15 thoughts on “News/Politics 4-14-22

  1. This is gonna disappear from the news cycle pretty quick.

    Doesn’t fit the narrative….

    “NYC subway shooting suspect Frank James, 62, posted unhinged race-obsessed YouTube clips warning of his intentions and hatred for Mayor Eric Adams – as sister says he is a loner
    Frank James, 62, has been named as the suspect in Tuesday’s shooting in Brooklyn, New York

    James remains at-large despite a multi-state hunt for him that also involves the FBI
    He was known to the bureau and was on a terrorist watchlist after an incident in New Mexico in 2019

    For weeks before yesterday’s shooting, he posted ominous videos on YouTube about race and shootings

    On March 20, he announced he was leaving Wisconsin and ‘will never be back again alive’
    In a video two days before the shooting, he ranted about how black people were forced into crime

    Speaking about gangs, he said: ‘This is what white b*****s and white m*********ers’ expect you to be… when you blow one of their f*****g brains out – this is what you asked for’

    James pulled out a gas mask on the northbound N train in Brooklyn yesterday then released a smoke bomb

    He then opened fire with a handgun, shooting ten people, before somehow managing to flee

    The surveillance cameras inside the station were not working which has hampered efforts to find him

    The shooting has epitomized the danger of New York City’s subways, where crime is up by 60 percent ”

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10715053/Chilling-YouTube-warning-NYC-subway-shooting-person-Frank-James-attack.html

    Like

  2. Unlike unvaccinated Americans…

    ——-

    Like

  3. Funny that….

    ——–

    Like

  4. I guess some hacked material on Twitter is fine, as long as the right people are targeted.

    —–

    And now you know why the leftist media wants access to Republican donor lists….

    Like

  5. Joe Biden’s admin has done something historic!

    They’re now officially worse than Carter.

    ———

    But how could they possibly have known….? 🙄

    Like

  6. Once again, when the truth comes out, it’s nothing like the fake news narrative the press and left were spreading.

    “Bodycam Footage Exonerates Arresting Officer In Viral Video of Arrest at Purdue University That Set Off a Firestorm

    “If anything, Purdue Officer Jon Selke ‘should be commended, not vilified’ for the way he handled a confrontation”

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/04/bodycam-footage-exonerates-arresting-officer-in-viral-video-of-arrest-at-purdue-university-that-set-off-a-firestorm/

    “The arrest of a young black man at Purdue University in February was captured in a video and set off a firestorm on campus and in the media, with many people comparing it to the arrest of George Floyd.

    But the viral video only told part of the story. The arresting police officer will not be charged now that investigators have had a chance to review footage from his bodycam.

    In February, Purdue’s student newspaper The Exponent reported:

    Purdue police controversy hits national media

    Twitter is flooded with various media organization’s reporting on the controversy regarding a student who was physically held down by a Purdue police officer last Friday night. The student was later charged with disorderly conduct. He was booked at the Tippecanoe County Jail, posted bond and was released.

    The story came to light this week though social media and Exponent reporting. Since then, it’s become an issue that has been covered by media organizations nationwide.

    Here’s a sampling of the various media outlets’ and other interested parties’ Twitter feeds:”

    ———

    Like

  7. 4.8 million.

    That’s what it cost the Chinese to bribe the Biden Crime Family to get this done.

    Congress needs to get off it’s butt and do their oversight job. Joe Biden and company are selling out America.

    “Biden Helping China Plunder American Tech Companies ”

    https://www.newsweek.com/biden-helping-china-plunder-american-tech-companies-opinion-1697054

    “The Biden administration has proposed a technical—but critical—change to U.S. patent policy that could have been drafted in Beijing. In fact, a Chinese front organization has formally endorsed the proposal, which will gut protection for an especially important type of American patents.

    Last December, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, along with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, issued the Draft Policy Statement on Licensing Negotiations and Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments.

    The Draft Policy, according to the Justice Department, would lead to “widespread and efficient licensing” by holders of standards-essential patents (SEPs) and thereby “promote technology innovation, further consumer choice and enable industry competitiveness.”

    As the Center for Strategic and International Studies notes in its public comment on the Draft Policy, the Justice Department promotes the change “as an effort to encourage good-faith licensing negotiations.”

    Standards are the technical specifications that “shape” products, services and processes. SEPs, which protect the technology included in standards, safeguard American economic leadership. SEPs defining 5G communications are held by American companies, for instance. Standards are a hotly contested tech battleground between the U.S. and China.

