34 thoughts on “News/Politics 5-3-22

  1. He’s correct.

    And that’s still a man.

    Like

  2. She’s correct too.

    ——-

    ——-

    ——-

    ——-

    So is Greg….

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I’d note they haven’t said who the plagiarist posing as a reporter was…

    “NBC News Reveals Plagiarism Scandal; Discloses 11 Articles Were Improperly Sourced”

    https://www.mediaite.com/news/nbc-news-reveals-plagiarism-scandal-discloses-11-articles-were-improperly-sourced/

    “NBC News announced that they had unearthed repeated acts of plagiarism in their reports, and they are taking steps to address it.

    NBC posted a public statement about the matter on Monday, explaining that 11 instances of improper sourcing were detected, and editor’s notes have been attached to the stories involved.

    From the announcement:

    To our readers:

    A review by NBC News has found 11 articles written by a reporter over the last year that did not meet our standards for original material. The articles contained passages from other news organizations that were used without attribution.

    In all cases, the passages were not central to the stories, but instead contained supplemental or background material that did not represent original reporting.

    An editor’s note has been placed on each of the articles, and the passages that were plagiarized have been removed.

    Maintaining the trust of our readers and viewers is essential to NBC News, and our work must always meet the highest standards of our profession.

    NBC’s statement does not identify the offending reporter, nor any repercussions they may have received. Mediaite heard from a source within NBC News, however, who confirmed the reporter is former politics writer Teaganne Finn, who is “no longer with NBC News.””

    Like

  4. Not surprising, since NBC is garbage, as is The Atlantic.

    ——–

    Correct Elon…

    ——–

    ——–

    ——–

    Garbage in, garbage out.

    Like

  5. Woke up to find this today.

    Please let it be true. 🙂

    ———

    Like

  6. So who leaked it?

    ———

    ——–

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Reactions from the Gollums on the left are as you would expect when their Precious is threatened.

    ——–

    She means futures of those not killed in the womb….

    ——-

    You are a disgrace to the clergy you fraud.

    ———

    ———

    ——-

    Honestly, they could care less about dead babies, it’s all about the campaign cash from the murderous abortion industry with these disgusting people. Don’t forget that.

    Like

  8. But it’s not in the curriculum they say…..

    As if that matters…..

    Like

  9. He’s not wrong….

    ——–

    Like

  10. Again, so who leaked it?

    “An Egregious Leak”

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/05/an-egregious-leak/

    “If a Politico report based on a shocking leak is accurate, the Supreme Court is poised to overrule its wayward abortion precedents when it decides Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, the case involving Mississippi’s law banning most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

    If the news is true, our reaction mixes joy with indignation.

    The leak includes a 98-page draft opinion said to have been authored by Justice Samuel Alito and circulated within the Court in February, on behalf of a five-justice majority that emerged after Dobbs was argued in December. That majority reportedly includes four other conservative justices: Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. The report, based on an unidentified source within the Court, indicates that dissents are being written by the Court’s three progressive justices (Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan). The source says it is unclear how Chief Justice John Roberts has voted on the case. CNN claims to have unnamed “sources saying that Roberts would vote to uphold Mississippi’s law but does not want to overturn Roe v. Wade.”

    Had Roberts been in the majority, it would have fallen to him as chief justice to assign the majority opinion — a task he has been wont to assign to himself in major cases. If the chief justice is not in the majority, the opinion is assigned by the most senior justice in the majority. If the report is accurate, that would be Justice Thomas, a close ally of Alito on most issues, including abortion cases.

    While the report indicates that the majority that formed in February is still intact, voting frequently shifts as the justices refine the original conference vote into written opinions. Those opinions, too, are often edited as the justices exchange views. What is said in a February draft is not necessarily what will appear in a June ruling.

    That said, the draft opinion reflects a welcome repudiation of Roe, a debacle that barely pretended to grapple with the Constitution in purporting to discover within it a fundamental right to terminate the life of unborn children. It would also scrap Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which struggled to retain Roe’s bottom-line ruling while overhauling its embarrassingly infirm underpinnings.

