Won’t answer why she gave lenient sentences to child predators.
“I don’t know” is her go to answer.
Unqualified.
——
Ketanji Brown Jackson is now straight up refusing to answer questions from Senator @HawleyMO about her record of giving lenient sentences to convicted pedophiles. pic.twitter.com/fROUlWPccl
A judge sympathetic to child predators is not a judge who deserves to be on any court, let alone the highest court in the land.
——-
Her only regret is that Republicans are asking about these things.
Ketanji Brown Jackson says she regrets that Republicans are asking her questions about her record of letting convicted child predators off the hook pic.twitter.com/XUIkkl6Fi9
The Democrats are hiding this from Congress, so you know it doesn’t reflect favorably on their unqualified candidate.
If context matters as she says, why won’t they provide it? You know the answer.
…Sen. Durbin is objecting that the move would "put lives at risk" and he is not willing to risk lives. He is clearly correct that these PSRs contain information that should not be made public. However, without dealing with the value of the PSRs, they can be redacted…
… Once again, there could be objections to the weight given to the PSR, but I think the accusation of endangering lives ignores the ability to redact material. I have worked with PSRs and most of the recommendations are focused on guideline calculations and recommendations…
…One approach is to make the PSRs available as a sealed and non-public documents. A public version could then be produced in redacted form. Senators could see the original and the redacted material to guarantee that redactions are performed appropriately.
Nothing to see hear, just more criminal activity from our compromised DoJ.
“DOJ Allegedly Accessed Project Veritas Emails Then Covered It Up…”
———-
“Project Veritas: DOJ Obtained Emails From Microsoft Using Secret Warrants Not Disclosed to Court
“Bombshell Microsoft Corporation legal documents released by Project Veritas reveal that President Biden’s Department of Justice filed a series of secret warrants, orders, and a subpoena””
“Last fall, Project Veritas was raided by the FBI, which collected various documents and devices. Then things got worse. Despite a judge’s ruling, the Department of Justice went to multiple magistrates and obtained secret warrants to collect communications between multiple journalists from Microsoft.
Do you remember how people on the left scoffed at the idea of the Deep State? What would you call this?
Remember, this is all about a diary that belongs to Joe Biden’s daughter, Ashley.
From Project Veritas:
Microsoft Corporation Legal Documents Show Biden DOJ Spying on Project Veritas Journalists; Hides it from Federal Court Judge
Bombshell Microsoft Corporation legal documents released by Project Veritas reveal that President Biden’s Department of Justice filed a series of secret warrants, orders, and a subpoena to surreptitiously collect privileged, and constitutionally protected, communications and contacts of eight Project Veritas journalists from Microsoft Corporation.
The Department of Justice then muzzled Microsoft from disclosing these orders via a series of secrecy orders signed by magistrates.
The documents further reveal the DOJ then went behind U.S. District Court Judge, Analisa Torres’, back to obtain extensions on the gag-orders on Microsoft from magistrate judges after Judge Torres ruled Project Veritas was entitled to “journalistic privileges.”
Despite multiple opportunities to do so, the DOJ has not publicly disclosed the orders, warrants, or subpoenas to Judge Torres or Special Master Judge Barbara Jones – who was appointed by Judge Torres to protect Veritas’ “journalistic privileges” from potential DOJ overreach. Judge Torres ruled that the DOJ’s investigation must be overseen by Judge Jones and ordered the DOJ not to review any materials seized from Project Veritas without Judge Jones’ approval.
Take a look at this Project Veritas graphic to understand the series of events (click to enlarge):”
——-
And a video report.
These people are dirty, and probably even criminal deep staters.
“Joe Biden’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, was asked questions about this yesterday. Critical Race Theory is historical revisionism that’s marketed as a legitimate field of study. It’s historical illiteracy. It’s academic fraud.
It has made scores of liberal parents in the suburbs pay attention to what is going on in their schools. Their kids were coming home spouting off about whiteness, white supremacy, and other nonsensical left-wing action items. How does this happen? Well, school boards are not exciting races. With local media evaporating, it’s harder to keep tabs on the insanity that happens during these meetings, even though it’s all out there for the public to see. The Left saw the backdoor was open and took the initiative. They did this years ago. Now, we’re all racing to catch up and shut the door to this deluge of leftism and Marxist brainwashing.
James Lindsay had a great thread about how this nonsense gets inside our schools. Using a Pennsylvania high school as an example, he obtained screenshots of a math problem that’s been retooled through the CRT machine. He also drew a historical comparison to what’s going on, citing Paulo Freire, a Brazilian Marxist educator, and religious figure, who sought to brainwash the masses under the guise of increasing literacy. ”
Paulo Freire, a Marxist educator and religious figure from Brazil, has had more influence on North American education than anyone since John Dewey (who modeled American ed on the model he observed in the USSR in the 1920s). Understanding Freire is crucial (doing podcasts now!).
— James Lindsay, full varsity (@ConceptualJames) March 22, 2022
——–
He reframed literacy education away from phonics and into a frame of "generative words." Rather than teaching "nonsensical syllables," literacy would involve learning words that raise consciousness, like "struggle," and literacy was redefined to mean political literacy. pic.twitter.com/JlEIWWlO9f
— James Lindsay, full varsity (@ConceptualJames) March 22, 2022
——-
This is the codification of this approach in a Seattle mathematics education policy document from 2019 outlining exactly these goals in Seattle (and Washington?) math education. This framework has been copied down the West Coast and is clearly implemented even in PA now. pic.twitter.com/PpthyiDVPC
— James Lindsay, full varsity (@ConceptualJames) March 22, 2022
——–
Educational materials companies like Pearson, the world's largest, are participating in this full blast, enthusiastically, because it raises their ESG (New World Order) score to do so. Ruining education—and your kids—with Marxism wins them points in the new evil system. pic.twitter.com/gG3Gt3rrPz
— James Lindsay, full varsity (@ConceptualJames) March 22, 2022
——
The World Economic Forum supports and pushes this nonsense, so it's clearly part of Zer Great Reset Agenda. That sets the stage for companies like Pearson, plus school districts (who manages their pension funds…?) to play ball—with your kids.https://t.co/LvbmKB1t6v
— James Lindsay, full varsity (@ConceptualJames) March 22, 2022
“Pennsylvania State Representative Darisha Parker (D-Philadelphia) this week introduced a measure to restrict employers’ consideration of job applicants’ criminal records.
In a statement on her bill, Parker cited data from the U.S. Department of Justice indicating that nearly a third of Americans have a criminal record, almost as many as having earned college degrees. She said incurring such a record has proved a major burden for many Pennsylvanians seeking jobs as well as housing and public benefits.
Her legislation would bar employers from asking job seekers about or weighing those applicants’ juvenile or summary offenses as well as any cases that resulted in no convictions. Expunged and pardoned cases would also be off-limits for consideration.
Parker’s bill would furthermore provide guidance for businesses deciding whether someone’s past criminal offenses bear upon the job the individual holds or for which he or she is applying. The Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry would be charged with enforcing the legislation should it become law.
“All too often otherwise qualified individuals are not considered for jobs because they have a past criminal offense,” Parker said. “Many of these offenses are unrelated to the job in question, are non-violent in nature or occurred in adolescence. While both federal and state law offer some protections in this area, it is clear more needs to be done to give these job seekers, as well as those currently employed, a second chance by removing unfair roadblocks to economic stability.”
