29 thoughts on “News/Politics 7-20-21

  1. Don’t trust our government – they are the enemy of the people.


    “Do you know your vitamin D level? If not, getting your blood tested—and optimizing your levels—is one of the simplest and most straightforward steps you can take to improve your health, including in relation to COVID-19. Vitamin D, as an immunomodulator, is a perfect candidate for countering the immune dysregulation that’s common with COVID-19.

    As early as November 2020, it was known that there were striking differences in vitamin D status among people who had asymptomatic COVID-19 and those who became severely ill and required intensive care unit (ICU) care. In one study, 32.96 percent of those with asymptomatic cases were vitamin D deficient, compared to 96.82 percent of those who were admitted to the ICU for a severe case.

    COVID-19 patients who were deficient in this inexpensive and widely available vitamin had a higher inflammatory response and a greater fatality rate. The Indian study authors recommended “mass administration of vitamin D supplements to populations at risk for COVID-19,” in a study published in Scientific Reports, but this hasn’t happened, at least not in the United States.

    As of April 21, the date the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) last updated its COVID-19 treatment guidelines/vitamin D page, the agency stated, “There are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of vitamin D for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19.” As you’ll see in the paragraphs that follow, however, the evidence for its use is beyond overwhelming.

    Vitamin D has multiple actions on the immune system, including enhancing the production of antimicrobial peptides by immune cells, reducing damaging pro-inflammatory cytokines, and promoting the expression of anti-inflammatory cytokines. Cytokines are a group of proteins that your body uses to control inflammation.

    If you have an infection, your body will release cytokines to help combat inflammation, but sometimes, it releases more than it should. If the cytokine release spirals out of control, the resulting “cytokine storm” becomes dangerous and is closely tied to sepsis, which may be an important contributor to the death of COVID-19 patients.”

    Liked by 1 person

  2. PA Democrats fears an audit, because they know what they did.


    “A.U.D.I.T.: About Undermining Democrat-Implemented Theft (of elections)

    Democrats are apoplectic about the possibility of an audit of three counties in Pennsylvania. Since everybody from The Hologram on down claims that the 2020 election “was the most secure in US history,” what do they have to fear? Or, more accurately, what are they trying to hide?

    Let’s review some key events in the Pennsylvania saga that perhaps the Democrat-media complex would like us to forget or ignore:

    On Election Night in Pennsylvania, real-time vote shifts observed on CNN and MSNBC (video available here courtesy of social media personality @KanekoaTheGreat on Telegram):
    113,870 votes subtracted from Donald Trump on November 3, 2020 between 9:16 pm ET and 9:17 pm ET on CNN.

    66,085 votes subtracted from Trump on November 3, 2020 between 9:16 pm ET and 9:24 pm ET on CNBC.

    19,958 votes subtracted from Trump and added to Biden on November 3, 2020 between 11:09 pm ET and 11:10 pm ET on CNN.

    Elections are an additive process – you count the votes – and add them up.

    Other anomalies were analyzed by an independent team of statistical experts and reported here on 12 November. One excerpt:

    There were ten Pennsylvania counties in which Biden received excess votes above the Democrat totals in three prior presidential elections. Five counties alone had more Democrat excess votes added than the maximum number of votes added in the 2012 and 2016 elections. The team performed simple linear regressions to compare the number of registered Democrats who voted in those ten counties that delivered the most excess votes for Biden in 2020 versus the Democrat turnout in other Pennsylvania counties. They found that an average 70%± of registered Democratic voters voted in other than those ten counties. In comparison, some 76% of registered Democrat voters supposedly voted in those ten counties that delivered the excess votes for the Biden “win.” That is an unexpected statistical aberration.

    Here are excerpts from a 31 March article that summarized anomalies associated with write-in and minor party ballots analyzed by retired senior DoD analyst Ray Blehar:
    After Election Day votes were tabulated, President Trump led Biden by 1.3 million votes.

    Biden needed to win 76% of the mail-in votes not counted in order to achieve his 80,555-vote victory margin.

