This from Charlotte NC. A WW2 memorial. Defaced by open communists. Why do we continue to tolerate this? This is what the left wants. If y’all don’t vote in November look what’s coming.https://t.co/tnnYStxdm2
But once again, better men then the rioters step up.
Wayne White, a US Air Force Vet, rounded up some friends and is working to help clean up a Charlotte WWII memorial after seeing on social media that it had been defaced. @FOX46News pic.twitter.com/KvrglFBwfN
“Fact Checkers: ‘Black Lives Matter’ Not Recognized IRS Charity, Raises Funds Through ‘Fiscal Sponsor’”
“Earlier this month, FactCheck.org and Politifact confirmed that Black Lives Matter Global Network is not a recognized IRS charity, instead raising their funds through a fiscal sponsor, global nonprofit Thousand Current, which would likely “have a legal obligation to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the funds they receive are spent consistent with 501(c)(3) restrictions.” Some critics of the group suggest that its financial arrangement “blocks full transparency.”
FactCheck.org notes that ActBlue helps to raise funds for Black Lives Matter Global Network by directing donations to Thousand Currents, their fiscal sponsor.
“The partnership between the network (ActBlue) and the nonprofit (formerly the International Development Exchange) was announced in 2016,” the site explains. “The nonprofit organization (Thousand Currents) said it would provide ‘fiduciary oversight, financial management, and other administrative services to BLM.’”
An ActBlue spokesperson, Caleb Cade, confirmed to the fact-checking site that “donations made through ActBlue go to Thousand Currents for Black Lives Matter.”
According to Jenesha de Rivera, director of finance and administration at Thousand Currents, the foundation “has applied to become its own 501(c)(3),” FactCheck.org reported, noting that BLM never returned their request for such a form:
“We asked the Black Lives Matter group for a copy of its Form 1023, which is used to apply for that designation, but didn’t hear back. An IRS spokesperson said copies are only publicly available if the organization is approved for 501(c)(3) status.”
As noted by the fact-checking site, “Fiscal sponsorships are common”:
“Using a fiscal sponsorship arrangement offers a way for a cause to attract donors even when it is not yet recognized as tax-exempt under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3),” according to the National Council on Nonprofits. “In essence the fiscal sponsor serves as the administrative ‘home’ of the cause. Charitable contributions are given to the fiscal sponsor, which then grants them to support the cause.”
Benjamin Leff, a professor who specializes in nonprofits, told the fact-checking site that based upon his general understanding of fiscal sponsorships, “both ActBlue Charities and Thousand Currents have a legal obligation to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the funds they receive are spent consistent with 501(c)(3) restrictions.”
Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton, however, suggested Saturday that the fiscal sponsorship route blocks full transparency, particularly when it comes to its partnership with ActBlue.
“Transparency?” he posted, linking to Politifact. “So if you want to make a tax-deductible charitable donation directly to Black Lives Matter, you can’t. You donate to Act Blue Charities. Act Blue Charities sends this money, allegedly, to another charity, Thousand Currents, which runs BLM as a ‘fiscal sponsorship.’”
Transparency? So if you want to make a tax-deductible charitable donation directly to Black Lives Matter, you can't. You donate to Act Blue Charities. Act Blue Charities sends this money, allegedly, to another charity, Thousand Currents, which runs BLM as a "fiscal sponsorship."
BACKGROUND: Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors' father and brother were in and out of jail and she developed a deep resentment for the police. Then she was trained in street agitation tactics by one of Obama co-author Bill Ayer's fellow Weather Underground terrorists
“104 Shot, 14 Killed In Chicago Weekend Violence; Other ‘Defund The Police’ Target Cities See Major Gun Crime Incidents”
“Chicago saw a very violent Father’s Day weekend, with more than 100 people shot and at least 14 killed, including five children, the Chicago Sun-Times reports.
The number of shootings makes last weekend the most violent weekend of 2020 for the midwestern metropolis, but hardly its deadliest. The last weekend of May saw more than 20 people killed but only 85 people were shot.
The youngest victim of the weekend’s violence was just three years old.
“A 3-year-old boy was fatally wounded when someone opened fire at his father while they were driving in [Chicago’s Austin neighborhood],” the Sun-Times says. “The toddler, identified as Mekay James, was struck in the back about 6:25 p.m. when someone in a blue Honda pulled behind the black SUV the boy’s 27-year-old father was driving in the 600 block of North Central Avenue and fired several rounds, authorities said.”
The police believe Mekay’s father was the intended target of the shooting.”
“Audio Emerges Of Jimmy Kimmel Allegedly Using ‘N-Word,’ Report Says”
“Audio emerged on Monday afternoon of comedian Jimmy Kimmel allegedly using the “n-word” multiple times in a song that he recorded in 1996 for a Christmas album.
Kimmel previously pressed actor Tom Arnold to release an alleged “n-word” tape of President Donald Trump, which has not materialized.
Fox News Editor Gregg Re exclusively reported:
Fox News additionally has obtained audio from the Christmas album, “A Family Christmas In Your A–,” which came out of the “Kevin & Bean” radio show that aired on KROQ-FM in California. A version of the track featuring Kimmel’s Snoop Dogg imitation, “Christmastime in the LBC,” has been uploaded to YouTube.
…
Liner notes from the cassette, obtained by Fox News, showed the album was co-produced by “Jim Kimmel” and credited Kimmel for all “comedy material” on the album, except for a handful of unrelated tracks. Kimmel also appeared on the album cover.
The song on the comedy Christmas album repeatedly features the “n-word.” Kimmel is currently on leave for the summer to “spend even more time with my family,” which comes as he has faced renewed scrutiny over his past use of blackface.”