    America’s ability to develop new technologies is only as strong as its patents, and patents are only as strong as the rights of patent holders. The Draft Policy makes it extremely difficult, perhaps nearly impossible, for SEP holders to get federal court-ordered injunctions stopping uses of infringing products. The proposed change would even prevent the U.S. International Trade Commission from halting the importation of foreign infringing products.

    “The Draft Policy statement goes further than prior statements removing any leverage for SEP holders in license negotiations by expressly saying that monetary damages will usually fully compensate a SEP holder for infringement,” Brian Pomper, the executive director of the Innovation Alliance, told Newsweek. “Without injunctive relief, there is no downside for implementers to continue using technology in the hopes the SEP holder would not have the financial wherewithal to sustain a lengthy period trying to force the implementer to take a license.”

    This change would, as a practical matter, deny SEP holders the protection of American law. Even if a SEP holder obtained a judgment for money damages in a U.S. court, it would, in many if not most cases, have to sue infringers in their home country in order to enforce the American judgment. Enforcement of judgments in foreign courts invariably takes years, and is also expensive.

    Chinese parties, therefore, could blatantly infringe American patents. It is extremely unlikely that a court in China would rule in favor of an American patent holder against a Chinese company.”

    Like

  8. Jan. 6th was an FBI orchestrated and run operation from the start, just like the Whitmer “kidnapping” case.

    This is what Congress wastes their time on.

    ——-

    Like

  9. “The rise of the liberal groomer

    Not every desire deserves to be empowered”

    https://unherd.com/2022/04/the-rise-of-the-liberal-groomer/

    “Does progress have to mean the sexual liberation of children? Michel Foucault thought so, as did many of the now high-ranking Labour Party members who once supported the Paedophile Information Exchange. Sexual interest in children is hardly unique to the modern world, of course, or indeed the West. Child sex slaves were socially acceptable in ancient Rome, and the longstanding practice of bacha bazi in Afghanistan still sees young boys feminised and abused by adult men.

    Nor is paedophilia unique to the progressive Left. Just this week, Tory MP Imran Ahmad Khan was convicted of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old boy, prompting fellow Tory MP and LGBTQ advocate Crispin Blunt to declare angrily that Khan’s conviction was a “dreadful miscarriage of justice” and “nothing short of an international scandal”.

    But it’s also true that since the sexual revolution, there has been a knocking on the door of progressive respectability by individuals with an intense interest in assisting the sexual development of children, and sometimes — as in the case of Foucault — questionable motives for doing so. Such activists invariably come armed with the logic of liberalism: using phrases such as “agency”, “consent” and “education”. The resulting queasy blend of pleasure, freedom, education and adolescence burst into flames this week, with news of a theatre production, The Family Sex Show, coming to Bristol that offers “relationships and sex education” supposedly suitable for ages five and up.

    Cue public outrage, Mumsnet up in arms, and a petition to scrap the show that at the time of writing has more than 30,000 signatures. It’s a homegrown British version of an increasingly ferocious front in the American culture war in which both sides are entrenched, and convinced of their own righteousness. On one side stand those who argue for ever more extensive sex education in the name of LGBTQ youth and sexual emancipation in general. On the other stand those claiming to defend the authority of parents over their children, which they argue represents children’s best protection against inappropriate adult sexual attention.

    So far, this war has raged with characteristically American vigour. Recent examples are legion: Texans in uproar about “pornographic books” in schools; school masturbation lessons for six-year-olds; drag queens on Nickelodeon. American conservatives are now pushing back at this efflorescence of sex chat for children, calling the vanguards of kid-friendly sexual emancipation “groomers”. On a practical front, conservative states have seen a spate of legislation constraining (or seeking to constrain) the nature and extent of sexual content that may legally be delivered to children in schools.

    Advocates, meanwhile, are outraged at the “groomer” epithet. They argue it’s fine to be gay or kinky or non-binary or whatever, and that all sexual expression is acceptable provided everyone consents. For them, content of this kind simply normalises these perfectly acceptable identities, and helps to spread tolerance while ensuring LGBTQ youth feel represented and supported.

    This moral standoff is the logical end-point of a tug-of-war as old as liberalism: the question of who is responsible for shaping children — and to what ends. In Roman times, parental — well, patriarchal — authority over children was absolute, to the point of granting fathers the right to kill their children. It was the Christian faith that first ascribed universal personhood and dignity even to children, limiting the scope of this authority.

    Christian teaching, though, still held that children should submit to their parents. It was the liberalising thinkers at the wellspring of modernity who began winkling out people from under the authority of the church — and children from under the authority of their parents.

    John Locke, one of the original liberal thinkers, argued for the separation of church and state, and it’s no coincidence that he was also the first parenting pundit. His Some Thoughts Concerning Education was published in 1693, and heavily influenced the next smash-hit parenting guide: Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Emile, written in 1763.