    Democrats made up 64% of those mail-in votes; another 11% (293,000) were needed for victory.

    GOP and Democrat voters had similar disloyalty percentages at 8% and 7% respectively, as confirmed by exit polls. That meant that Biden actually needed 325,000 mail-in votes from independents to get to his purported total of 1.995 million (after removing Democrats and
    Republicans from the mix.)] Approximately 303,000 independent mail-in votes were cast, therefore there was no legitimate way Biden could have gotten to the 76% of mail-in votes needed to squeeze by Trump.

    The end result is that it was impossible for Biden to have gotten the mail-in votes necessary to win without adjudication manipulation.

    Based on the above and other “anomalies and evidence,” including from a USPS whistleblower, as well as direct observation of the in-process Arizona audit, on 7 July, State Sen. Doug Mastriano (R) announced a full forensic audit in three counties in Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, York, and Tioga).

    Pennsylvania state Democrats immediately disputed/fought/disparaged that announcement, as reported here:

    The Pennsylvania Department of State issued a directive prohibiting county election boards from cooperating with the Senate’s election audit.”

    Liked by 1 person

  3. A little sanity in Cali. 🙂

    “California Court Strikes Down Law Penalizing Misgendering

    You have the right to free speech. I have the right to free speech. The First Amendment protects speech, including perceived hateful speech.”


    “The California Court of Appeal overturned a portion of California Code, Health and Safety Code – HSC § 1439.51 based on the First Amendment.

    The law applies only to employees at long-term healthcare facilities

    In Taking Offense vs. California, the plaintiffs challenged the portion that criminalizes misgendering a person:

    (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), it shall be unlawful for a long-term care facility or facility staff to take any of the following actions wholly or partially on the basis of a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status
    5) Willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns.

    “As we discuss at greater length post, we recognize the State has a compelling interest in eliminating discrimination against residents of long term care facilities,” said the justices. “However, we conclude the pronoun provision is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government objective because it burdens speech more than is required to achieve the State’s compelling objective. Accordingly, the provision does not survive strict scrutiny.”

    The court reminded people “the free speech clause protects a wide variety of speech a listener may find offensive, including insulting speech based on race, national origin, or religious beliefs”:

    The pronoun provision at issue here tests the limits of the government’s authority to restrict pure speech that, while potentially offensive or harassing to the listener, does not necessarily create a hostile environment. As the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized, “‘[w]here pure expression is involved,’ anti-discrimination law ‘steers into the territory of the First Amendment.’ ” (Saxe v. State College Area Sch. Dist., supra, 240 F.3d at p. 206.)

    The left and right have to accept the fact that the First Amendment protects perceived hate speech.”

    Liked by 1 person

  4. 2 murders, both committed by police, but 2 very different media reactions.

    It’s disgusting to watch.

    “Police Killed Ashli Babbitt Too”


    “Here’s a tale of two cops and two murders: Derek Chauvin and George Floyd, and John Doe and Ashli Babbitt. Two cops, two unarmed citizens killed. One you care about, one you don’t. Even murder is politicized these days.

    No one needs much of a recap on Chauvin and Floyd. George Floyd, a black man, tried to pass off a counterfeit $20 bill while messed up on drugs. White Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin and other cops responded, and in the process of restraining Floyd, killed him. Everyone has seen the video of Chauvin kneeling on Floyd’s neck, and, as if it was a requirement, been coaxed to judge for themselves whether it was appropriate, necessary, and the cause of Floyd’s death.

    A jury judged those things, too, and the result was a 22.5 year sentence for Chauvin (in handing down the sentence the judge said it was justified in part because Chauvin “committed his crime in the presence of children,” who of course had gathered to help jeer at the cops.) The woman who shot the snuff video got a special citation from the Pulitzer prize board.

    Floyd’s death set off an angry summer of violence under the rubric Black Lives Matter, as progressives shut down opposing voices and several downtowns to insist Chauvin’s actions were part of systemic racism reaching back to 1619 in unbroken lineage. Celebrities, politicians, and academics jostled each other for camera time to demand the police be defunded. You might have seen something about all this on the teevee?

