advice. Weingarten, a lawyer by education and a union goon by profession, is, to say the least, not very well prepared to critically review the CDC’s public-health findings.
We have been through a great deal in the past year, with the schools and other institutions taking extraordinary measures that were generally, even when we disagreed, understandable. But 100 million Americans have now received at least one dose of one of the COVID-19 vaccines, and the research overwhelmingly finds that elementary-school education is a relatively low-risk proposition — and that every additional unnecessary delay in the return of ordinary education does real and lasting damage to children, especially to those whose families do not have the resources to adequately pick up the slack. A great many people have worked throughout this terrible episode, many at some considerable personal risk, and not only doctors, nurses, and ambulance drivers but also grocery clerks, warehouse workers, and taxi drivers. They have kept the country running while unionized teachers in Oakland and elsewhere have turned up their noses at the children they are supposed to be serving and looked instead to their own two-point agenda: (1) not going to work; (2) getting paid.
Randi Weingarten exercises more real practical political power than any senator or cabinet secretary, and her power is exercised exclusively in the interest of public-sector workers and the Democratic Party, which they effectively control. Perhaps it is time for Americans to take back some of that power.
They appear to be cowards or crooks or compromised. Cowards, crooks, or compromised seems to be the only way to explain the decision-making of the United States Supreme Court. The Court’s unwillingness to make any decisions regarding the presidential election of 2020 is a historic failure. These last twelve months have seen the Court refuse to do its duty. The Court refused to be a co-equal branch of the federal government.
With the Bush v. Gore of 2000, there is legal precedent. Just twenty short years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court took Bush v. Gore, a presidential election case, so the precedent was there. Over this last year, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to address election law questions before the election last summer, right before the election, right after the election, and even prior to the inauguration in January. On all these occasions, the majority of the Supreme Court judges refused to hear any case dealing with the presidential election. They stuck their heads in the sand and acted as if they had no role.
One could argue, successfully, that January 6 on the Washington Mall happened because of the lack of integrity and guts in the Supreme Court. Because of their blatant disassociation with being a coequal branch with the presidency and Congress, the Court has lost enormous respect from half of America. This is dangerous to a democratic republic. One must ask, why would they be willing to do this? Are they cowards, crooks, compromised, or something else? Can these be the only answers to this seemingly impotent Supreme Court?
Are the Supreme Court members simply cowards? Did they get scared so much by the violence last summer, that they felt for their own and their family members’ safety? Did the violence, looting, burning, assaults, and even deaths that occurred during the Antifa and BLM insurrections last summer simply scare individual members of the Court? Were they simply frightened from hearing any cases dealing with the 2020 presidential election? Did they not want BLM/Antifa showing up as a mob on their front doorsteps in Georgetown? Did they not want Deep State operatives casing their children’s or grandchildren’s school or college? These mobs have done this before, so there is a precedent. Mobs showed up at Tucker Carlson’s home last summer when Tucker was on the air and forced Tucker’s wife to hide in the closet until police arrived. It has been reported that Chief Justice Roberts even referred to the violence last summer as a reason for not accepting cases involving the 2020 election. Whether these reports were accurate, we don’t know. So maybe as individuals, parents, and grandparents, the majority of the Court did not want to hear any election cases based solely on fear. Were they frightened from doing their constitutional duty?
Are the majority of the Supreme Court just obviously crooks? Are they taking bribes from Deep State operatives? Are they getting kickbacks or financial gain from Progressive billionaires by refusing to hear legitimate election questions? This one seems the most doubtful…I hope. However, we have learned so many awful things the last six years, and especially during Trump’s presidency, that nothing should surprise us anymore. The Progressive movement along with the Deep State criminals in D.C. has shocked us with how far it will go against their political enemies. Progressives, unlike RINOs, know that it is a political war, and they fight to win. From the five to six purple battleground states, there were obviously enough questions, doubts, and sworn witnesses to at least hear the evidence in the cases. There was so much smoke out there in terms of possible election irregularities that the Supreme Court had ample reason and cause to see if there was in fact a roaring blaze. But yet a majority of the Court refused to hear it. Was crookedness the reason? Why did they stick their heads in the sand?