“NJ Republicans Receive Misprinted Ballots with Democratic Candidates Listed Instead”
“Many Republican voters in one New Jersey community got a surprise when they opened their mail ballots for a July 7 primary.
Their choices were all Democrats.
Between 500 and 700 Republicans received the wrong ballots out of about 2,400 enrolled Republicans in Bernardsville, NJ.com reported.
“The slate of candidates was all Democrat from Joe Biden down to dogcatcher, but on the upper right it clearly stated it was a Republican ballot and it had my name and correct information on the return envelope,” Karen Gardner, the chairwoman of the Bernardsville Republican Municipal Committee, said.
The error was laid at the door of the printing company that sent out the ballots, but the government still had a role in the mixup.
Usually, the Somerset County clerk’s office would do the printing. However, after New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy ordered every voter to receive a ballot in the mail, the job was farmed out.
“If we had had a greater lead time when we were sending out these ballots, we would have been able to do the ballot insertion in-house and this error would have been caught,” Somerset County Clerk Steve Peter said.”
“John Roberts and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamer Robe
Intelligence invests in illusion when the need for illusion is deep.”
“The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, ruling that the Trump Administration failed to comply with federal regulation procedures.
In an opinion for the 5-4 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts explained, “we address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action.” Justice Clarence Thomas, the sole African American on the high court, thought there was more to it.
“The majority today concludes that [the Department of Homeland Security] was required to do far more,” Thomas wrote. In effect, the majority was holding the decision of the Trump Administration to a higher standard than President Barack Obama’s “executive action” that established DACA illegally in the first place. The decision, Thomas wrote in his dissent, “must be recognized for what it is: an effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision.”
The chief justice has some prior experience massaging the law in order to arrive at a politically desirable outcome. Where he was unwilling to read into the true intent behind the technical noncompliance of the Trump Administration on Thursday, he was more than willing in 2012 to patch up the illegal-as-written federal subsidies in the Affordable Care Act.
“It stands to reason that Congress meant for those provisions to apply in every State as well,” Roberts wrote as he upheld Obamacare. Though Congress had failed to write the Affordable Care Act in such a way as to let the federal government provide health care subsidies in every state, Roberts reasoned nevertheless it must have meant to. Thus, the chief justice was willing to aid the legislative body from the bench.
To argue his case, Roberts cited the dissenting opinions of his colleagues, who argued that Obamacare would collapse without federal subsidy in all states, as evidence that congress indeed must have intended to subsidize them all. As Brett LoGiurato of Business Insider explained at the time, “He’s basically telling his colleagues: I’m right, and your words prove it.”
As the late Terry Jones told King Arthur (Graham Chapman) in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”: I didn’t vote for you. And we don’t vote for Supreme Court justices, either, which makes it particularly frustrating when they function as a robed politburo. In Roberts’ case, as Max Bialystock told Roger Debris in “The Producers,” “that robe is you!”
The amazing politburo robe also suits Justice Neil Gorsuch. Shortly before Roberts’ executive order on DACA, Gorsuch essentially rewrote the 1964 Civil Rights Act. For Ken Masugi, Gorsuch “took a knee”—which is true but incomplete.
Gorsuch and Roberts are intelligent men, but as Saul Bellow said, “a great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.” The illusion here is the veneration of Nancy Pelosi, CNN, and the Washington Post. To have the veneration, as recent rulings confirm, Supreme Court justices will cave to just about anything.
In strictly non-legal terms that even a deplorable Trump supporter might understand, they combine bull@#$% and chicken@#$% to arrive at the desired political end. Perhaps Pennsylvania Health Secretary Dr. Rachel Levine could donate some gear no longer in use, but the real need here is for a spine transplant. And now abide ignorance, casuistry, and cowardice, but the greatest of these is cowardice. Or maybe it’s a three-way tie. “
“Supreme Court’s Illegal Immigration Ruling Applies Different Legal Standards To Different Presidents
And it allows presidents to legislate, a recipe for everexpanding federal and executive power.”
June 18’s Supreme Court ruling on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program is bad judging on top of bad lawyering. It has good short‐term practical effects but makes policy reform harder in the longer term.
Recall what’s going on here: In 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a memo creating DACA, which allows people who were brought here illegally as children (the so-called Dreamers) to apply for a renewable “lawful presence” status exempting them from removal, along with work authorizations and other benefits. Two years later, it created a similar program, the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA).
In the 2016 case Texas v. United States, an evenly divided 4-4 court (after Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing) affirmed without opinion an injunction issued against DAPA for violating the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). In June 2017, based on an opinion of Attorney General Jeff Sessions that DACA was unlawful because its defects mirrored those in DAPA, DHS announced a phase-out of DACA, which has been stuck in the courts ever since.
But Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion didn’t simply adopt the lower courts’ reasoning that DACA was likely lawful and thus the administration couldn’t end it so easily. Instead, he first found that “DACA is more than a non-enforcement policy” of the kind that merits broad deference to the executive branch, but also an affirmative-benefits policy, the rescission of which must follow the niceties of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). And since both the Fifth Circuit in the DAPA case and Sessions in his memo focused only on the illegality of granting certain benefits, DHS’s action was “arbitrary and capricious,” a no-no in administrative law.
In other words, precisely because nobody challenged executive authority to set removal priorities—going after violent criminals ahead of the Dreamers, say—the Trump administration couldn’t simply claim that all of DACA went beyond presidential power, but had to show its work as to the illegal parts. That technical reason for blocking rescission is debatable, and I think Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent has the better of that argument over Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion. I won’t go into all the details, but it’s clear that the administration didn’t do a good job explaining its decision—not that it needed to, points out Kavanaugh—or differentiating the part of DACA that’s legal (“forbearance,” or deprioritizing deportation of certain classes of people) from the part that’s not (granting temporary status and benefits).