The representative said that she expects not only job seekers to benefit from her legislation but also businesses “who might overlook otherwise qualified individuals.”
Parker’s legislation would build upon similar reforms the commonwealth has already undertaken. In 2017, Governor Tom Wolf (D) removed questions about past criminal convictions from most state employment applications, following a similar policy President Barack Obama instituted on the federal level the previous year. And in 2018, Wolf signed a bipartisan “clean slate” law that sealed non-conviction records as well as the records of those who committed nonviolent misdemeanor offenses who managed to keep their records clean for a decade afterward.
Some jurisdictions have gone further. Since 2016, the city of Philadelphia has disallowed employers to inquire about potential employees’ past criminal offenses. Many private employers have likewise taken it upon themselves to refrain from asking applicants about possible criminal histories. “
“Mandy Van Gorp was confident that her employer of 18 years, Eli Lilly and Company, would treat her fairly when she objected to its company-wide COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The pharmaceutical giant had promised to exempt employees with valid health or religious objections to the policy and she believed she had had both.
Despite presenting a doctor’s note in support of her exemption, citing an auto-immune disease, the company denied her request for a medical exemption. To add injury to the insult she felt, she tested positive for COVID-19 the day after receiving her rejection letter. She then appealed for a six-month deferral on grounds of the positive test. Lilly also denied that request. When she then raised her religious concerns, Lilly said she had missed the application deadline – a deadline that had lapsed several weeks before Lilly replied to her initial accommodation request.
The “toughest night was when we were sitting at the dinner table and my 12-year-old was sobbing, hysterically begging me to get the vaccine so I could keep my job,” recalled Van Gorp, a 42-year-old sales representative and mother of three. “I had to explain that my choice was not about money and that I felt God was leading me not to follow a mandate. It’s hard to explain that to a 12-year-old.”
Van Gorp’s experience was echoed by more than a dozen other former Lilly employees who recounted to RealClearInvestigations how the company’s vaccine mandate and its strict enforcement pushed them out.
Not only did they lose their jobs and health insurance, but some lost out on stock options and severance packages. Others struggled to collect unemployment, claiming Lilly misrepresented their dismissals to state offices. Salespeople who won exemptions said they too were effectively dismissed as the company pushed them toward roles in which they wouldn’t have direct contact with the public — jobs for which they often had little or no training and which would require them to relocate in some instances. When presented with a series of questions regarding its vaccine mandate policy and many of these claims, Lilly responded with a statement in support of vaccination as “guided by science.”
Lilly is just one of many major corporations that have publicly announced vaccine mandates for their employees. But specific policies have been imposed in private. The accounts of the former Lilly employees, including their never-before-disclosed allegations of unfair treatment, open a window on a largely secretive process that has roiled the American economy.
The objections of some also illuminate a trend seen across the healthcare industry: resistance to vaccines rooted in science and professional training, beyond objections solely based on religion or ideas of personal liberty. In this instance, those affected were in the business of manufacturing and selling drugs, including monoclonal antibodies used to treat COVID-19.
Lilly announced its vaccine mandate in August 2021, declaring that those “who do not meet this requirement or do not have an approved religious or medical accommodation in place by November 15th will be separated from the company.” The company had told its salespeople, who had worked remotely throughout the pandemic and then were allowed back in the field by March 2021, that those who received an exemption would remain secure in their jobs. They were instructed to “follow the direction of the customer and/or healthcare facility they are visiting, which could require mandatory vaccinations, masking, negative test, etc.” after Nov. 15th, as they had been doing since March.”
“While some employees approved of the mandate, others immediately pushed back. In a company-wide online forum discussion, the text of which RCI obtained, objectors raised various concerns ranging from the ethical – “What happened to individual liberty?” – to the scientific.
“Even though I’m vaccinated,” prefaced one participant, “I think that as a company who makes medicine and is fully aware of the amount of time it generally takes to get even non life-saving drugs tested and approved, this move makes no sense and goes against the safety and quality commitment Lilly tries to instill in its employees.”
Another employee questioned why the policy ignored evidence of protection provided by previous infection, writing: “The science of immunity from natural infection is being ignored, which is super disappointing considering we are a science-based company who developed an antibody treatment from those recovered.”
The employee was referring to the fact that Lilly had produced multiple monoclonal antibody treatments, which aim to neutralize active infections of COVID-19, as opposed to COVID-19 vaccines, which aim to protect patients from infection and severe illness.
Robin Clark, a former Lilly process engineer, was one employee who sought an exemption from Lilly. RCI reached Clark through a Telegram group of 85 ex-employees who have bonded over their shared outrage at how Lilly let them go. Unlike Clark, most members had been sales representatives. RCI’s investigation indicates the company may have subjected them to more onerous requirements in pursuing accommodations than non-customer-facing personnel.
Clark claims her opposition to vaccination was based on a sincere and long-held religious objection – one she did not want to disclose to her employer because “there’s a lot of discrimination against people who hold my beliefs.”
But Clark also had a pre-existing autoimmune disorder, so this was the basis on which she filed her initial exemption request.
In that request, she noted she had not received any vaccines since she was diagnosed with her condition in 1986, and quoted the Centers for Disease Control’s website, noting: “People with autoimmune conditions may receive a COVID-19 vaccine. However, they should be aware that no data are currently available on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines for people with autoimmune conditions.”
Clark also appended a letter from her doctor, provided to RCI, stating, “My medical professional assessment of this patient is that she not be immunized with the COVID-19 vaccine, as the risk of harm and medical injury to the patient outweigh the benefits.”
She also indicated she had contracted COVID-19 in November 2020 and that she still had antibodies, confirmed by a test conducted internally by Lilly for a study it was running on the previously infected.
The company’s HR department denied Clark’s request, while informing her that there were many ways for her to receive vaccination should she so decide.
In the rejection email sent to Clark, Lilly noted: “This decision was made utilizing the most up to date CDC definition of true medical contraindications to COVID vaccination … with this evidence-based guidance, there are very few scenarios that meet the criteria for medical accommodation.”
Several ex-employees told RCI they had heard Lilly granted few if any medical accommodation requests. Lilly did not respond to questions from RCI aimed at verifying this claim, nor any other questions concerning accommodations.
Like Mandy Van Gorp, Clark said Lilly denied her subsequent request for a religious exemption on the ground that she had missed the application deadline. Internal documents provided to RCI do not reference any appeals process for those seeking leniency from the mandate, and they say nothing about whether an employee could have applied for both a medical and religious accommodation up front.
With her requests rejected, and having refused to get vaccinated, Clark was fired for “misconduct — insubordination.””
“While most Americans were focused on partisan polarization in Washington, D.C., the U.S. criminal justice system has been quietly transformed by a group of radically liberal billionaires and millionaires. They have attacked our system of justice at its roots, bankrolling the campaigns of activist district attorney candidates who promise to give criminals soft sentences in the name of so-called social justice and equity.
Now self-styled progressive district attorneys, many of whom toppled conventional Democratic opponents across the country by running to their left, are enforcing their own warped sense of social justice instead of the actual law. Unsurprisingly, crime has risen in our cities – the Council on Criminal Justice found that in 2021, murders increased in every major city in the U.S. My own state of Virginia is currently experiencing its highest murder rate in two decades.
The idea that being lenient on violent criminals will create a more just society is both naive and counterintuitive. Eliminating criminal justice is not criminal justice reform.