Were members of the Supreme Court being compromised? Were they being blackmailed? Did the Progressive movement and Deep State figures have “the goods” on enough justices? This one is interesting and not so far-fetched. Roberts did flip his vote on Obamacare at the last minute, which allowed Obamacare to become law by a 5-4 vote. Maybe enough justices got caught doing the wrong thing that they just could not act according to their legal conscience but had to cave to compromise. Possibly it was not the justices’ behavior at all, but their children’s or grandchildren’s. If one of the justices has a son or grandson whose behavior resembles that of Hunter Biden, that could become a blackmailable issue. We just don’t know. But something must explain why at least six justices on the Supreme Court refused to even hear the plethora of evidence. Only four justices are needed for a case to come before them, and a question about presidential election laws was not important enough for the Court to hear it? Very doubtful. Just does not pass the constitutional smell test.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch wanted to hear the cases concerning presidential election integrity. They especially wanted to hear cases involving state election laws being over ridden by Democrat D.C. lawyers and Deep State operatives. An example of this was Pennsylvania. State legislatures decide state election laws; they cannot be overridden by outside lobbyists and people who intimate from the D.C. Beltway. But there must be four members of the Court who want to hear the case. Even Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett refused to hear the evidence.
President Trump and MAGA nation were shocked by Kavanaugh’s and Barrett’s silence. Kavanaugh and Barrett appear to have been “frozen” at the free throw line. It is noteworthy to mention that Kavanaugh and Barrett have the youngest children, and maybe they were frightened for their safety. Maybe. It is just so extremely odd that this multitude of legitimate cases from these multitude of battleground states with this multitude of evidence did not get enough Supreme Court members even to want to see what happened. They should, if for no other reason than to correct it so it will not happen again in 2022 or 2024.
Maybe the Supreme Court was worried what the evidence might show, and therefore that they might have to make a tough decision. And maybe they knew that half of America, along with the Progressives, and the Deep State in D.C., would simply ignore their verdict. Maybe they were worried that if they had to make a historic decision, the decision would be ignored. So they decided it best to do nothing. Maybe.
This is not as much an indictment of a political party, a business, the Progressives, or the Deep State. It is the Supreme Court who ultimately failed in a historic way. Why the justices failed, we just do not know at this time.
History and historians will in the future write whether the Court’s lack of decision-making and lack of courage were as bad as the Dred Scott and Korematsu decisions. History will decide, but only if those historians are balanced and fair-minded. Those decisions ruined the Court’s credibility for a long time and even created future events that were far worse. Only time will tell if it will again be that disastrous. But over half of the 50 individual states are now rewriting state election laws so the 2020 election abuses will not happen again. The state of Georgia has already signed its own rewrite into law. States such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, and Wisconsin are soon to follow.
There will certainly be court challenges to these impending state laws that tighten up election procedures so fraud will not happen…again. Without question, without uncertainty, these upcoming cases (especially in the purple battleground states) will once again end up in the lap of the United States Supreme Court. Justice Thomas said this would happen, and it has happened.
Nobility and courage will shine the next time the Supreme Court gets a chance to do the right thing by at least hearing the evidence — at the very least, reviewing the evidence. If they refuse once again, things will get even worse — for half of the American population and most certainly worse for the credibility of the United States Supreme Court.
Of all the issues facing our country, one of the most important issues is the vote to eliminate the filibuster rule. Do you have confidence that Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia will make the right decision when casting his vote?
Let’s look at recent history of the filibuster. From 1975 until 2013, the Senate required a three-fifths majority vote to end a filibuster, or 60 votes. One way the filibuster could not be used was in blocking Executive and Judicial Branch nominees. In 2013, then–Democrat majority leader Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option. This option, voted in by a 52-to-48 vote along party lines, changed the rules so that all Executive Branch Cabinet appointments and judicial nominations below the Supreme Court could proceed with a simple majority of 51 votes. But they left the filibuster rule intact for Supreme Court nominations and for new laws.
Harry Reid was warned of the consequences of his actions when the Senate Republicans got back the majority. And lo and behold, it came back to haunt the Democrats when the Republicans came back into power in 2015. In 2017, then–Republican majority leader Mitch McConnell changed the approval vote for Supreme Court nominations to a simple majority of 51 votes, and Neil Gorsuch was approved. McConnell was also able to get Trump’s judicial nominees approved. The tit for tat was now on between the parties.