The problem is that because DACA is more than non‐enforcement, more than executive or prosecutorial discretion, it goes beyond the powers presidents are given under the INA. Indeed, it goes beyond the powers presidents can be delegated by Congress, because these sorts of actions constitute making rather than enforcing the law.
In other words, the majority says that President Trump issued a new regulation without giving sufficient reasoning and otherwise following the APA. But if that’s the case, then President Obama acted even more egregiously in rewriting the law in the first place.
“DHS created DACA during the Obama administration without any statutory authority and without going through the requisite rulemaking process,” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent, joined by justices Sam Alito and Neil Gorsuch. “The majority does not even attempt to explain why a court has the authority to scrutinize an agency’s policy reasons for rescinding an unlawful program under the arbitrary and capricious microscope.”
The court could’ve avoided that glaring hole in its administrative‐law reasoning—and any concerns about the “nondelegation doctrine”—by just deferring to the administration’s reasonable if insufficiently explained legal judgment, as Cato’s amicus brief suggested. It didn’t even need to rule on DACA’s legality, but could’ve instead found that what one president established via memo, another can rescind with another memo, for good, bad, or no reason at all.
Instead, it set a precedent that one president’s executive action can’t be rescinded by the next president unless he jumps through hoops that his predecessor didn’t have to. That’s a recipe for ever‐expanding federal and executive power, to the detriment of our constitutional system of government. As Thomas put it, the holding “is incorrect, and it will hamstring all future agency attempts to undo actions that exceed statutory authority.””
Bolton is a thin-skinned and snarky figure who succeeded in convincing a surprising number of smart people in Washington that he is somehow serious and statesmanlike.”
“In the good old days of the internet blogosphere, there was a running bit at Jeff Goldstein’s blog Protein Wisdom which provided a name for John Bolton’s prominent mustache – “Regis”, a globe-trotting nuke-loving Hamas-bashing sexually aggressive bon-vivant with lush whiskey-tinged follicles. The image is ridiculous of course, but it is not far from the image the real John Bolton paints of himself in the absurdly entertaining pages of his book, the inaptly named The Room Where It Happened.
First, let me say that I love this book. I love everything about it. It is true unadulterated fan-fic for Bolton lovers everywhere. He is always right. He is always noble. His purposes are always true. Anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot, or possibly worse. Edward from Twilight has more flaws than this iteration of John Bolton, the mustachioed hero who can do no wrong… except to be, at a critical moment, surrounded entirely by idiots.
If you don’t believe me, just read the reviews from others who have welcomed most if not all of the quite profitable books by insiders excoriating the president released in the past several years.
From The New York Times review:
Underneath it all courses a festering obsession with his enemies … The book is bloated with self-importance, even though what it mostly recounts is Bolton not being able to accomplish very much. It toggles between two discordant registers: exceedingly tedious and slightly unhinged … When it comes to Bolton’s comments on impeachment, the clotted prose, the garbled argument and the sanctimonious defensiveness would seem to indicate some sort of ambivalence on his part—a feeling that he doesn’t seem to have very often.
From The New Yorker review:
Bolton mocks, disparages, or clashes with Steven Mnuchin, Nikki Haley, Rex Tillerson, James Mattis, Mike Pompeo, and others, all within the book’s first hundred pages. By the end of the nearly five-hundred-page book, Bolton also criticizes Mick Mulvaney, Jared Kushner, the entire White House economic team, many of his foreign counterparts, and, although he shares their misgivings about Donald Trump, the House Democrats who impeached the President.
This is Washington score-settling on an epic scale. Mnuchin, the Treasury Secretary, “had no idea what he was talking about.” Haley, who served as the Ambassador to the United Nations, is a self-promoting pol who sucked up to Trump’s family. Mattis, the former Defense Secretary, is a bureaucratic obstructionist who deluded himself into thinking that an “axis of adults” could manage the unmanageable President. Pompeo, the Secretary of State, who would emerge as the great internal enemy during Bolton’s seventeen-month tenure, is an untruthful hypocrite who flatters Trump to his face while dumping on him privately…
The book does, however, amply confirm Bolton’s reputation as a fierce infighter with an inflated view of himself and a willingness to blame others for just about everything. He is clearly a flawed narrator and colleague.”
“Family of Woman Who Portrayed Aunt Jemima Does Not Want the Brand to Change
“I wish we would take a breath and not just get rid of everything. because good or bad, it is our history. Removing that wipes away a part of me. A part of each of us. We are proud of our cousin.”
“The family of the woman who portrayed Aunt Jemima has asked Quaker Oats to reconsider changing the brand in response to the rage after George Floyd’s death.
Lillian Richard portrayed Aunt Jemima for years.
Family historian Vera Harris cannot believe the company is about to erase an important part of her family history and a part of black history:
“A lot of people want it removed. We want the world to know that our cousin Lillian was one of the Aunt Jemima’s and she made an honest living. We would ask that you reconsider just wiping all that away. There wasn’t a lot of jobs, especially for black women back in that time. She was discovered by Quaker Oats to be their brand person,” Harris said.
Lillian Richard became a goodwill ambassador for Quaker Oats, and for decades, portrayed Aunt Jemima all over Texas.
“She made an honest living out of it for a number of years. She toured around Texas,” Harris said.
In the Fouke community just outside Hawkins is a historic marker dedicated to Lillian Richard, who is recognized as one of several women who portrayed Aunt Jemima.