    There’s also video of white Ashli Babbitt being killed by a black law enforcement officer, but it has been played by the mainstream media maybe 1/10,000th as often as the Floyd murder clip. Babbitt, wearing a Trump flag like a cape, was one of the rioters who smashed the glass on the door leading to the Speaker’s Lobby of the Capitol. A plain clothes Capitol Police officer, apparently without warning, fired a shot and Babbitt fell into the crowd and died. It was the only shot fired in the riot. A SWAT team just behind Babbitt saw the situation differently and never fired on her or those with her.

    Like Floyd, Babbitt was unarmed. Like Floyd, Babbitt was committing a crime when she was killed by a cop. Unlike Floyd, there is no question of whether she was resisting arrest because the cop never got that far. He just shot her.

    In the Floyd case, we know everything about Derek Chauvin, and saw him convicted in open court. Not so with Babbitt’s killer. Almost all police departments nationwide are required to release an officer’s name after a fatal shooting. Not the U.S. Capitol Police, which answers only to Congress. Even as Congress demands nationwide police reforms (ironically, the new, lower standards of proof proposed by H.R.1280—George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021—would condemn the Capitol cop) they have steadfastly refused to release the name of Babbitt’s killer.

    In February, the Capitol Police stated they would “share additional information once an investigation is complete.” Investigators closed the case in April, cleared the still unnamed officer of wrongdoing in Babbitt’s death without addressing the fact that the medical examiner ruled the death a homicide, and left it at that. Stuff happens.

    No trial, no public accounting, not even a name for the Babbitt family to use in filing a wrongful death suit. Because Congress exempts the Capitol Police from the Freedom of Information Act, the family is forced to sue “for documents that identify the officer who shot Babbitt… as well as notes and summaries of what the officer said regarding the shooting and the reasons he discharged his weapon.”

    They’d like more information on Babbitt’s death than the “investigation” provided. The Department of Justice simply wrote there was “insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution.” DOJ did not even bother to hide its legal fudge, which had its investigators look narrowly at a Constitutional question, not a homicide.

    Without shame, DOJ said it focused on 18 U.S.C. § 242, a federal criminal civil rights statute. This requires prosecutors prove the officer acted willfully to deprive Babbitt of her rights, here the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable seizure. Prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used constitutionally unreasonable force, but the officer did so “willfully” with the intent to deprive Babbitt of her Fourth Amendment rights. That meant evidence the officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent required. In lay terms, that’s called a set-up en route to a cover-up.

    Contrast that with the Chauvin prosecution, where prosecutors laid out a spread of charges—manslaughter, second-degree murder, and third-degree murder—all in the one death of George Floyd, leaving the civil rights question that saved the Capitol cop as a separate matter. That allowed prosecutors to instruct the jury (there of course was no jury in Babbitt’s case) to decide on emotion, saying “Use your common sense. Believe your eyes. What you saw, you saw.” Imagine a jury in Babbitt’s case, over-exposed to a perpetually playing video of her killing, acting on the same instructions. But that never happened.

    No one had much to say during the Babbitt investigation. In Floyd’s case, Joe Biden said he was praying the jury would reach the “right verdict,” calling the evidence “overwhelming in my view.” Maxine Waters demanded protesters become “more confrontational” if Chauvin was acquitted. That was so blatantly inflammatory it was almost grounds for a mistrial, never mind an impeachment had she held higher office

    The president cheers on one prosecution, remaining silent while another murder is made to go away. Cities erect monuments to George Floyd as a martyr while the New York Times runs gossipy articles on Babbitt’s marriage problems. Asking for justice in Floyd’s case is a duty, even if it means burning down stores. Those who want the same justice for Babbitt are mocked as QAnon cultists. Did she not also bleed?

    Oh, there’s more. Floyd was only on drugs passing fake money because of racism whereas Babbitt was a seditionist, a vandal, who was asking for it. Floyd’s death created a movement for change. Trump’s embrace of Ashli Babbitt anointed “January 6 a heroic uprising” for white supremacists seeking to overthrow democracy.”