A new report from Capital Research revealed that progressives have spent nearly $30 million backing liberal activist district attorneys in over 20 communities, including big cities like Los Angeles and New York City, northern Virginia suburbs outside Washington, D.C., and rural communities in Georgia and Mississippi.
In Manhattan, the radical left spent over $1 million electing Alvin Bragg who, shortly after being sworn in, released a memo stating that his office would not seek any prison sentences for crimes such as armed robbery, drug dealing, and burglaries. Consequently, 72 of the 77 police precincts have seen an increase in crime; in Manhattan, NYPD CompStat numbers reveal that burglaries, grand larcenies, and felony assaults are rising at a rapid pace. These crimes not only violate decency in daily life – they’re also gateway offenses for people who become career criminals.
Meanwhile, in the northern Virginia suburbs outside of Washington, D.C., liberal activist attorneys have been elected in Arlington County, Fairfax County, and Loudoun County. Fairfax County Commonwealth’s Attorney Steve Descano recently decided not to prosecute more than 20 different categories of crimes. Descano is trying to usurp the legislature’s rightful role of deciding what is illegal and what is not – and he’s putting the public at risk in the process. Since Descano’s election, the murder rate in Fairfax County has doubled, prompting a recall petition.
In fact, the alleged serial killer responsible for the murder and attempted murders of multiple homeless men in D.C. and New York City was previously arrested in Fairfax County. Steve Descano fought to lower his sentence and returned him to the streets.
Those murders shouldn’t have happened. The “criminal first, victim last” mindset behind this tragedy is a danger to the public.
In an effort to make our cities and suburbs more secure, we need district attorneys who will follow the law instead of giving criminals a slap on the wrist. Arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement creates the dangerous precedent that there are no consequences for breaking the law.
The great irony is that the vast majority of the liberal elites bank-rolling this soft-on-crime agenda live in wealthy, gated neighborhoods and will never experience the consequences of their advocacy. The victims of this agenda are the poor, the working class, and the marginalized. ”
Once again, Dems projected their crimes on Trump, who did nothing like the stuff their dirty little fingers were involved in. Putin had stooges alright, in the Democrat party.
“Uranium, oil and technology: How Russia got stronger as Bidens and Clintons got richer
In the years before Moscow invaded Ukraine, Democrats enriched themselves politically and personally from oligarchs and businesses in the region while empowering Vladimir Putin with energy and technology deals.”
“In the early days of Russia’s war on Ukraine, President Joe Biden boldly declared he was ready to seize “ill-begotten gains” of the region’s oligarchs.
But in the years before Moscow twice invaded Ukraine, Democrats enriched themselves politically and personally from such oligarchs and businesses in the region while empowering Vladimir Putin with energy and technology deals that still haunt America today.
Our best-selling book “Fallout: Nuclear Bribes, Russian Spies and the Washington Lies that Enriched the Clinton and Biden Dynasties” chronicled how a failed “reset” in U.S.-Russia relations led by Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton relied on an appeasement strategy that ultimately backfired with Russia.
Putin’s spoils were measured in billions of dollars in uranium contracts with U.S. utilities, expanded oil imports and transfers of sensitive technologies.
The American dynasties counted their victories in millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation, speech fees to Bill Clinton, and lucrative board seats and consulting deals for Hunter Biden.
The appeasement policy began in February 2009. Russia had invaded its neighbor and former client state, Georgia, six months earlier. The lame-duck George W. Bush administration planned to put missile defense structures in Eastern Europe to deter Russian aggression against its neighbors.
But one of the Obama-Biden administration’s first foreign policy maneuvers was to cancel that plan via a “secret letter” to Putin’s placeholder, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. Why? U.S. leaders apparently wanted to make deals with Russia, and giant missile silos in Putin’s backyard were a nonstarter for Moscow.
But the canceled missile defense in Eastern Europe was only the beginning in a long line of concessions to Russia that not only emboldened Putin, but advanced Russian military capabilities in ways that are now having deadly consequences for Ukrainian civilians (think hypersonic missiles) while threatening the global economy.
“The last few years have seen a dangerous drift in relations between Russia and the members of our Alliance,” Biden said at the Munich Security Conference on Feb. 7, 2009. “It is time — to paraphrase President Obama — it’s time to press the reset button and to revisit the many areas where we can and should be working together with Russia.” Biden thus gave voice to what became the “Russia Reset” policy, embodied a month later when Clinton famously pushed a literal red “reset” button with her Russian counterpart.
By 2010, the Obama-Biden-Clinton Russian reset was in full swing. The administration put forth a mutual nuclear disarmament treaty known as “New START,” which, while noble in its declared intentions, risked weakening a compliant partner such as the United States while strengthening a Russia not constrained by the rules.
Another deal that Obama, Biden, and Clinton gave the Russians was called the “123 Agreement,” which allowed state-owned Russian entities like nuclear behemoth Rosatom to sell nuclear materials directly to U.S. utility companies.
This deal continues to pay huge dividends to the Obama Foundation’s top donor, Chicago-based Exelon Corporation. And President Biden has allowed that deal to survive even during the Ukraine war, exempting nuclear fuel sales to U.S. utilities from his recent sanctions targeting Russian energy imports.
Meanwhile, the U.S.-driven 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, and other so-called denuclearization efforts with Libya and North Korea, effectively sent hundreds of thousands of tons of uranium to Russia for enrichment — a huge cash and energy windfall for Putin.
On top of these nuclear handouts, the Obama-Biden-Clinton team gave Russia one of the biggest prizes of all: Uranium One.
Before the Russian takeover, Uranium One was a Canadian company that mined Uranium around the world. It had assets on at least three continents — Eurasia, Africa, and North America. Its assets in Wyoming, Utah, and other states constituted approximately 20% of U.S. uranium capacity and meant that the Obama-Biden Committee of Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) would have to sign off on the deal. They could have said no, but the deal was approved.
Investors in the deal had funneled $145 million into Secretary Clinton’s family foundation. Its approval helped to give Russia a near-monopoly on global uranium production.
After investigative reporter and author Peter Schweizer broke the Uranium One story in 2015, a State Department under secretary, Jose Fernandez, took the blame. Fernandez later landed a “very rewarding” position at the Clinton-connected Center for American Progress. Fernandez has now come back through the revolving door and is a top official in the Biden State Department.
But Clinton’s State Department was not the only Obama-Biden department that extended an advantage to Putin.
Eric Holder’s Department of Justice swept Russian crimes under the rug — not wanting to disrupt the Russian reset. So, the Russian spy ring known as the “Illegals Program,” which had penetrated the highest levels of American politics and finance, just went away. Biden said he did not want to create “a flap.”
Other crimes committed by Putin’s agents were downplayed as well. William Campbell, an American intelligence operative-turned-whistleblower, exposed multiple Russian bribery, kickbacks, and money-laundering conspiracies — all targeting the American nuclear industry.
But Campbell was handcuffed by the Justice Department. His FBI handlers told him it was due to “politics.” When Obama’s DOJ finally got around to indicting Putin’s nuclear agents for bribery, kickbacks, and money laundering, they were given slap-on-the-wrist sentences, announced just before the holidays.
Perhaps the worst of all the Obama-Biden-Clinton giveaways to Putin was known as the Skolkovo initiative. Skolkovo, in suburban Moscow, was the site of Russia’s attempt to create its own Silicon Valley. The Clinton State Department heavily promoted the effort. As it happens, Clinton’s Big Tech donors comprised 17 of the 28 American partners in Skolkovo.