    As we have repeatedly pointed out, a reversal of the Court’s gratuitous intrusion into the political controversy over abortion would not outlaw the procedure. The Left’s sky-is-falling hysteria notwithstanding, such a ruling would merely restore democratic self-determination. The federal courts would end their usurpation, and the states and perhaps Congress would decide whether to permit abortion, and how extensively to regulate it. Some legislatures are ready to protect unborn life; others would doubtless fortify legal abortion.

    Our outrage stems from the apparent leak of an opinion.

    The legitimacy of the Supreme Court’s vital constitutional duty to pronounce authoritatively what the law is in cases where it is called to do so hinges on the integrity of its process. The Court has thus been admirably disciplined about maintaining the secrecy of its deliberations until rulings are announced. Without that discipline, the Court’s decision-making would be subjected to intense political pressure — the very antithesis of a system that insulates the judiciary from politics so that cases can be decided pursuant to law, without fear or favor. The Court’s vital constitutional role, vindicating a rule of law not men, would be destroyed. Worse, the leak could inspire violence against the Court or the justices.

    Either would be intolerable.”

    ——-

    If the leak is accurate, then it looks like the faux conservative Roberts betrayed his so-called “principles” yet again….

    Like

  11. Just a reminder, some states would ban it, others run by Democrats, would not. It wouldn’t end abortion, just reduce the numbers greatly. That’s still a win for pro-lifers.

    ——-

    https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/scotus-critics-blast-leaked-ruling-end-abortion-rights-issue-survives-state

    “Critics blast leaked SCOTUS ruling as end of abortion rights, but issue would survive in states

    The opinion itself notes that it does not spell the end for legal abortion in the U.S. but rather returns authority to Congress and the states to regulate the practice.”

    Like

  12. Yep. Which is probably why it was leaked in the first place.

    ——-

    Like I said, it would greatly reduce the numbers… 🙂

    Like

  13. AJ, sadly I don’t share your optimism that it would reduce the numbers. No state has (or will) outright ban it, those where it it completely legal are offering to transport in anyone “needing” it, and I also suspect that the current administration in DC will very rapidly pass a law makeing it legal up to full term, everywhere. I really don’t understand the hope and glee over this even being at the Supreme Court level – it won’t change anything.

    Like

  14. There is something good about the court speaking the truth that the ‘right’ the justices claimed they found in the constitution is not in the constitution. It is a step going in the right direction. People will find out the whole sky is not falling because Roe vs Wade is reversed. Many states will codify Roe, and some already have in preparation. I am sure my liberal state will do so. Sad in my opinion. Every step making abortion more difficult will save some lives. Ultimately, hearts have to be changed, of course. They have to be changed to fear God, believe He is sovereign and will help us whatever our difficulties are. Christians are to be light and salt and need to step up and speak the truth on abortion as on everything else. Many groups have already been preparing to help women who will need help. We also need to be doing that as individuals.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. Linda,

    Disagree. If states are free to decide, then many more will go the way Texas and some others have recently. As you can see above at 7:57, it’s already made a difference in Texas. And the Supreme Court has already ruled states have the right to do what Texas did, Texas’ law withstood a SC challenge already, so challenges to new laws would be mute.

    As for codifying it in federal law, that would take 60 votes to do. They don’t have the numbers for that. If they nuke the filibuster so a 51 vote majority can, then when R’s take back Congress in Nov. they undo it with 51 votes in 2024.

    Now granted this won’t eliminate abortion by any means, but it might make it less prevalent. It may make adoption a more appealing option to women as well. That’s still a win.

    Like

  16. It’s about time….

    What took you so long?

    “Ukraine Updates: Russian Priests Speak Out Against War, U.S. Aid Package Will Target Oligarchs”

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/05/ukraine-updates-russian-priests-speak-out-against-war-u-s-aid-package-will-target-oligarchs/

    “It’s Day 68 of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

    Russian priests have spoken out against the war despite threats of prison and fines.

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) also announced that the new Ukraine aid package will include actions against Russian oligarchs.”