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Thanks Ben, for a little sanity on the issue.

    “Dr. Ben Carson: Fighting critical race theory – here’s how we stop this blatantly racist ideology

    We cannot allow CRT to rob American children of that same hope that was instilled in me”


    “Growing up poor in Detroit, if I had believed, as critical race theory (CRT) proponents claim, that my destiny was based on my race, I would not be where I am today. We cannot allow CRT to rob American children of that same hope that was instilled in me.

    Recently, author and professor Ibram Kendi, creator of so-called antiracist doctrines that lie at the core of CRT, has claimed that CRT is an “imagined monster” concocted by conservatives as a scare tactic to deny talking about race. This is clearly false.

    To start, it’s important to understand that the term “antiracism” as used by Kendi, which sounds non-threatening enough, does not mean what you think. Indeed, far from being antiracist, the ideology promoted by Kendi and fellow travelers is anything but. It redefines reality to assign guilt and blame based solely on race. Classifying persons in such a manner is literally the definition of racism.

    This type of vocabulary manipulation is part of the reason this ideology has stealthily overcome our institutions. After all, who doesn’t want to be antiracist?

    Contrary to Kendi’s recent claim, CRT and so-called antiracism are very much real, and are the vanguard of a radical, revolutionary movement that seeks to overthrow the established order in every area of society, including capitalism itself.

    This divisive ideology seeks to replace the traditional American value of equality of opportunity with a regime that assumes all White people are racist oppressors and labels all racial minorities as victims.

    While the classical Marxism from which CRT was born focuses on class conflict, CRT substitutes class for race, wholly ignoring the demonstrated failure of Marxist ideologies – unlike the people of Cuba who are protesting against Marxist failures at this very moment.

    CRT’s focus has primarily been the classroom, but it’s also gaining momentum in board rooms, corporate trainings, and even the U.S. military – which is now suffering a lack of wartime readiness as a result of an excessive focus on CRT.

    Kendi has even gone so far as to propose the creation of a Department of Antiracism that is permanently funded, accountable to no one and responsible for preclearing all local, state and federal public policies based on CRT and antiracist ideology.

    Another distinguishing characteristic of antiracism and CRT proponents, besides the fact that they engage in blatant racism, is that they blame all racial disparities on racism. This is an assertion that is not supported by the evidence. “

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Another Ben (Stein) points out the obvious.

    “Goodbye, America”


    “July 2021. A month that will live in infamy. If there is such a thing as “history” in the Biden–Orwell–Soros omni-dictatorship, July 2021 will mark the month that the Constitution, the “greatest work ever thrown off by the hand and mind of man,” as Gladstone put it, was thrown into the Ministry of Truth Memory Hole.

    It was put into the “History Erase” well. A bottomless pit.

    In this month, actually starting with the month before, that the superpowers of the tech world, Google, YouTube, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, and Yahoo, admitted to working with the Biden/NKVD administration to suppress free speech.

    For months now, we had known that the tech powers were watching us and suppressing any dissident speech against the current administration. I have seen it up close and personal. But what was argued was that the First Amendment to the Constitution protected us only against Congress and the executive branch suppressing free speech. It did not protect us from private enterprises, even very large private enterprises like Amazon or Google or Facebook, keeping tabs on citizens and shutting them out of the internet-sphere if they expressed views contradicting the views and policies of the Biden–Harris–Big Tech Party.

    True, there was one big case involving a large steel company suppressing free speech by its workers, and the Supreme Court ruled that such a big company suppressing free speech on its company properties was indeed a violation of the First Amendment. But that was rare indeed.

    Now, in the year 2021, the iron curtain has come down hard. With Big Internet Tech and the White House now admittedly colluding to identify and suppress dissidents, even completely nonviolent dissidents, we no longer have a Constitution.