In reality, Skolkovo was a cyber-warfare tech hub and a thinly-veiled cover for corporate espionage and military build-up.
A 2012 U.S. Army report put it this way: “Skolkovo is arguably an overt alternative to clandestine industrial espionage — with the additional distinction that it can achieve such a transfer on a much larger scale and more efficiently … [Skolkovo] has, in fact, been involved in defense-related activities since December 2011, when it approved the first weapons-related project — the development of a hypersonic cruise missile engine.”
So Obama, Biden, and Clinton helped Russia secure innovative technology and weaponry — including hypersonic missiles — that are now, according to the U.S. Air Force, more advanced than America’s similar weapons. The Russian missiles have now allegedly been used in the assault on Ukraine.”
——-
Remember as you watch the horrors coming out of Ukraine that Obama, Biden, the Clintons, and Democrats built that.
“The largest shake-up in finance since the formation of the Federal Reserve is nearly here. The establishment of a government-backed cryptocurrency is a threat to the freedom of commerce and would give Washington the ability to weaponize banking against political dissent, or even block Americans from accessing their own money altogether.
A digital version of the dollar has been in the works for over a year now. Earlier this month, President Biden signed an executive order both curtailing existing cryptocurrencies and laying the groundwork for a federal digital currency. Crypto regulations have been a favorite topic of Democrats on Capitol Hill and regulators in the federal bureaucracy. Biden deployed numerous excuses, including the risks of money laundering and the carbon emissions needed to produce crypto, to justify cracking down on these currencies. But the kicker of the statement is the regulatory groundwork for the coming “digital dollar.” The United States will be the second major power to foster such a move, after China, where efforts to create a digital currency as part of its social credit system are a sign of what might be coming here soon.
Physical currency likely will be phased out entirely over time, in favor of a digital format controlled by the Federal Reserve. The ubiquity of cell phones and scannable codes will make integration of a digital currency, under some form of the blockchain, relatively easy to implement. This soft-nationalization of the banking sector would leave the United States in uncharted waters. Nearly every transaction, from political donations to purchases as seemingly insignificant as a pack of gum, would be visible to the government and subject to scrutiny. Government regulations could block or track certain transactions with no trial or public recourse. Even worse, if you were placed on a list by a federal bureaucrat — not a judge — your access to banking and credit cards potentially could be shut off without a warrant or trial.
There is a chilling irony that the open-source technology intended to evade government control instead could be used for it. The use of the Homeland Security apparatus after 9/11 could be used as a domestic cudgel, and watchlists and flagging systems similar to those against international terrorists could be used against American citizens. If your political views are deemed “extremist,” your ability to purchase firearms or plane tickets could be blocked automatically. Taken to a further extent, the precedent would allow for the federal government (or states or localities in certain circumstances) to restrict purchases of tobacco or fatty foods — or to block people who haven’t been jabbed or boosted against COVID-19 (or the latest virus) from dining out in cities with vaccine mandates in place.
At the same time, a centralized digital currency would allow the Federal Reserve to create trillions of dollars with the click of a button, causing inflation to further spiral out of control. Much of this pseudo-printing would be a major boon to Washington. The federal government could distribute social spending in an instant. The existing bureaucracy can expand the government dole with relative alacrity. Federal “equity” programs could be dependent on this connection between D.C. and your coming digital wallet.
Think that this all sounds far-fetched? Just look at what’s happening in China. Beijing’s social credit system punishes malcontents with restrictions on internet use and travel. Closer to home, Canada used its Emergency Acts to effectively shut out supporters of the Freedom Convoy from polite society, and supporters of the protest had their bank accounts frozen. Single moms making minimum wage lost access to their money for donating as little as $50 to the truckers. The Canadian government shut down more than 200 bank accounts and more than 250 cryptocurrency addresses, and threatened to suspend protesters’ insurance coverage. The message from the government to the truckers and their supporters was clear: Your opinions are not acceptable to the Justin Trudeau government.
Such harsh means will be a valuable precedent for governments worldwide — for the simple fact that they work. And the establishment of inter-linked government cryptocurrencies, which make every transaction traceable and punishable, will only make such tyrannical measures easier to implement. “
That question about the definition of woman is a landmine these days. Either way a person answers it, they are bound to be verbally hanged, drawn, and quartered.
Like I said Kizzie, it should disqualify her, although he says it better…..
But I'm seriously troubled by her "I'm not a biologist" crack. It reveals a fundamental break with reality, far worse than the one that brought us Obergefell.
That decision was terrible, but at least it merely dealt with a legal construct: Marriage. >
But the real problem is that it tells us one of two things.
Judge Jackson, an intelligent woman, may have bought into the Marxist / deconstructionist worldview of unreality – of shape-shifting facts, the rejection of empirical truth to achieve a policy result.
It is worse because while our Republic has survived many foolish judges and justices, this choice manifests a serious deficiency of *character* – an infinitely plastic morality.
The insidious effect of this mindset has already spread throughout our culture and institutions. >
That we make the "racist" trope recognized for the empty, cynical and desperate ploy that it is.
That we do not shirk our own moral duty by avoiding the truth because of political and social orthodoxy and thereby become complicit in allowing it to reign.>
Oh look, even a majority of Democrats disagree with the Dem party’s asinine stance.
2/4 Well, this blew up. Sorry I can’t address everyone, but a few points
This isn’t my poll & the publication should explain its sourcing & also why these poll #s weren’t addressed in the poll story, considering the issue of the bill was in the penultimate paragraph (last slide) pic.twitter.com/lWtKKkkT0r
As for the issue of this poll question “cherry-picking” this issue from the bill, it was critics who pulled this language out and made it the centerpiece of their resistance
Hopefully, reputable pollsters will ask voters a battery of neutral questions about this.
Booker, who was about to run for president and who made a show of "knowingly violating the rules" during Kavanaugh hearing, now talking about norms.
— Philip Melanchthon Wegmann (@PhilipWegmann) March 23, 2022
——-
Democrat Cory Booker, who threatened to violate Senate rules during the Kavanaugh confirmation ("I am Spartcus" moment), is now lecturing people about norms…
I know. My response is similar to what she could or should have said, not to you. I know you know telling the truth and admitting the obvious is how she should have approached the question. Instead she cow towed to the 5% of America that is the progressive left.
That shows she’s likely to do the same with obvious hot button issues, and vote how they expect her too. Couple that with lenient sentences for pedophiles for much the same reason, placating the hard left left view on sentencing for criminal acts, and you have a disaster for America.
“Donald Trump on Thursday sued his rival in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Hillary Clinton, and several other Democrats, alleging that they tried to rig that election by tying his campaign to Russia.”
“The lawsuit covers a long list of grievances the Republican former president repeatedly aired during his four years in the White House after beating Clinton, and comes as he continues to falsely claim that his 2020 election defeat by Democratic President Joe Biden was the result of widespread fraud.
“Acting in concert, the Defendants maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, was colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty,” the former president alleged in a 108-page lawsuit filed in a federal court in Florida.
The suit alleges “racketeering” and a “conspiracy to commit injurious falsehood,” among other claims.
A Clinton representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages. Trump said he was “forced to incur expenses in an amount to be determined at trial, but known to be in excess of twenty-four million dollars ($24,000,000) and continuing to accrue, in the form of defense costs, legal fees, and related expenses.”
The defendants in Trump’s lawsuit include Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer.”