And the family is proud of what she did.
“She was considered a hero in Hawkins, and we are proud of that. We do not want that history erased,” Harris said.
Harris said the family is also tired of the activism:
“I wish we would take a breath and not just get rid of everything. because good or bad, it is our history. Removing that wipes away a part of me. A part of each of us. We are proud of our cousin,” Harris said.”
And, by the way, criminal masterminds, you’re destroying a statue on federal property that commemorates the military service of Andrew Jackson, a crime that carries a 10-year sentence under the Veterans Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act. And you’re on tape.
I have authorized the Federal Government to arrest anyone who vandalizes or destroys any monument, statue or other such Federal property in the U.S. with up to 10 years in prison, per the Veteran’s Memorial Preservation Act, or such other laws that may be pertinent…..
…..This action is taken effective immediately, but may also be used retroactively for destruction or vandalism already caused. There will be no exceptions!
Did I not say recently that when they rewrite history they will rewrite WWII? They can hardly defend Hitler, but they can deny it happened. They can make us out to be evil for bombing Japan. They will also bring up the internment camps where the US put the Americans of Asian origin during WWII
Historians always rewrite history; its what historians do or else they would be unemployed. Sometimes really bad historians rewrite history really badly. Trust me I’ve read some awful history in my 6 years of studying history.
The defacing of the WWII memorial seems to be in sympathy of Latin American communists. The American left has always had a romantic view of Latin American revolutionaries. WWII doesn’t have the same historical significance or meaning to Latin Americans. European communists who view WWII as the great anti-fascist war wouldn’t deface a WWII memorial. In this case Latin American communist are using the wrong venue to get their message across.
In recent decades, Chavez has replace Che as the “spiritual” leader of the Latin American left. For BLM organizers, Venezuela is a funding opportunity and international recognition. Unfortunately, Maduro faces the same difficulties as Chavez but without the charisma and ability of Chavez. Chavez is an especially appealing figure for BLM because of his own African/native roots and the racism of the opposition to his regime.
Of all US presidents, Jackson perhaps incurs the most wrath from the left. Trump’s declaration is a cry to the base but doesn’t add to the actually law especially his attempt at retroactive law.
Interesting videos — hard to identify if they are antifa since antifa isnt really an organization — anybody can claim to be antifa.
The first video the white guy is probably drunk and clearly lacks sleep. Have to give the police props for not engaging him other than one who decides to debate him from behind the line — what’s the point? Also have to give props to another protester who is trying to guide him away from the police.
The spray paint on the church could be from “woke” suburban white kids, real antifa types, or actually BLM activists — who knows and lets face it, 30 mins of sandblasting and its gone.
The final video is interesting in that its quite obvious only one guy really wants to start the fire. Most people are either watching or telling him to stop or asking why. In the end, someone stops him and the video cuts away as its obvious nothing worthy of right wing video is going to happen.
The subtitle of the article HRW linked: “The mascots were intended to let white consumers indulge in a fantasy of enslaved people as submissive, self-effacing, loyal and contentedly pacified.”
Well if that’s how they were intended I think they failed miserably on most of us. I grew up seening Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima as really nice friendly people who made good rice dishes and yummy sweet syrup.
I suppose I should read the article to see if they back up that assertion with any documentation.
NASCAR tried to placate the mob, ends up looking stupid, and Bubba Wallace is a liar. He’s been to this track before. He knows what he claimed was a noose was a garage door pull down. They’ve been there for years. But hey, way to waste taxpayer dollars on your Jessie Smollet imitation. You got your 5 minutes of fame yesterday too, all while making your co-workers and fans look like racists. They should fire his butt.
Frauds.
The sleuths on Twitchy even solved it before the feds.
Apologies for not knowing who originally created this image, but it has been making the rounds on Twitter and turned out to be correct. You can see in the left photo the rope was in noose form — apparently as a handle — last year and then cut for evidence Sunday. pic.twitter.com/MIrtF3uqtN
NEWS: The FBI has just released a statement about the NASCAR noose incident at Talladega, indicating it was a misunderstanding. No crime was committed. The noose was already there as early as last year. pic.twitter.com/j2MGrOvUN3
White suburban middle class students are not antifa — they are wannabes or political tourists. In 20 years they will be drinking a bit too much wine at their July 4th bbq remembering the day they stood up to the man in 2020 and then slip easily into a conversation about kids these days and then next Republican primary.
Both the Trump and Pence families voted by mail — should we double check their ballots? I’d be more worried about the reduction in polling booths which makes it difficult to vote in person, such as Georgia and now Kentucky. Mail in ballots wouldn’t be necessary if there were enough polling booths.
Wandering Views 
You knew this was coming.
And it’s only fitting it comes from a white man who pretends he’s black.
https://twitter.com/shaunking/status/1275106946916499456?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1275106946916499456&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2020%2F06%2Ftear-race-activist-shaun-king-calls-removal-statues-white-jesus-european-mother%2F
——–
https://twitter.com/MrSubsidiarity/status/1275158871275798528
LikeLike
So WWII was racist too?
————
But once again, better men then the rioters step up.
LikeLike
So who is BLM? Who funds them? Where does the money go?
All questions they don’t want answered. So they hide it, using Democrat groups to hide the money, of course.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/fact-checkers-black-lives-matter-not-recognized-irs-charity-raises-funds-through-fiscal-sponsor
“Fact Checkers: ‘Black Lives Matter’ Not Recognized IRS Charity, Raises Funds Through ‘Fiscal Sponsor’”
“Earlier this month, FactCheck.org and Politifact confirmed that Black Lives Matter Global Network is not a recognized IRS charity, instead raising their funds through a fiscal sponsor, global nonprofit Thousand Current, which would likely “have a legal obligation to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the funds they receive are spent consistent with 501(c)(3) restrictions.” Some critics of the group suggest that its financial arrangement “blocks full transparency.”