So now the Democrats are back in power, and the only thing left for the filibuster rule is legislation. The Democrats are fit to be tied. They want to eliminate the filibuster rule altogether. With a 50-50 split in the Senate and the Democrat vice president to break ties, the Democrats are in a dangerous position to railroad all votes/legislation through the Senate so they can run the country forever.
What does this mean to you? Well, emotion trumps reason. Democrats govern based on emotion, not facts. It means passing legislation allowing amnesty for illegal aliens, the Green New Deal, reparations, changing gun rights in the Second Amendment, increasing taxes, stacking the Supreme Court, granting statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico, federalizing voting standards, etc. With 50 votes plus the V.P., Democrats win and can approve any legislation they please. And the minority party, as well as you, cannot do a damn thing about it.
That is why they want to change the Second Amendment — not to protect people from being killed, but to disarm you so that you have no power against the government. We would still be under British rule if George Washington and company had had no guns.
This is not your grandfather’s Democrat Party. This is the Democrat Party from hell. They want our country to be a one-party system. This is far-left elite liberals who want to change our country from a republic to a communist dictatorship — a republic as in representatives of the people, as opposed to dictatorship, where the government tells you what to do.
Stacking the Supreme Court will mean that the Democrats will have all three branches of government. Federalizing voting standards means that you lose your most precious right: the right to vote. Once that happens, you are toast.
Once laws are passed, overturning the laws is very difficult, especially when the legislation allows the ruling party total control. These actions will change our country forever, hence changing your life forever. Is that what you want?
So now we come to Senator Joe Manchin, who is a critical vote on eliminating the filibuster rule. He has prided himself on being bipartisan and working with Republicans, and it appears he does. He says he voted with Trump 61% of the time. However, if the truth be known, he does that on the minor issues that nobody cares about.
But when it comes to the major issues like voting for the Trump Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, repeal or replace parts of the Affordable Care Act, Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, and the $1.9T spending bill, he is nowhere to be found. Oh, he will say, yes, but I voted for Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch. But we all know that these votes were foregone conclusions. So his party leaders were fine with letting him vote with Trump to look good to the people of West Virginia.
He gets all this attention because everybody looks at his vote to see if a critical bill will pass the Senate. He just draws it out to get attention and see what he can get out of it.
And now we really see how he operates. Joe Biden has nominated Mrs. Manchen to co-chair the Appalachian Regional Commission, an economic development partnership with 13 states designed to boost investment in the Appalachian region. I believe that that is what you call quid pro quo. And isn’t that what Joe Biden did with Ukraine? Can you really trust Senator Joe Manchin?
If Senator Manchin votes to eliminate the filibuster rule, he will make Benedict Arnold look like Bozo the Clown. Senator Manchin: Be a patriot, not a traitor. Stand up for America, and do the right thing. Vote against eliminating the filibuster rule. Our country depends on it.
If you would like to comment on this or any other American Thinker article or post, we invite you to visit the American Thinker Forum at MeWe. There, you can converse with other American Thinker readers and comment freely (subject to MeWe’s terms of use). The Forum will be fully populated and ready for comments by midday (Eastern time) each day.
I, Glenn H. Ray of the state of Minnesota have spent…..in August of 1966, and again in October, 1990…. two of the greatest experiences of my life, a total of five weeks in that Communist dictatorship, UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS….where the state owned and controlled EVERYTHING, Mark Zuckerberg style, but worse and more brutal.!
The police state Soviets, trying to survive from their murderous Stalinist terrors, were suffering economically. During the Eisenhower administration the Soviet Communists were beginning to have a steadily collapsing economy, and in our United States scholastic arenas anywhere from the Atlantic to the Pacific were absent of anything Russian, especially teachers of the Russian language. President Ike was determined to restore teaching the Russian language in American schools for future needs for understandings of our nation’s GREATEST ENEMY at that time……………
…..UNTIL OUR ENEMY OF CIVIL FREEDOMS, BEHAVIORS, AND TRUTH TODAY WITH BIDEN-HARRIS-PELOSI-SCHUMER ET ALIA FASCISTS HERE IN HOMETOWN AMERICA WITH THEIR BLACK LIVES MATTER AND ANTIFA WARRIORS!
I was teaching Russian at a civilized Minneapolis high school then. I received an Eisenhower grant to go to the USSR with twenty other American high school teachers of Russian that August 1966 where we were “trained” most of that July at the University of Indiana to learn how to survive OUR time in the Soviet Union!