The hearings for the justice were interesting. I was disappointed in her lack of being able to answer questions clearly and concisely, since it seems to be a positive of her method of judging. That is, she says she always wants to explain to everyone exactly what was going on in the court room. Yet she seemed to have a difficult time just answering questions that should not have been so difficult. Yes, some are just gotcha questions, but some weren’t and were valid. There is no doubt that a progressive will take this spot on the court. Elections do matter and Biden won. Still, it was disappointing to me. When you compare how the last couple of hearing went for justices, the hypocrisy is disgusting. Not surprising, but disgusting. That always brings me back to Psalm 37.
Wandering Views 
Unqualified.
Can’t answer what a woman is.
Doesn’t know when life begins.
Won’t answer why she gave lenient sentences to child predators.
“I don’t know” is her go to answer.
Unqualified.
——
LikeLiked by 1 person
A judge sympathetic to child predators is not a judge who deserves to be on any court, let alone the highest court in the land.
——-
Her only regret is that Republicans are asking about these things.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Democrats are hiding this from Congress, so you know it doesn’t reflect favorably on their unqualified candidate.
If context matters as she says, why won’t they provide it? You know the answer.
———-
———
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nothing to see hear, just more criminal activity from our compromised DoJ.
“DOJ Allegedly Accessed Project Veritas Emails Then Covered It Up…”
———-
“Project Veritas: DOJ Obtained Emails From Microsoft Using Secret Warrants Not Disclosed to Court
“Bombshell Microsoft Corporation legal documents released by Project Veritas reveal that President Biden’s Department of Justice filed a series of secret warrants, orders, and a subpoena””
https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/03/project-veritas-doj-obtained-emails-from-microsoft-using-secret-warrants-not-disclosed-to-court/
“Last fall, Project Veritas was raided by the FBI, which collected various documents and devices. Then things got worse. Despite a judge’s ruling, the Department of Justice went to multiple magistrates and obtained secret warrants to collect communications between multiple journalists from Microsoft.
Do you remember how people on the left scoffed at the idea of the Deep State? What would you call this?
Remember, this is all about a diary that belongs to Joe Biden’s daughter, Ashley.
From Project Veritas:
Microsoft Corporation Legal Documents Show Biden DOJ Spying on Project Veritas Journalists; Hides it from Federal Court Judge
Bombshell Microsoft Corporation legal documents released by Project Veritas reveal that President Biden’s Department of Justice filed a series of secret warrants, orders, and a subpoena to surreptitiously collect privileged, and constitutionally protected, communications and contacts of eight Project Veritas journalists from Microsoft Corporation.
The Department of Justice then muzzled Microsoft from disclosing these orders via a series of secrecy orders signed by magistrates.
The documents further reveal the DOJ then went behind U.S. District Court Judge, Analisa Torres’, back to obtain extensions on the gag-orders on Microsoft from magistrate judges after Judge Torres ruled Project Veritas was entitled to “journalistic privileges.”
Despite multiple opportunities to do so, the DOJ has not publicly disclosed the orders, warrants, or subpoenas to Judge Torres or Special Master Judge Barbara Jones – who was appointed by Judge Torres to protect Veritas’ “journalistic privileges” from potential DOJ overreach. Judge Torres ruled that the DOJ’s investigation must be overseen by Judge Jones and ordered the DOJ not to review any materials seized from Project Veritas without Judge Jones’ approval.
Take a look at this Project Veritas graphic to understand the series of events (click to enlarge):”
——-
And a video report.
These people are dirty, and probably even criminal deep staters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Huh.
I’d been assured this doesn’t happen.
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1506373024873783299?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1506373024873783299%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fbrettt-3136%2F2022%2F03%2F23%2Fillinois-second-graders-should-be-able-to-define-gender-identity-and-how-gender-role-stereotypes-limit-behavior%2F
——–
——–
Good question….
Answer, they don’t. Not ever.
LikeLike
So how does this stuff I’ve been told isn’t taught getting into schools then?
“Oh, So That’s How Critical Race Theory Creeps Into Our Schools”
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2022/03/23/oh-so-thats-how-critical-race-theory-creeps-into-our-schools-n2604923
“Joe Biden’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, was asked questions about this yesterday. Critical Race Theory is historical revisionism that’s marketed as a legitimate field of study. It’s historical illiteracy. It’s academic fraud.
It has made scores of liberal parents in the suburbs pay attention to what is going on in their schools. Their kids were coming home spouting off about whiteness, white supremacy, and other nonsensical left-wing action items. How does this happen? Well, school boards are not exciting races. With local media evaporating, it’s harder to keep tabs on the insanity that happens during these meetings, even though it’s all out there for the public to see. The Left saw the backdoor was open and took the initiative. They did this years ago. Now, we’re all racing to catch up and shut the door to this deluge of leftism and Marxist brainwashing.
James Lindsay had a great thread about how this nonsense gets inside our schools. Using a Pennsylvania high school as an example, he obtained screenshots of a math problem that’s been retooled through the CRT machine. He also drew a historical comparison to what’s going on, citing Paulo Freire, a Brazilian Marxist educator, and religious figure, who sought to brainwash the masses under the guise of increasing literacy. ”
——–
——-
——–
——
LikeLike
Sure, why not….
What could go wrong?
“Pennsylvania Bill Would Restrict Employers’ Examination of Applicants’ Criminal Records”
https://pennsylvaniadailystar.com/2022/03/23/pennsylvania-bill-would-restrict-employers-examination-of-applicants-criminal-records/
“Pennsylvania State Representative Darisha Parker (D-Philadelphia) this week introduced a measure to restrict employers’ consideration of job applicants’ criminal records.
In a statement on her bill, Parker cited data from the U.S. Department of Justice indicating that nearly a third of Americans have a criminal record, almost as many as having earned college degrees. She said incurring such a record has proved a major burden for many Pennsylvanians seeking jobs as well as housing and public benefits.
Her legislation would bar employers from asking job seekers about or weighing those applicants’ juvenile or summary offenses as well as any cases that resulted in no convictions. Expunged and pardoned cases would also be off-limits for consideration.
Parker’s bill would furthermore provide guidance for businesses deciding whether someone’s past criminal offenses bear upon the job the individual holds or for which he or she is applying. The Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry would be charged with enforcing the legislation should it become law.
“All too often otherwise qualified individuals are not considered for jobs because they have a past criminal offense,” Parker said. “Many of these offenses are unrelated to the job in question, are non-violent in nature or occurred in adolescence. While both federal and state law offer some protections in this area, it is clear more needs to be done to give these job seekers, as well as those currently employed, a second chance by removing unfair roadblocks to economic stability.”
The representative said that she expects not only job seekers to benefit from her legislation but also businesses “who might overlook otherwise qualified individuals.”
Parker’s legislation would build upon similar reforms the commonwealth has already undertaken. In 2017, Governor Tom Wolf (D) removed questions about past criminal convictions from most state employment applications, following a similar policy President Barack Obama instituted on the federal level the previous year. And in 2018, Wolf signed a bipartisan “clean slate” law that sealed non-conviction records as well as the records of those who committed nonviolent misdemeanor offenses who managed to keep their records clean for a decade afterward.
Some jurisdictions have gone further. Since 2016, the city of Philadelphia has disallowed employers to inquire about potential employees’ past criminal offenses. Many private employers have likewise taken it upon themselves to refrain from asking applicants about possible criminal histories. “
LikeLike
“A Pharma Giant Imposed ‘Follow the Mandate’ on Vaccine Objectors. They Are Now Ex-Workers.”