FactCheck.org notes that ActBlue helps to raise funds for Black Lives Matter Global Network by directing donations to Thousand Currents, their fiscal sponsor.
“The partnership between the network (ActBlue) and the nonprofit (formerly the International Development Exchange) was announced in 2016,” the site explains. “The nonprofit organization (Thousand Currents) said it would provide ‘fiduciary oversight, financial management, and other administrative services to BLM.’”
An ActBlue spokesperson, Caleb Cade, confirmed to the fact-checking site that “donations made through ActBlue go to Thousand Currents for Black Lives Matter.”
According to Jenesha de Rivera, director of finance and administration at Thousand Currents, the foundation “has applied to become its own 501(c)(3),” FactCheck.org reported, noting that BLM never returned their request for such a form:
“We asked the Black Lives Matter group for a copy of its Form 1023, which is used to apply for that designation, but didn’t hear back. An IRS spokesperson said copies are only publicly available if the organization is approved for 501(c)(3) status.”
As noted by the fact-checking site, “Fiscal sponsorships are common”:
“Using a fiscal sponsorship arrangement offers a way for a cause to attract donors even when it is not yet recognized as tax-exempt under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3),” according to the National Council on Nonprofits. “In essence the fiscal sponsor serves as the administrative ‘home’ of the cause. Charitable contributions are given to the fiscal sponsor, which then grants them to support the cause.”
Benjamin Leff, a professor who specializes in nonprofits, told the fact-checking site that based upon his general understanding of fiscal sponsorships, “both ActBlue Charities and Thousand Currents have a legal obligation to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the funds they receive are spent consistent with 501(c)(3) restrictions.”
Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton, however, suggested Saturday that the fiscal sponsorship route blocks full transparency, particularly when it comes to its partnership with ActBlue.
“Transparency?” he posted, linking to Politifact. “So if you want to make a tax-deductible charitable donation directly to Black Lives Matter, you can’t. You donate to Act Blue Charities. Act Blue Charities sends this money, allegedly, to another charity, Thousand Currents, which runs BLM as a ‘fiscal sponsorship.’”
LikeLike
https://twitter.com/JoanOfSnark/status/1274346999387652098
————
https://twitter.com/Quadraceps/status/1274374862883164160
LikeLike
More of who they are…..
https://twitter.com/davereaboi/status/1274336621702373377?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1274336621702373377&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthepoliticalinsider.com%2Fblack-lives-matter-founder-admits-we-are-trained-marxists-goal-is-to-get-trump-out%2F
———–
————–
https://twitter.com/adrianahoyos/status/1274524162464374784?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1274524162464374784&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2020%2F06%2Fcommunist-assault-black-lives-matter-leaders-trained-marxists-supporters-socialist-maduro-regime-behind-removal-statues-across-us%2F
LikeLike
Black lives matter?
Then where’s the outcry over this?
Oh that’s right, black on black crime is never mentioned.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/104-shot-14-killed-in-chicago-weekend-violence-other-defund-the-police-target-cities-see-major-gun-crime-incidents
“104 Shot, 14 Killed In Chicago Weekend Violence; Other ‘Defund The Police’ Target Cities See Major Gun Crime Incidents”
“Chicago saw a very violent Father’s Day weekend, with more than 100 people shot and at least 14 killed, including five children, the Chicago Sun-Times reports.
The number of shootings makes last weekend the most violent weekend of 2020 for the midwestern metropolis, but hardly its deadliest. The last weekend of May saw more than 20 people killed but only 85 people were shot.
The youngest victim of the weekend’s violence was just three years old.
“A 3-year-old boy was fatally wounded when someone opened fire at his father while they were driving in [Chicago’s Austin neighborhood],” the Sun-Times says. “The toddler, identified as Mekay James, was struck in the back about 6:25 p.m. when someone in a blue Honda pulled behind the black SUV the boy’s 27-year-old father was driving in the 600 block of North Central Avenue and fired several rounds, authorities said.”
The police believe Mekay’s father was the intended target of the shooting.”
LikeLike
Jimmy Kimmel has more ‘splainin’ to do.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-audio-emerges-of-jimmy-kimmel-allegedly-using-n-word-report-says
“Audio Emerges Of Jimmy Kimmel Allegedly Using ‘N-Word,’ Report Says”
“Audio emerged on Monday afternoon of comedian Jimmy Kimmel allegedly using the “n-word” multiple times in a song that he recorded in 1996 for a Christmas album.
Kimmel previously pressed actor Tom Arnold to release an alleged “n-word” tape of President Donald Trump, which has not materialized.
Fox News Editor Gregg Re exclusively reported:
Fox News additionally has obtained audio from the Christmas album, “A Family Christmas In Your A–,” which came out of the “Kevin & Bean” radio show that aired on KROQ-FM in California. A version of the track featuring Kimmel’s Snoop Dogg imitation, “Christmastime in the LBC,” has been uploaded to YouTube.
…
Liner notes from the cassette, obtained by Fox News, showed the album was co-produced by “Jim Kimmel” and credited Kimmel for all “comedy material” on the album, except for a handful of unrelated tracks. Kimmel also appeared on the album cover.
The song on the comedy Christmas album repeatedly features the “n-word.” Kimmel is currently on leave for the summer to “spend even more time with my family,” which comes as he has faced renewed scrutiny over his past use of blackface.”