One Party, a fascistic kind, is striving to conquer America these days. As in the USSR of 1966, it already owns our nation’s schools, universities, newspaper industry, television news, and has managed to diminish its Churches to disappear!
ONLY IN AMERICA…..
In1990 I returned to the USSR, particularly to Kiev and the Ukraine, because I could still speak Russian fluently, but no longer teaching!. A young fellow was setting up a watering system for my nearly half acre of landscape garden I was creating where I live. He heard I could speak Russian, and one day explained that a group of church people in Anoka County, then fairly rural, were planning to go to the Soviet Union that October. They needed another “translator” to join the group. They would pay the travel fee, but could not afford to pay for the service.
I was in my own business, landscape gardening, then….and immediately accepted the terrific gift with joy!
Guess what the reason was for these Christians of their day to go to the ugly, fascist, brutal Soviet Russia of USSR day?
A PLACE CALLED CHERNOBYL….IN THE SOVIET UKRAINE! THAT “CHERNOBYL” DISASTER CAUSED BY NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS AND POISONINGS AND BURNINGS TO DEATH OR NEAR DEATH OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT SOVIET CITIZENS!
These Anoka Christians had collected from various county Churches several, MANY thousands of dollars to aid the STRUGGLING survivors in the hospitals of Kiev caused by this horrible disaster. Their leaders insisted upon personally handing the money over to the local directors involved with carrying for surviving victims. The gifts were honestly well received….it was the Ukraine….
These were the Christian people of that day, still alive and serving communities during fading America, 1990, the beginning of today’s fascist feminized Dems’ Biden fascist “powerhouse”.
Their Churches have been forced shut in our America for about a YEAR now…..mostly by today’s fascist agnostic Dems…..WHO ELSE? EASTER SUNDAY, this Sunday, WILL HARDLY EXIST….
(CNN)Even at their moments of maximum electoral influence — the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, the first years of Donald Trump‘s turbulent reign — conservatives often lament that they have won the political battle but lost the culture. They’re right. And Los Angeles during the early 1970s was the place and time it happened.In the struggle for control of popular culture, Los Angeles in those years was the right’s Gettysburg or Battle of the Bulge: the moment when it definitively lost the war. The reverberations of that clash are still being felt today.
Los Angeles in 1974 exerted more influence over popular culture than any other city in America. In movies, music and television, the early 1970s marked a towering creative peak in Los Angeles that transformed each of those industries. The “new wave” that revitalized Hollywood, the smooth Southern California sound that ruled the album charts and radio airwaves, the torrent of groundbreaking comedies that brought new sophistication and provocation to television’s prime time: all of this emerged from Los Angeles. Working just blocks from each other in film, recording and television studios around Sunset Boulevard, living in Brentwood and Beverly Hills or amid the flickering lights of the Hollywood Hills, a cluster of transformative talents produced an explosion of pop culture mastery and innovation.”There was a tremendous feeling of anything [is possible],” the musician Graham Nash remembered. “What do you want to think of? We can do anything. What do you want? … There was no end to [it]. We were in this pool of, like, magic stuff and it was rubbing off on everybody.”
Yet, TAKE A LOOK AT CNN’S ATTACK UPON AN HONEST AMERICAN CURIOUS ABOUT CNN’S FASCISMS OF TODAY:
Adapted from “Rock Me on the Water,” by Ronald Brownstein, HarperCollins Publishers, 2021.
(CNN)Even at their moments of maximum electoral influence — the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, the first years of Donald Trump‘s turbulent reign — conservatives often lament that they have won the political battle but lost the culture. They’re right. And Los Angeles during the early 1970s was the place and time it happened.In the struggle for control of popular culture, Los Angeles in those years was the right’s Gettysburg or Battle of the Bulge: the moment when it definitively lost the war. The reverberations of that clash are still being felt today.
Photo: Court TV via AP, Pool. In this image from video, Minneapolis Firrefighter Genevieve Hansen, wipes her eyes as she testifies as Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill presides Tuesday, March 30, 2021, in the trial of former Minneapolis police Officer Derek Chauvin, in the May 25, 2020, death of George Floyd at the Hennepin County Courthouse in Minneapolis, Minn.
MN Prager Discussion Group 
You must be logged in to post a comment.