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/03/23/the_top_drugmaker_that_imposed_follow_the_mandate_on_dissenting_workers_823145.html
“Mandy Van Gorp was confident that her employer of 18 years, Eli Lilly and Company, would treat her fairly when she objected to its company-wide COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The pharmaceutical giant had promised to exempt employees with valid health or religious objections to the policy and she believed she had had both.
Despite presenting a doctor’s note in support of her exemption, citing an auto-immune disease, the company denied her request for a medical exemption. To add injury to the insult she felt, she tested positive for COVID-19 the day after receiving her rejection letter. She then appealed for a six-month deferral on grounds of the positive test. Lilly also denied that request. When she then raised her religious concerns, Lilly said she had missed the application deadline – a deadline that had lapsed several weeks before Lilly replied to her initial accommodation request.
The “toughest night was when we were sitting at the dinner table and my 12-year-old was sobbing, hysterically begging me to get the vaccine so I could keep my job,” recalled Van Gorp, a 42-year-old sales representative and mother of three. “I had to explain that my choice was not about money and that I felt God was leading me not to follow a mandate. It’s hard to explain that to a 12-year-old.”
Van Gorp’s experience was echoed by more than a dozen other former Lilly employees who recounted to RealClearInvestigations how the company’s vaccine mandate and its strict enforcement pushed them out.
Not only did they lose their jobs and health insurance, but some lost out on stock options and severance packages. Others struggled to collect unemployment, claiming Lilly misrepresented their dismissals to state offices. Salespeople who won exemptions said they too were effectively dismissed as the company pushed them toward roles in which they wouldn’t have direct contact with the public — jobs for which they often had little or no training and which would require them to relocate in some instances. When presented with a series of questions regarding its vaccine mandate policy and many of these claims, Lilly responded with a statement in support of vaccination as “guided by science.”
Lilly is just one of many major corporations that have publicly announced vaccine mandates for their employees. But specific policies have been imposed in private. The accounts of the former Lilly employees, including their never-before-disclosed allegations of unfair treatment, open a window on a largely secretive process that has roiled the American economy.
The objections of some also illuminate a trend seen across the healthcare industry: resistance to vaccines rooted in science and professional training, beyond objections solely based on religion or ideas of personal liberty. In this instance, those affected were in the business of manufacturing and selling drugs, including monoclonal antibodies used to treat COVID-19.
Lilly announced its vaccine mandate in August 2021, declaring that those “who do not meet this requirement or do not have an approved religious or medical accommodation in place by November 15th will be separated from the company.” The company had told its salespeople, who had worked remotely throughout the pandemic and then were allowed back in the field by March 2021, that those who received an exemption would remain secure in their jobs. They were instructed to “follow the direction of the customer and/or healthcare facility they are visiting, which could require mandatory vaccinations, masking, negative test, etc.” after Nov. 15th, as they had been doing since March.”
“While some employees approved of the mandate, others immediately pushed back. In a company-wide online forum discussion, the text of which RCI obtained, objectors raised various concerns ranging from the ethical – “What happened to individual liberty?” – to the scientific.
“Even though I’m vaccinated,” prefaced one participant, “I think that as a company who makes medicine and is fully aware of the amount of time it generally takes to get even non life-saving drugs tested and approved, this move makes no sense and goes against the safety and quality commitment Lilly tries to instill in its employees.”
Another employee questioned why the policy ignored evidence of protection provided by previous infection, writing: “The science of immunity from natural infection is being ignored, which is super disappointing considering we are a science-based company who developed an antibody treatment from those recovered.”
The employee was referring to the fact that Lilly had produced multiple monoclonal antibody treatments, which aim to neutralize active infections of COVID-19, as opposed to COVID-19 vaccines, which aim to protect patients from infection and severe illness.
Robin Clark, a former Lilly process engineer, was one employee who sought an exemption from Lilly. RCI reached Clark through a Telegram group of 85 ex-employees who have bonded over their shared outrage at how Lilly let them go. Unlike Clark, most members had been sales representatives. RCI’s investigation indicates the company may have subjected them to more onerous requirements in pursuing accommodations than non-customer-facing personnel.
Clark claims her opposition to vaccination was based on a sincere and long-held religious objection – one she did not want to disclose to her employer because “there’s a lot of discrimination against people who hold my beliefs.”
But Clark also had a pre-existing autoimmune disorder, so this was the basis on which she filed her initial exemption request.
In that request, she noted she had not received any vaccines since she was diagnosed with her condition in 1986, and quoted the Centers for Disease Control’s website, noting: “People with autoimmune conditions may receive a COVID-19 vaccine. However, they should be aware that no data are currently available on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines for people with autoimmune conditions.”
Clark also appended a letter from her doctor, provided to RCI, stating, “My medical professional assessment of this patient is that she not be immunized with the COVID-19 vaccine, as the risk of harm and medical injury to the patient outweigh the benefits.”
She also indicated she had contracted COVID-19 in November 2020 and that she still had antibodies, confirmed by a test conducted internally by Lilly for a study it was running on the previously infected.
The company’s HR department denied Clark’s request, while informing her that there were many ways for her to receive vaccination should she so decide.
In the rejection email sent to Clark, Lilly noted: “This decision was made utilizing the most up to date CDC definition of true medical contraindications to COVID vaccination … with this evidence-based guidance, there are very few scenarios that meet the criteria for medical accommodation.”
Several ex-employees told RCI they had heard Lilly granted few if any medical accommodation requests. Lilly did not respond to questions from RCI aimed at verifying this claim, nor any other questions concerning accommodations.
Like Mandy Van Gorp, Clark said Lilly denied her subsequent request for a religious exemption on the ground that she had missed the application deadline. Internal documents provided to RCI do not reference any appeals process for those seeking leniency from the mandate, and they say nothing about whether an employee could have applied for both a medical and religious accommodation up front.
With her requests rejected, and having refused to get vaccinated, Clark was fired for “misconduct — insubordination.””
——
There’s more, keep reading.
LikeLike
This is relevant, and interesting.
The vaccines are not as safe as advertised.
LikeLike
Soros money and complicit bought Democrats built this.
“Progressive District Attorneys Are Making Our Cities Unsafe”
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/03/24/progressive_district_attorneys_are_making_our_cities_unsafe_147369.html
“While most Americans were focused on partisan polarization in Washington, D.C., the U.S. criminal justice system has been quietly transformed by a group of radically liberal billionaires and millionaires. They have attacked our system of justice at its roots, bankrolling the campaigns of activist district attorney candidates who promise to give criminals soft sentences in the name of so-called social justice and equity.
Now self-styled progressive district attorneys, many of whom toppled conventional Democratic opponents across the country by running to their left, are enforcing their own warped sense of social justice instead of the actual law. Unsurprisingly, crime has risen in our cities – the Council on Criminal Justice found that in 2021, murders increased in every major city in the U.S. My own state of Virginia is currently experiencing its highest murder rate in two decades.
The idea that being lenient on violent criminals will create a more just society is both naive and counterintuitive. Eliminating criminal justice is not criminal justice reform.
A new report from Capital Research revealed that progressives have spent nearly $30 million backing liberal activist district attorneys in over 20 communities, including big cities like Los Angeles and New York City, northern Virginia suburbs outside Washington, D.C., and rural communities in Georgia and Mississippi.