LikeLike
First Oregon, now NJ. This is why mail in voting is too easily manipulated.
https://www.westernjournal.com/nj-republicans-receive-misprinted-ballots-democratic-candidates-listed-instead/
“NJ Republicans Receive Misprinted Ballots with Democratic Candidates Listed Instead”
“Many Republican voters in one New Jersey community got a surprise when they opened their mail ballots for a July 7 primary.
Their choices were all Democrats.
Between 500 and 700 Republicans received the wrong ballots out of about 2,400 enrolled Republicans in Bernardsville, NJ.com reported.
“The slate of candidates was all Democrat from Joe Biden down to dogcatcher, but on the upper right it clearly stated it was a Republican ballot and it had my name and correct information on the return envelope,” Karen Gardner, the chairwoman of the Bernardsville Republican Municipal Committee, said.
The error was laid at the door of the printing company that sent out the ballots, but the government still had a role in the mixup.
Usually, the Somerset County clerk’s office would do the printing. However, after New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy ordered every voter to receive a ballot in the mail, the job was farmed out.
“If we had had a greater lead time when we were sending out these ballots, we would have been able to do the ballot insertion in-house and this error would have been caught,” Somerset County Clerk Steve Peter said.”
LikeLike
Conservative my…….
“John Roberts and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamer Robe
Intelligence invests in illusion when the need for illusion is deep.”
“The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, ruling that the Trump Administration failed to comply with federal regulation procedures.
In an opinion for the 5-4 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts explained, “we address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action.” Justice Clarence Thomas, the sole African American on the high court, thought there was more to it.
“The majority today concludes that [the Department of Homeland Security] was required to do far more,” Thomas wrote. In effect, the majority was holding the decision of the Trump Administration to a higher standard than President Barack Obama’s “executive action” that established DACA illegally in the first place. The decision, Thomas wrote in his dissent, “must be recognized for what it is: an effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision.”
The chief justice has some prior experience massaging the law in order to arrive at a politically desirable outcome. Where he was unwilling to read into the true intent behind the technical noncompliance of the Trump Administration on Thursday, he was more than willing in 2012 to patch up the illegal-as-written federal subsidies in the Affordable Care Act.
“It stands to reason that Congress meant for those provisions to apply in every State as well,” Roberts wrote as he upheld Obamacare. Though Congress had failed to write the Affordable Care Act in such a way as to let the federal government provide health care subsidies in every state, Roberts reasoned nevertheless it must have meant to. Thus, the chief justice was willing to aid the legislative body from the bench.
To argue his case, Roberts cited the dissenting opinions of his colleagues, who argued that Obamacare would collapse without federal subsidy in all states, as evidence that congress indeed must have intended to subsidize them all. As Brett LoGiurato of Business Insider explained at the time, “He’s basically telling his colleagues: I’m right, and your words prove it.”
As the late Terry Jones told King Arthur (Graham Chapman) in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”: I didn’t vote for you. And we don’t vote for Supreme Court justices, either, which makes it particularly frustrating when they function as a robed politburo. In Roberts’ case, as Max Bialystock told Roger Debris in “The Producers,” “that robe is you!”
The amazing politburo robe also suits Justice Neil Gorsuch. Shortly before Roberts’ executive order on DACA, Gorsuch essentially rewrote the 1964 Civil Rights Act. For Ken Masugi, Gorsuch “took a knee”—which is true but incomplete.
Gorsuch and Roberts are intelligent men, but as Saul Bellow said, “a great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.” The illusion here is the veneration of Nancy Pelosi, CNN, and the Washington Post. To have the veneration, as recent rulings confirm, Supreme Court justices will cave to just about anything.
In strictly non-legal terms that even a deplorable Trump supporter might understand, they combine bull@#$% and chicken@#$% to arrive at the desired political end. Perhaps Pennsylvania Health Secretary Dr. Rachel Levine could donate some gear no longer in use, but the real need here is for a spine transplant. And now abide ignorance, casuistry, and cowardice, but the greatest of these is cowardice. Or maybe it’s a three-way tie. “
LikeLike
Roberts is useless on everything that’s mattered.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/19/supreme-courts-illegal-immigration-ruling-applies-different-legal-standards-to-different-presidents/
“Supreme Court’s Illegal Immigration Ruling Applies Different Legal Standards To Different Presidents
And it allows presidents to legislate, a recipe for everexpanding federal and executive power.”
June 18’s Supreme Court ruling on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program is bad judging on top of bad lawyering. It has good short‐term practical effects but makes policy reform harder in the longer term.
Recall what’s going on here: In 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a memo creating DACA, which allows people who were brought here illegally as children (the so-called Dreamers) to apply for a renewable “lawful presence” status exempting them from removal, along with work authorizations and other benefits. Two years later, it created a similar program, the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA).
In the 2016 case Texas v. United States, an evenly divided 4-4 court (after Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing) affirmed without opinion an injunction issued against DAPA for violating the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). In June 2017, based on an opinion of Attorney General Jeff Sessions that DACA was unlawful because its defects mirrored those in DAPA, DHS announced a phase-out of DACA, which has been stuck in the courts ever since.
But Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion didn’t simply adopt the lower courts’ reasoning that DACA was likely lawful and thus the administration couldn’t end it so easily. Instead, he first found that “DACA is more than a non-enforcement policy” of the kind that merits broad deference to the executive branch, but also an affirmative-benefits policy, the rescission of which must follow the niceties of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). And since both the Fifth Circuit in the DAPA case and Sessions in his memo focused only on the illegality of granting certain benefits, DHS’s action was “arbitrary and capricious,” a no-no in administrative law.