    There is just one big corporate–government–IngSoc superstate running everything. Goodbye, America. The GOP, with 50 senators, does nothing. The state legislatures, by far a majority GOP, and the spineless Supreme Court do nothing. And so goodbye to the greatest experiment in the history of the world.”


    Spineless cowards, on both sides are bringing this country down.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. GrandPa is an idiot.



    Either he’s senile, or he just called his lead economist “no serious economist.”


  8. Dissent will not be tolerated…… from Republicans.

    That’s the message.

    “Court Sends A Message: Paul Allard Hodgkins Sentenced To 8 Months In Prison For Entering Capitol On January 6, 2021”


    “Hodgins, said his lawyer in his sentencing memorandum to the court,

    “had an absolutely miniscule … role in [the events of Jan. 6]. Mr. Hodgkins was not involved in any way, shape or form, with violence toward anyone in law enforcement. Mr. Hodgkins was not involved in any way, shape or form with any property damage done to the Capitol. Mr. Hodgkins never touched a single item within the Capitol building itself. His sole participation simply included walking into the building, onto the floor of the United States Senate, and leaving the same building, all within a 15-minute period of time.

    According the government’s sentencing memorandum, Hodgkins entered the Senate Chamber holding a Trump 2020 flag, took a selfie, and prayed with “other rioters” who were congregated there before exiting the Senate Chamber and the U.S. Capitol.

    Hodgkins was arrested on February 16, 2021, but unlike many others who were present at the Capitol on Jan. 6 who remain remanded in solitary confinement, Hodgkins was allowed to remain at liberty throughout his criminal prosecution. (I previously wrote about one of the less fortunate arrestees –Timothy Hale-Cusanelli – at Legal Insurrection here.)

    He was thereafter indicted in March on five criminal counts. Just one of those was a felony – Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and Aiding and Abetting under 18 USC 1512(c)(2). The rest were misdemeanors sounding in trespass and disorderly conduct.
    For the last five months, Hodgkins was effectively on house arrest – he wore an ankle monitor and adhered to a curfew. According to the probation officer who had been monitoring Hodgkins throughout the criminal case, he was fully compliant while on release.

    In June, he pled guilty. And it’s not hard to see why – he simply lacked the resources to put up a fight.

    In his sentencing memorandum, Hodgkins’ lawyer described his client as someone who is “not wealthy in any way, shape or form.” Hodgkins, said his lawyer, “rents a home in what is considered the poorest, working class neighborhood in Tampa,” and “works over 40 hours a week, lives pay check to pay check, barely getting by financially.”

    Despite the fact that Hodgkins had no prior criminal record and was entirely cooperative with law enforcement, federal prosecutors recommended a sentence of 18 months’ incarceration (the federal sentencing guidelines called for a recommended range of between 15 to 21 months.)

    The first reason given by the government to justify their sentencing recommendation was that Hodgkins carried rope, eye goggles, and latex rubber gloves in his backpack on the day of the melee, and that this meant that he acted with premeditation and was “prepared for violence from the outset.”

    Although Hodgkins explained that these items were part of a First Aid kit, the government responded that even if that were so, such a kit meant that Hodgkins anticipated the possibility of being involved in a violent conflict in D.C.

    The government next asserted that such its proposed sentence was “necessary to promote respect for the law” because “[t]he violence and destruction of property at the U.S. Capitol on January 6 showed a blatant and appalling disregard for our institutions of government and the orderly administration of the democratic process.”

    Finally, the government contended that a significant jail sentence was essential “to deter others” from engaging in “domestic terrorism,” which it said “the breach of the Capitol certainly was.” On this point, the government stated that “terrorists, even those with no prior criminal behavior, are unique among criminals in the likelihood of recidivism, the difficulty of rehabilitation, and the need for incapacitation.”

    There has been an alarming trend among the federal law enforcement and national security apparatuses of labeling those who don’t subscribe to liberal orthodoxy as domestic terrorists, white supremacists and violent extremists. This has been easy to do since there is no domestic terrorism statute, and therefore no uniform definition of what the term means.