In Manhattan, the radical left spent over $1 million electing Alvin Bragg who, shortly after being sworn in, released a memo stating that his office would not seek any prison sentences for crimes such as armed robbery, drug dealing, and burglaries. Consequently, 72 of the 77 police precincts have seen an increase in crime; in Manhattan, NYPD CompStat numbers reveal that burglaries, grand larcenies, and felony assaults are rising at a rapid pace. These crimes not only violate decency in daily life – they’re also gateway offenses for people who become career criminals.
Meanwhile, in the northern Virginia suburbs outside of Washington, D.C., liberal activist attorneys have been elected in Arlington County, Fairfax County, and Loudoun County. Fairfax County Commonwealth’s Attorney Steve Descano recently decided not to prosecute more than 20 different categories of crimes. Descano is trying to usurp the legislature’s rightful role of deciding what is illegal and what is not – and he’s putting the public at risk in the process. Since Descano’s election, the murder rate in Fairfax County has doubled, prompting a recall petition.
In fact, the alleged serial killer responsible for the murder and attempted murders of multiple homeless men in D.C. and New York City was previously arrested in Fairfax County. Steve Descano fought to lower his sentence and returned him to the streets.
Those murders shouldn’t have happened. The “criminal first, victim last” mindset behind this tragedy is a danger to the public.
In an effort to make our cities and suburbs more secure, we need district attorneys who will follow the law instead of giving criminals a slap on the wrist. Arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement creates the dangerous precedent that there are no consequences for breaking the law.
The great irony is that the vast majority of the liberal elites bank-rolling this soft-on-crime agenda live in wealthy, gated neighborhoods and will never experience the consequences of their advocacy. The victims of this agenda are the poor, the working class, and the marginalized. ”
——-
Enjoy peasants.
LikeLike
But no mean tweets, right?
That’s what’s important…..
Once again, Dems projected their crimes on Trump, who did nothing like the stuff their dirty little fingers were involved in. Putin had stooges alright, in the Democrat party.
“Uranium, oil and technology: How Russia got stronger as Bidens and Clintons got richer
In the years before Moscow invaded Ukraine, Democrats enriched themselves politically and personally from oligarchs and businesses in the region while empowering Vladimir Putin with energy and technology deals.”
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/thururanium-oil-and-technology-how-russia-got-stronger
“In the early days of Russia’s war on Ukraine, President Joe Biden boldly declared he was ready to seize “ill-begotten gains” of the region’s oligarchs.
But in the years before Moscow twice invaded Ukraine, Democrats enriched themselves politically and personally from such oligarchs and businesses in the region while empowering Vladimir Putin with energy and technology deals that still haunt America today.
Our best-selling book “Fallout: Nuclear Bribes, Russian Spies and the Washington Lies that Enriched the Clinton and Biden Dynasties” chronicled how a failed “reset” in U.S.-Russia relations led by Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton relied on an appeasement strategy that ultimately backfired with Russia.
Putin’s spoils were measured in billions of dollars in uranium contracts with U.S. utilities, expanded oil imports and transfers of sensitive technologies.
The American dynasties counted their victories in millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation, speech fees to Bill Clinton, and lucrative board seats and consulting deals for Hunter Biden.
The appeasement policy began in February 2009. Russia had invaded its neighbor and former client state, Georgia, six months earlier. The lame-duck George W. Bush administration planned to put missile defense structures in Eastern Europe to deter Russian aggression against its neighbors.
But one of the Obama-Biden administration’s first foreign policy maneuvers was to cancel that plan via a “secret letter” to Putin’s placeholder, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. Why? U.S. leaders apparently wanted to make deals with Russia, and giant missile silos in Putin’s backyard were a nonstarter for Moscow.
But the canceled missile defense in Eastern Europe was only the beginning in a long line of concessions to Russia that not only emboldened Putin, but advanced Russian military capabilities in ways that are now having deadly consequences for Ukrainian civilians (think hypersonic missiles) while threatening the global economy.
“The last few years have seen a dangerous drift in relations between Russia and the members of our Alliance,” Biden said at the Munich Security Conference on Feb. 7, 2009. “It is time — to paraphrase President Obama — it’s time to press the reset button and to revisit the many areas where we can and should be working together with Russia.” Biden thus gave voice to what became the “Russia Reset” policy, embodied a month later when Clinton famously pushed a literal red “reset” button with her Russian counterpart.
By 2010, the Obama-Biden-Clinton Russian reset was in full swing. The administration put forth a mutual nuclear disarmament treaty known as “New START,” which, while noble in its declared intentions, risked weakening a compliant partner such as the United States while strengthening a Russia not constrained by the rules.
Another deal that Obama, Biden, and Clinton gave the Russians was called the “123 Agreement,” which allowed state-owned Russian entities like nuclear behemoth Rosatom to sell nuclear materials directly to U.S. utility companies.
This deal continues to pay huge dividends to the Obama Foundation’s top donor, Chicago-based Exelon Corporation. And President Biden has allowed that deal to survive even during the Ukraine war, exempting nuclear fuel sales to U.S. utilities from his recent sanctions targeting Russian energy imports.
Meanwhile, the U.S.-driven 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, and other so-called denuclearization efforts with Libya and North Korea, effectively sent hundreds of thousands of tons of uranium to Russia for enrichment — a huge cash and energy windfall for Putin.
On top of these nuclear handouts, the Obama-Biden-Clinton team gave Russia one of the biggest prizes of all: Uranium One.
Before the Russian takeover, Uranium One was a Canadian company that mined Uranium around the world. It had assets on at least three continents — Eurasia, Africa, and North America. Its assets in Wyoming, Utah, and other states constituted approximately 20% of U.S. uranium capacity and meant that the Obama-Biden Committee of Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) would have to sign off on the deal. They could have said no, but the deal was approved.
Investors in the deal had funneled $145 million into Secretary Clinton’s family foundation. Its approval helped to give Russia a near-monopoly on global uranium production.
After investigative reporter and author Peter Schweizer broke the Uranium One story in 2015, a State Department under secretary, Jose Fernandez, took the blame. Fernandez later landed a “very rewarding” position at the Clinton-connected Center for American Progress. Fernandez has now come back through the revolving door and is a top official in the Biden State Department.
But Clinton’s State Department was not the only Obama-Biden department that extended an advantage to Putin.
Eric Holder’s Department of Justice swept Russian crimes under the rug — not wanting to disrupt the Russian reset. So, the Russian spy ring known as the “Illegals Program,” which had penetrated the highest levels of American politics and finance, just went away. Biden said he did not want to create “a flap.”
Other crimes committed by Putin’s agents were downplayed as well. William Campbell, an American intelligence operative-turned-whistleblower, exposed multiple Russian bribery, kickbacks, and money-laundering conspiracies — all targeting the American nuclear industry.
But Campbell was handcuffed by the Justice Department. His FBI handlers told him it was due to “politics.” When Obama’s DOJ finally got around to indicting Putin’s nuclear agents for bribery, kickbacks, and money laundering, they were given slap-on-the-wrist sentences, announced just before the holidays.
Perhaps the worst of all the Obama-Biden-Clinton giveaways to Putin was known as the Skolkovo initiative. Skolkovo, in suburban Moscow, was the site of Russia’s attempt to create its own Silicon Valley. The Clinton State Department heavily promoted the effort. As it happens, Clinton’s Big Tech donors comprised 17 of the 28 American partners in Skolkovo.