In other words, precisely because nobody challenged executive authority to set removal priorities—going after violent criminals ahead of the Dreamers, say—the Trump administration couldn’t simply claim that all of DACA went beyond presidential power, but had to show its work as to the illegal parts. That technical reason for blocking rescission is debatable, and I think Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent has the better of that argument over Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion. I won’t go into all the details, but it’s clear that the administration didn’t do a good job explaining its decision—not that it needed to, points out Kavanaugh—or differentiating the part of DACA that’s legal (“forbearance,” or deprioritizing deportation of certain classes of people) from the part that’s not (granting temporary status and benefits).
The problem is that because DACA is more than non‐enforcement, more than executive or prosecutorial discretion, it goes beyond the powers presidents are given under the INA. Indeed, it goes beyond the powers presidents can be delegated by Congress, because these sorts of actions constitute making rather than enforcing the law.
In other words, the majority says that President Trump issued a new regulation without giving sufficient reasoning and otherwise following the APA. But if that’s the case, then President Obama acted even more egregiously in rewriting the law in the first place.
“DHS created DACA during the Obama administration without any statutory authority and without going through the requisite rulemaking process,” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent, joined by justices Sam Alito and Neil Gorsuch. “The majority does not even attempt to explain why a court has the authority to scrutinize an agency’s policy reasons for rescinding an unlawful program under the arbitrary and capricious microscope.”
The court could’ve avoided that glaring hole in its administrative‐law reasoning—and any concerns about the “nondelegation doctrine”—by just deferring to the administration’s reasonable if insufficiently explained legal judgment, as Cato’s amicus brief suggested. It didn’t even need to rule on DACA’s legality, but could’ve instead found that what one president established via memo, another can rescind with another memo, for good, bad, or no reason at all.
Instead, it set a precedent that one president’s executive action can’t be rescinded by the next president unless he jumps through hoops that his predecessor didn’t have to. That’s a recipe for ever‐expanding federal and executive power, to the detriment of our constitutional system of government. As Thomas put it, the holding “is incorrect, and it will hamstring all future agency attempts to undo actions that exceed statutory authority.””
LikeLike
The warmonger lies. He’ll say whatever he needs to in order to sell his BS. But under oath? Oh no, Bolton doesn’t do under oath. You can’t lie then.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/22/john-bolton-is-the-perfect-washington-man/
“John Bolton Is The Perfect Washington Man
Bolton is a thin-skinned and snarky figure who succeeded in convincing a surprising number of smart people in Washington that he is somehow serious and statesmanlike.”
“In the good old days of the internet blogosphere, there was a running bit at Jeff Goldstein’s blog Protein Wisdom which provided a name for John Bolton’s prominent mustache – “Regis”, a globe-trotting nuke-loving Hamas-bashing sexually aggressive bon-vivant with lush whiskey-tinged follicles. The image is ridiculous of course, but it is not far from the image the real John Bolton paints of himself in the absurdly entertaining pages of his book, the inaptly named The Room Where It Happened.
First, let me say that I love this book. I love everything about it. It is true unadulterated fan-fic for Bolton lovers everywhere. He is always right. He is always noble. His purposes are always true. Anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot, or possibly worse. Edward from Twilight has more flaws than this iteration of John Bolton, the mustachioed hero who can do no wrong… except to be, at a critical moment, surrounded entirely by idiots.
If you don’t believe me, just read the reviews from others who have welcomed most if not all of the quite profitable books by insiders excoriating the president released in the past several years.
From The New York Times review:
Underneath it all courses a festering obsession with his enemies … The book is bloated with self-importance, even though what it mostly recounts is Bolton not being able to accomplish very much. It toggles between two discordant registers: exceedingly tedious and slightly unhinged … When it comes to Bolton’s comments on impeachment, the clotted prose, the garbled argument and the sanctimonious defensiveness would seem to indicate some sort of ambivalence on his part—a feeling that he doesn’t seem to have very often.
From The New Yorker review:
Bolton mocks, disparages, or clashes with Steven Mnuchin, Nikki Haley, Rex Tillerson, James Mattis, Mike Pompeo, and others, all within the book’s first hundred pages. By the end of the nearly five-hundred-page book, Bolton also criticizes Mick Mulvaney, Jared Kushner, the entire White House economic team, many of his foreign counterparts, and, although he shares their misgivings about Donald Trump, the House Democrats who impeached the President.
This is Washington score-settling on an epic scale. Mnuchin, the Treasury Secretary, “had no idea what he was talking about.” Haley, who served as the Ambassador to the United Nations, is a self-promoting pol who sucked up to Trump’s family. Mattis, the former Defense Secretary, is a bureaucratic obstructionist who deluded himself into thinking that an “axis of adults” could manage the unmanageable President. Pompeo, the Secretary of State, who would emerge as the great internal enemy during Bolton’s seventeen-month tenure, is an untruthful hypocrite who flatters Trump to his face while dumping on him privately…
The book does, however, amply confirm Bolton’s reputation as a fierce infighter with an inflated view of himself and a willingness to blame others for just about everything. He is clearly a flawed narrator and colleague.”
LikeLike
If they aren’t bothered by the depiction of their relative, then why are the leftists who should have no say either way?
https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/06/family-of-woman-who-portrayed-aunt-jemima-does-not-want-the-brand-to-change/
“Family of Woman Who Portrayed Aunt Jemima Does Not Want the Brand to Change
“I wish we would take a breath and not just get rid of everything. because good or bad, it is our history. Removing that wipes away a part of me. A part of each of us. We are proud of our cousin.”
“The family of the woman who portrayed Aunt Jemima has asked Quaker Oats to reconsider changing the brand in response to the rage after George Floyd’s death.