    The FBI’s website defines “domestic terrorism” as “[v]iolent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.” While the violent and destructive conduct of Antifa and Black Lives Matter in Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, and other cities throughout the country over the last year fit the bill, the phrase “domestic terrorism” is just not used in reference to these groups or their campaigns of intimidation, destruction and violence.

    Instead, the absence of a settled definition for domestic terrorism has allowed the phrase to be flexibly applied against anyone who the entrenched DOJ bureaucrats wish to target. And to date, it has been used almost exclusively against those on the ideological right.

    That certainly was the case with Mr. Hodgkins.

    What was so troubling about the government’s sentencing arguments in this case was that all of their reasons for incarceration turned on actions undertaken by individuals other than the actual criminal defendant. Indeed, at no time on Jan. 6 did Hodgkins ever engage in any violence or property destruction. He trespassed, yes, but beyond that he simply carried a flag, took a selfie and prayed.

    The government’s message was clear – those on the ideological right are fungible, and we can punish one for the sins of the others.

    That type of kin punishment – a hallmark of authoritarian regimes from the Nazis to North Korea – might be how the criminal law works in Third World Banana Republics and under Sharia Law, but not in America, right?

    Hodgkins’ attorney argued with passion that sentencing is not a blunderbuss activity, but an intensely personal one – indeed, federal law requires that, before imposing sentence, courts scrutinize the unique characteristics and history of the individual defendant as well as the specific circumstances of the charged offense.

    He exhorted that a prison sentence was unnecessary to take the proverbial pound of flesh from his client:

    “Because [Hodgkins] is now a convicted felon for the entirety of his life, he loses his right to bear arms, his right to vote in the State of Florida, will have to register as a convicted felon wherever he lives, [and] will lose the ability to rent a residence at most locations who do background checks.”

    Hodgkins’ “15-minutes of bad judgment,” said his lawyer, would serve to “cancel” him, and his felony conviction would brand him with a “scarlet letter” that he would have to wear “for the rest of his life.”

    Further, argued Hodgkins’ attorney, a prison sentence “would take a productive taxpaying member of the Tampa Bay community, and turn him into a ward of the State. [Hodgkins] would go from being fully and gainfully employed as a working-class Tampa resident, to unemployed and homeless.”

    Despite the force of these arguments, they ran into an unsurmountable headwind: The court wanted to send a political message.

    Hodgkins was not sentenced for the crimes he committed, but for those perpetrated by others – and above all else, for the mortal sin of supporting Donald Trump.

    In his sentencing memo, Hodgkins’ lawyer wrote poetically that the story of his client was one of

    “a man who for just one hour on one day, lost his bearings and his way. It is the story of a man who made a fateful decision to follow the crowd, and found himself for approximately 15 minutes in a place that he sincerely regrets to have been. It is the story of a man who is worthy of this Court’s mercy and grace. Paul is an avatar of us all, and how this Court deals with his misconduct will say much about where we are and what we will become as a nation.”

    Today, the court is the one that lost its way. And how it dealt with Paul Hodgkins says a lot about where we are today as a nation.”

    Liked by 1 person

  9. For HRW….

    Cause and effect.


    And despite the gaslighting you keep falling for, it’s the Dems driving the “Defund Police” movement.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. They already have so much blood on their hands, and they are population control and One World Order advocates. This is an unholy alliance of two of the most evil people in the world.

    You can tell a person’s character by the friends he keeps.

    You fund the disease, you help release the disease, you buy the company that provides the ‘vaccine’ for the disease, and then you buy the testing company for the disease. What could possibly go wrong? It’s all about control, control, control…

    This should convince anyone to stay as far away from Covid testing and vaccinations as is humanly possible…


    “A consortium backed by George Soros and Bill Gates joined a buyout of a COVID-19 testing company, Mologic, according to the two billionaires in a press release.

    The Soros Economic Development Fund, an arm of Soros’ Open Society Foundations, confirmed Monday that it partnered with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, according to the press release. The Soros-Gates collaboration is part of the Global Access Health initiative, which will invest “at least” $41.1 million in the project, the release said.”