In reality, Skolkovo was a cyber-warfare tech hub and a thinly-veiled cover for corporate espionage and military build-up.
A 2012 U.S. Army report put it this way: “Skolkovo is arguably an overt alternative to clandestine industrial espionage — with the additional distinction that it can achieve such a transfer on a much larger scale and more efficiently … [Skolkovo] has, in fact, been involved in defense-related activities since December 2011, when it approved the first weapons-related project — the development of a hypersonic cruise missile engine.”
So Obama, Biden, and Clinton helped Russia secure innovative technology and weaponry — including hypersonic missiles — that are now, according to the U.S. Air Force, more advanced than America’s similar weapons. The Russian missiles have now allegedly been used in the assault on Ukraine.”
——-
Remember as you watch the horrors coming out of Ukraine that Obama, Biden, the Clintons, and Democrats built that.
LikeLike
Oh goody.
“The coming federal weaponization of banking”
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/599057-the-coming-federal-weaponization-of-banking
“The largest shake-up in finance since the formation of the Federal Reserve is nearly here. The establishment of a government-backed cryptocurrency is a threat to the freedom of commerce and would give Washington the ability to weaponize banking against political dissent, or even block Americans from accessing their own money altogether.
A digital version of the dollar has been in the works for over a year now. Earlier this month, President Biden signed an executive order both curtailing existing cryptocurrencies and laying the groundwork for a federal digital currency. Crypto regulations have been a favorite topic of Democrats on Capitol Hill and regulators in the federal bureaucracy. Biden deployed numerous excuses, including the risks of money laundering and the carbon emissions needed to produce crypto, to justify cracking down on these currencies. But the kicker of the statement is the regulatory groundwork for the coming “digital dollar.” The United States will be the second major power to foster such a move, after China, where efforts to create a digital currency as part of its social credit system are a sign of what might be coming here soon.
Physical currency likely will be phased out entirely over time, in favor of a digital format controlled by the Federal Reserve. The ubiquity of cell phones and scannable codes will make integration of a digital currency, under some form of the blockchain, relatively easy to implement. This soft-nationalization of the banking sector would leave the United States in uncharted waters. Nearly every transaction, from political donations to purchases as seemingly insignificant as a pack of gum, would be visible to the government and subject to scrutiny. Government regulations could block or track certain transactions with no trial or public recourse. Even worse, if you were placed on a list by a federal bureaucrat — not a judge — your access to banking and credit cards potentially could be shut off without a warrant or trial.
There is a chilling irony that the open-source technology intended to evade government control instead could be used for it. The use of the Homeland Security apparatus after 9/11 could be used as a domestic cudgel, and watchlists and flagging systems similar to those against international terrorists could be used against American citizens. If your political views are deemed “extremist,” your ability to purchase firearms or plane tickets could be blocked automatically. Taken to a further extent, the precedent would allow for the federal government (or states or localities in certain circumstances) to restrict purchases of tobacco or fatty foods — or to block people who haven’t been jabbed or boosted against COVID-19 (or the latest virus) from dining out in cities with vaccine mandates in place.
At the same time, a centralized digital currency would allow the Federal Reserve to create trillions of dollars with the click of a button, causing inflation to further spiral out of control. Much of this pseudo-printing would be a major boon to Washington. The federal government could distribute social spending in an instant. The existing bureaucracy can expand the government dole with relative alacrity. Federal “equity” programs could be dependent on this connection between D.C. and your coming digital wallet.
Think that this all sounds far-fetched? Just look at what’s happening in China. Beijing’s social credit system punishes malcontents with restrictions on internet use and travel. Closer to home, Canada used its Emergency Acts to effectively shut out supporters of the Freedom Convoy from polite society, and supporters of the protest had their bank accounts frozen. Single moms making minimum wage lost access to their money for donating as little as $50 to the truckers. The Canadian government shut down more than 200 bank accounts and more than 250 cryptocurrency addresses, and threatened to suspend protesters’ insurance coverage. The message from the government to the truckers and their supporters was clear: Your opinions are not acceptable to the Justin Trudeau government.
Such harsh means will be a valuable precedent for governments worldwide — for the simple fact that they work. And the establishment of inter-linked government cryptocurrencies, which make every transaction traceable and punishable, will only make such tyrannical measures easier to implement. “
LikeLike
That question about the definition of woman is a landmine these days. Either way a person answers it, they are bound to be verbally hanged, drawn, and quartered.
LikeLike
Why?
The truth matters.
State it, and move on. The left will have an issue with it, but reality is what it is, not what they wish it were.
Stop playing their game and just say it.
This just shows she’s dishonest because she knows full well what the answer is, but won’t say it for political reasons.
That is not an admirable trait in a judge.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Unqualified.
Like I said Kizzie, it should disqualify her, although he says it better…..
———
——–
——–
———
LikeLike
Oh look, even a majority of Democrats disagree with the Dem party’s asinine stance.
——–
LikeLike
But muh norms……
Shut up hypocrite.
——-
LikeLike
AJ – I was not defending her, just commenting on the current situation in our society.
LikeLike
I know. My response is similar to what she could or should have said, not to you. I know you know telling the truth and admitting the obvious is how she should have approached the question. Instead she cow towed to the 5% of America that is the progressive left.
That shows she’s likely to do the same with obvious hot button issues, and vote how they expect her too. Couple that with lenient sentences for pedophiles for much the same reason, placating the hard left left view on sentencing for criminal acts, and you have a disaster for America.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh. Yeah.
🙂
Discovery will be a hoot.
Bill will be working overtime on the shredder this evening while Hillary bleach bits every electronic in the house.
“Donald Trump Sues Hillary Clinton, Others Over 2016 Russian Collusion Allegations”
https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2022-03-24/donald-trump-sues-hillary-clinton-others-over-russian-collusion-allegations
“Donald Trump on Thursday sued his rival in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Hillary Clinton, and several other Democrats, alleging that they tried to rig that election by tying his campaign to Russia.”
“The lawsuit covers a long list of grievances the Republican former president repeatedly aired during his four years in the White House after beating Clinton, and comes as he continues to falsely claim that his 2020 election defeat by Democratic President Joe Biden was the result of widespread fraud.
“Acting in concert, the Defendants maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, was colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty,” the former president alleged in a 108-page lawsuit filed in a federal court in Florida.
The suit alleges “racketeering” and a “conspiracy to commit injurious falsehood,” among other claims.
A Clinton representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages. Trump said he was “forced to incur expenses in an amount to be determined at trial, but known to be in excess of twenty-four million dollars ($24,000,000) and continuing to accrue, in the form of defense costs, legal fees, and related expenses.”
The defendants in Trump’s lawsuit include Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer.”
——
He deserves every penny.
LikeLike
The hearings for the justice were interesting. I was disappointed in her lack of being able to answer questions clearly and concisely, since it seems to be a positive of her method of judging. That is, she says she always wants to explain to everyone exactly what was going on in the court room. Yet she seemed to have a difficult time just answering questions that should not have been so difficult. Yes, some are just gotcha questions, but some weren’t and were valid. There is no doubt that a progressive will take this spot on the court. Elections do matter and Biden won. Still, it was disappointing to me. When you compare how the last couple of hearing went for justices, the hypocrisy is disgusting. Not surprising, but disgusting. That always brings me back to Psalm 37.
LikeLiked by 1 person