Lillian Richard portrayed Aunt Jemima for years.
Family historian Vera Harris cannot believe the company is about to erase an important part of her family history and a part of black history:
“A lot of people want it removed. We want the world to know that our cousin Lillian was one of the Aunt Jemima’s and she made an honest living. We would ask that you reconsider just wiping all that away. There wasn’t a lot of jobs, especially for black women back in that time. She was discovered by Quaker Oats to be their brand person,” Harris said.
Lillian Richard became a goodwill ambassador for Quaker Oats, and for decades, portrayed Aunt Jemima all over Texas.
“She made an honest living out of it for a number of years. She toured around Texas,” Harris said.
In the Fouke community just outside Hawkins is a historic marker dedicated to Lillian Richard, who is recognized as one of several women who portrayed Aunt Jemima.
And the family is proud of what she did.
“She was considered a hero in Hawkins, and we are proud of that. We do not want that history erased,” Harris said.
Harris said the family is also tired of the activism:
“I wish we would take a breath and not just get rid of everything. because good or bad, it is our history. Removing that wipes away a part of me. A part of each of us. We are proud of our cousin,” Harris said.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Smile for the camera dummies! 🙂
LikeLike
Good, because we have pictures…..
—————
LikeLike
Did I not say recently that when they rewrite history they will rewrite WWII? They can hardly defend Hitler, but they can deny it happened. They can make us out to be evil for bombing Japan. They will also bring up the internment camps where the US put the Americans of Asian origin during WWII
LikeLike
We had one down by Kooskia, it gets mention now and then. One down by Boise, others scattered about. A lot of folk stayed.
LikeLike
Such nice people these Antifa folks.
https://twitter.com/real_Steve_J/status/1275256910774755329?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1275256910774755329&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.weaselzippers.us%2F
——–
LikeLike
Historians always rewrite history; its what historians do or else they would be unemployed. Sometimes really bad historians rewrite history really badly. Trust me I’ve read some awful history in my 6 years of studying history.
The defacing of the WWII memorial seems to be in sympathy of Latin American communists. The American left has always had a romantic view of Latin American revolutionaries. WWII doesn’t have the same historical significance or meaning to Latin Americans. European communists who view WWII as the great anti-fascist war wouldn’t deface a WWII memorial. In this case Latin American communist are using the wrong venue to get their message across.
In recent decades, Chavez has replace Che as the “spiritual” leader of the Latin American left. For BLM organizers, Venezuela is a funding opportunity and international recognition. Unfortunately, Maduro faces the same difficulties as Chavez but without the charisma and ability of Chavez. Chavez is an especially appealing figure for BLM because of his own African/native roots and the racism of the opposition to his regime.
Of all US presidents, Jackson perhaps incurs the most wrath from the left. Trump’s declaration is a cry to the base but doesn’t add to the actually law especially his attempt at retroactive law.
LikeLike
Here’s the other side of the argument in the Aunt Jemima debate.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/aunt-jemima-uncle-ben-deserve-retirement-they-re-racist-myths-ncna1231623
I have no interest in the debate either way. Its just a corporation pandering and comodifying activism.
LikeLike
Interesting videos — hard to identify if they are antifa since antifa isnt really an organization — anybody can claim to be antifa.
The first video the white guy is probably drunk and clearly lacks sleep. Have to give the police props for not engaging him other than one who decides to debate him from behind the line — what’s the point? Also have to give props to another protester who is trying to guide him away from the police.
The spray paint on the church could be from “woke” suburban white kids, real antifa types, or actually BLM activists — who knows and lets face it, 30 mins of sandblasting and its gone.
The final video is interesting in that its quite obvious only one guy really wants to start the fire. Most people are either watching or telling him to stop or asking why. In the end, someone stops him and the video cuts away as its obvious nothing worthy of right wing video is going to happen.
LikeLike
The subtitle of the article HRW linked: “The mascots were intended to let white consumers indulge in a fantasy of enslaved people as submissive, self-effacing, loyal and contentedly pacified.”
Well if that’s how they were intended I think they failed miserably on most of us. I grew up seening Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima as really nice friendly people who made good rice dishes and yummy sweet syrup.
I suppose I should read the article to see if they back up that assertion with any documentation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“hard to identify if they are antifa since antifa isnt really an organization — anybody can claim to be antifa.”
Yes, ignore all the college aged, mostly white kids dressed in black…..
Ignore what your lying eyes are showing you…..
LikeLike
More leftist hoaxes.
NASCAR tried to placate the mob, ends up looking stupid, and Bubba Wallace is a liar. He’s been to this track before. He knows what he claimed was a noose was a garage door pull down. They’ve been there for years. But hey, way to waste taxpayer dollars on your Jessie Smollet imitation. You got your 5 minutes of fame yesterday too, all while making your co-workers and fans look like racists. They should fire his butt.
Frauds.
The sleuths on Twitchy even solved it before the feds.
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2020/06/23/nascar-needs-to-respond-to-these-photos-suggesting-the-bubba-wallace-noose-was-really-just-a-rope-used-to-close-the-garage-door/
———–
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fire the fraud.
———–
LikeLike
White suburban middle class students are not antifa — they are wannabes or political tourists. In 20 years they will be drinking a bit too much wine at their July 4th bbq remembering the day they stood up to the man in 2020 and then slip easily into a conversation about kids these days and then next Republican primary.
Both the Trump and Pence families voted by mail — should we double check their ballots? I’d be more worried about the reduction in polling booths which makes it difficult to vote in person, such as Georgia and now Kentucky. Mail in ballots wouldn’t be necessary if there were enough polling booths.
LikeLike