  11. There’s no doubt good health, exercise and good diet played an important role in how Covid affected people. That’s general the case for any illness. Vitamin D is important. We can see this in the health of countries which consume alot of fish eg Japan and Iceland. For over 25 years I’ve explained to students that you get sick not from the cold weather but from staying inside avoiding the cold and missing the sun. Modern buildings are sealed with recirculating air run through filters people forget to change. Get outside, eat fish/liver, and keep a reasonable weight for your age and body size. This does not negate the fact Covid is far stronger than the flu and easily spread.

    Dominion Voting Systems has a paper trail. The PA vote has been hand counted and is accurate. Whatever the machine does, it spits out paper the voter can check and submit. Yes there’s statistical anomalies; Trump was such a polarizing figure that voter turnout was the highest in over a century. But PA has voted for Democrat for state wide offices so it should be no surprise that they voted Democrat state wide for the presidency. The only reason the legislature is Republican is because of gerrymandering which really creates statistical anomalies and should be curtailed. I believe the US House past a bill that does that….

    Speaking of gerrymandering and creating safe seats, there’s no way Omar will ever lose a general election — her district is rated +26 Democrat. End gerrymandering and perhaps it might be competitive — want to get rid of Omar, support the end of gerrymandering.


  12. In addressing patients in long term by names and genders they don’t prefer, I don’t see what people hope to accomplish. I understand the reluctance in certain situations (although I have none so I can’t fathom an example) but in the case of people suffering long term illness, its just rude. And probably not good for their long term health. The more comfortable they are the better they will respond to treatment. Even the court admits the speech while allowed may be offensive. People should be able to show some class and keep offensive speech out of care facilities especially if you work in a care facility. In a public healthy environment, offensive speech can and should be tolerated — since the definition of offensive speech differs. However, lets not be rude especially with the sick.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. The right has suddenly discovered the police and justice system can be arbitrary, inconsistent and biased. Welcome to reality; you’re a bit late but glad you could join us.

    There are a few differences in Babbit vs Floyd. The key difference is Floyd was already in police custody — we can see he isn’t resisting as the Chavin had his hands in his pockets; if Floyd resisted he would need to use his hands to control him. AJ’s link even calls the film made by the teenage girl; a snuff film suggesting they know its murder. Babbit was killed while committing a crime; in terms of qualified immunity and past history, there’s no way a policeman would be charged. She was breaking down a barricade which constitutes self defence or at least standing your ground. I personally don’t think she should have been shot but given the events I know it doesn’t meet the same level as Floyd. Police are generally not persecuted if they feel threatened — should the standard be higher? definitely but until training and law catches up to what should be reality, these types of shootings will be justified. If the right wants to join the left in abolishing qualified immunity and holding police to a higher standard, by all means.

    The Hodgkiins case is another one in which the right feels is over the top and discriminatory yet his punishment is not too dissimilar to other protesters. The first aid excuse has been disregarded by prosecution in the past even when the charged was a licensed paramedic carrying an extensive first aid kit, There’s nothing new here just the political leanings of the charged. He was actually given a lower sentenced than the prosecution wanted as the judge took his attitude, remorse, etc in consideration. Now many protesters of last summer were released for lack of evidence as the left is used to prosecution and will minimize the evidence available to police whereas the right unused to prosecution live streamed their illegal activities on the internet and even forgot to turn off the location on their phones. The Jan 6 rioters left far too much evidence.

    I find Hodgkins lawyers comments that this will cancel his clients even past his imprisonment interesting. All of the things he mentions — right to vote, own a gun, lack of consideration for housing and jobs — are all problems that should not exists. A criminal record by itself should not be enough to prevent someone from voting, owning a gun, etc. Perhaps his lawyer needs to join left wing activist in supporting the right for felons to vote and receive protection from housing discrimination.


  14. There is at least one senator who wants to break up big tech — Bernie Sanders

    CRT doesn’t claim Ben Carson or anyone else could not rise from poverty to become a member of the elite. Its rare but it does happen — far more likely in Denmark but still. What CRT does is out line how racism affects the social and economic structures in the US and how that affects people in general and minorities specifically.