    For Locke, education was essential. In his view, “of all the men we meet with, nine parts of ten are what they are, good or evil, useful or not, by their education”. Rousseau, meanwhile, was so convinced of its importance that, after concluding the family of his mistress Thérèse Levasseur wasn’t up to the job of raising the kids he fathered with her, he persuaded her to give them all away to the “foundling hospital”. In Confessions (1782), Rousseau admitted that he “trembled at the thought of entrusting them to a family ill brought up, to be still worse educated”. Presumably Rousseau thought the extremely high risk of his children dying in an orphanage a less fearful prospect than seeing his educational ideas poorly executed by the woman he repeatedly impregnated but refused to marry.

    In any case, this left both Locke — who never fathered children — and Rousseau equally free to theorise about education, freedom and human nature, innocent of any hands-on experience with actual children. And this blind spot has cast a long shadow since, for emancipating children is, to say the least, a paradoxical undertaking.”

    Locke and Rousseau envisaged humans as autonomous, rational and capable of making decisions. But anyone with practical experience of how helplessly dependent a baby is, or how magnificently unreasonable toddlers can be, knows there’s considerable ground to cover before you can describe your child as in any way rational or capable of making sensible choices. And getting them to the point where they can do this takes decidedly non-liberal methods, including providing direct moral instruction with the aim of eventually producing an independent, self-governing adult. Liberal citizens capable of making the most of freedom don’t just appear in a vacuum; you have to make them.”

    Like

  10. Pass the popcorn please. 🙂

    And put this man on watch before the Clintons can suicide him.

    “Court: Clinton Campaign Lawyer Michael Sussman Must Stand Trial Over Alleged Lies To FBI In Russia Probe

    Denies motion to dismiss. So the case is going to trial unless Sussman turns state’s evidence and brings Clinton World crashing down.”

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/04/court-clinton-campaign-lawyer-michael-sussman-must-stand-trial-alleged-lies-to-fbi-in-russia-probe/

    “The case brought by Special Counsel John Durham against former Clinton lawyer Michael Sussman is going to trial. The court just denied Sussman’s motion to dismiss the prosecution, and trial is scheduled for next month.

    The crux of the Indictment against Sussman is that he was part of a conspiracy to mislead the FBI (and the public) that there was a secret computer connection between the Trump campaign and a Russian bank. The alleged crime was lying to the FBI by stating that he (Sussman) was bringing the information to the FBI on his own and not on behalf of his client, the Clinton campaign, when the FBI alleges the opposite was true.

    As I explained at the time, the Indictment of Campaign Lawyer Demonstrates How Hillary Clinton Is The Most Systemically Manipulative Politician Of Our Lifetime:

    The Indictment of Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussman for allegedly lying to the FBI has a lot of people grumbling about how long it took prosecutor John Durham to finally come up with an indictment of someone with regard to the Russia collusion hoax. And even then, while Sussman was an important lawyer at an important Democrat operative law firm, his indictment has a “that’s it?” feel to it.

    But, the 27-page Indictment is a wealth of information, and hopefully a roadmap to wider and more substantial prosecutions (you can’t take my hope away!). What the indictment demonstrates is that the Russia collusion claim leveled against Donald Trump and the Trump campaign was a fabrication of Hillary Clinton operatives who peddled the fraud to the media and FBI, allowing Clinton to use the media reports in the campaign against Trump.

    Much like the fabricated Steele Dossier, also paid for and arranged by Clinton operatives, Hillary Clinton and Clintonworld perpetrated a massive fraud on the American public which not only manipulated the election process but also froze the Trump presidency and nearly paralyzed the nation politically for years.

    We have had some pretty terrible politicians in our lifetime, and it’s always dangerous to say “the worst” — but the Russia collusion hoax fabricated by Hillary Clinton operatives proves beyond little doubt that Hillary Clinton is the most systemically manipulative politician of our lifetime.

    Durham has dropped various bombshells in court filings, including how Hillary’s Campaign Spied On Trump Tower, Trump Apartment Bldg, White House Internet Traffic.

    Sussman moved to dismiss the criminal charges against asserting that the conduct alleged by the government was not criminal because the goverment had not alleged that his comments about who he did or did not represesent were not “material” as required by the statute.

    The court dispatched the motion to dismiss in a 6-page Order.”

    Like

  11. About time they stop letting biased leftist run the debates.

    Like

  12. Clowns.

    This is the kind of stuff they worry about instead of watching people on the terrorist watch lists.

    —-

    Like

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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter 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.