    A new book, Sum of US, does exactly that — it tries to demonstrate how racism led to the shrinking of public spaces in American. I’ve yet to read it but this caught my eye. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22301484/america-racism-the-sum-of-us-heather-mcghee


  15. I’ve already said if we treated DC as a state then it would be the highest in per capita violence, ahead of Alaska. But Washington isn’t treated as a state ….. perhaps if it had some senators or a voting representative, perhaps they could take more responsibility and maybe react the same way as Hawley. By the way, Missouri ranks 9th in terms of violence.


  16. “I’ve already said if we treated DC as a state then it would be the highest in per capita violence, ahead of Alaska.”

    And it’s yet another Dem run, @%%@hole city.


  17. Let me be the first to LoL.


    Dems just love them some super-spreader events.

    “Democrats Publicity Stunt Backfires, Triggering COVID Outbreak Among White House Staff…”

    Some language…..


  18. More….

    “Vaccinated Pelosi and Biden aides test positive for COVID

    The Pelosi aide had contact with the delegation of fleeing Texas Democrats that contracted COVID-19”


    “A spokesperson for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tested positive Monday for coronavirus following a meeting last week with members of the Texas Legislature who fled the state for Washington, D.C.

    Drew Hammill, a top aide to Pelosi, said the unidentified staff member was fully vaccinated and did not have recent contact with the top California Democrat, though the speaker’s office is taking extra precautions as a result.

    “Yesterday, a fully vaccinated senior spokesperson in the speaker’s press office tested positive for COVID after contact with members of the Texas state legislature last week,” Hammill said in a statement obtained by Fox News.

    “This individual has had no contact with the speaker since exposure. The entire press office is working remotely today with the exception of individuals who have had no exposure to the individual or have had a recent negative test. Our office will continue to follow the guidance of the Office of Attending Physician closely.”

    On Tuesday, Pelosi and her staff were spotted wearing masks again at the Capitol. Following a loosening of mask restrictions by the Capitol physician, many members have opted against masks in recent weeks.”


  19. Fuaci continues to lie to Congress.

    And the spineless cowards in Congress do nothing about it.


    Playing dumb.


  20. Fauci seems mad. 🙂


    Because he’s lying again.


  21. Democracy and decent reporting die at the WaPo.


    Funny indeed.


  22. Hacks………… as far as the eye can see on the journalistic landscape.



  23. Richard H. Ebright, Board of Governors Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Rutgers agrees with Paul.


  24. You’re still missing my point. Your premise is political affiliation is responsible for the level of violence. However, almost all the top 10 violent states have Republicans governors. Given your premise it appears both Democratic and Republican are responsible for high levels of violence. I suggest an alternative — the social democratic Nordic countries have an extremely low level of violence. Given your idea that political affiliation correlates to violence perhaps America should imitate the Nordic model.

    The vast difference between a gathering of maybe 100 democrat politicians and previous gatherings and rallies by Trump is the vaccine. All the Democratic politicians are vaccinated and thus the vast majority are only carriers and not actually sick. Previously you needed to be careful of gatherings due to a lack of a vaccine. Of course, these politicians came from a Republican led state with high covid numbers — given your tendency for blaming political parties can we blame the Texan Republicans for the its inability to control covid in Texas.


  25. The reaction to the Fauci-Paul exchange is interesting — one side says Fauci loses his mind whereas the other side Fauci reprimands and sets Paul straight. Given one is the expert, I’ll give him the benefit of doubt. But then again, I watched a few youtube videos so I must know more than him……….


  26. And now you’re changing the rules.

    We’ve talked violent run Dem cities, but now you want to make it about states, because otherwise your argument doesn’t hold up.

    And even in these “violent” states, what drives the numbers?

    Why it’s those $#@$#hole Dem stronghold cities in those R states that drive the numbers.

    But you already knew that.

    Just stop.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.