    ——–

    “Russian Oligarchs
    President Joe Biden wants Congress to send Ukraine a $33 billion aid package.

    Schumer said they will target the oligarchs:

    “Ukraine needs all the help it can get and, at the same time, we need all the assets we can put together to give Ukraine the aid it needs,” Schumer said at a media briefing in New York City.

    President Joe Biden asked Congress to approve $33 billion in assistance for Kyiv on Thursday in what would mark a dramatic escalation of U.S. funding for Ukraine more than two months after it was invaded by Russia. read more

    His administration also asked lawmakers to include provisions to help it seize more assets, liquidate them and send Ukraine the money.

    Schumer said the provisions being added would streamline the forfeiture process for oligarch-owned properties in the United States, while allowing for expedited reviews in federal court, as requested by the White House.

    They would also make it a criminal offense to knowingly possess proceeds obtained from “corrupt dealings” with the Russian government, he said.

    “It’s time for sanctioned Russian oligarchs to be held accountable for the ill-gotten wealth that they have received,” Schumer said.

    Russian Priests
    The Russian Orthodox Church remains behind Putin’s war in Ukraine. Leader Patrick Kirill boasted that God is on Putin’s side.

    However, priests within the church spokes out against the war. They face punishment and sanctions while doing so.

    Father Georgy Edelshtein, 89, spoke to AFP:

    “I’d like to see one or two of my opponents sitting right here,” the 89-year-old says, pointing to an empty armchair in his living room full of gilded icons.

    The white-bearded priest in a black cassock is one of the few Russian Orthodox priests to have spoken out against Moscow’s military operation in Ukraine.

    In a quavering voice, but without hesitation, he explains: “I’m afraid I am a bad priest. I’ve never been against all wars but I’ve always been against any land-grabbing, aggressive war.”

    Ukraine “is an independent state and let them build their state as they see necessary,” he tells AFP in his house in the hamlet of Novo-Bely Kamen on the banks of the River Volga in the Kostroma region, a six-hour drive from Moscow.

    Edelshtein signed a letter by a fellow priest, Father Ioann Burdin, which condemned the war: “The blood of Ukrainian residents will remain on the hands not only of the rulers of Russia and soldiers carrying out this order. Their blood is on the hands of each of us who approve this war or simply remain silent.”

    Investigators brought in Burdin after he “preached about the human cost of the ongoing fighting.”

    They ordered Burdin to pay a 35,000 rubles ($489) fine “for ‘discrediting’ the armed forces.” If Burdin repeats these “offenses” he can face up to three years in prison.

    A woman told the court: “During the sermon, Father Burdin… told us that he was going to pray for Ukraine.”

    Burdin has not stopped speaking out against the war” “For me, the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ is unconditional.”

    Burdin hinted others might feel the same way he does but the threat against them is too great to say anything:

    He says few priests oppose the conflict because many are susceptible to “propaganda”, combined with the fear of sanctions and prosecution.

    Burdin, who teams his black cassock with a baseball cap and has a Telegram channel, says police have photographed his house and car.”

    Like

  17. I’d like to buy a clue Pat……

    Oh look, the media is finally catching on to what’s been obvious for over a year. So when will they admit they pushed false narratives?

    “Media is Slowly Coming Around to Idea that Covid Vaccines Aren’t as Effective as Advertised

    “A pandemic of — and by — the unvaccinated is not correct.””

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/05/media-is-slowly-coming-around-to-idea-that-covid-vaccines-arent-as-effective-as-advertised/

    “To begin with, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal revealed that state health data indicate the vaccinated are contracting covid at about the same rates as the vaccinated. Interestingly, the disparity in health outcomes has also become less substantial.

    The [Wisconsin department of Health Services] DHS found that in March, those not fully vaccinated were being diagnosed with COVID-19 at a similar rate as those who were fully vaccinated. To be exact, people not fully vaccinated were diagnosed with COVID-19 at a rate 1.1 times higher than people who were fully vaccinated. The state attributes this finding to the omicron variant.

    Differences in hospitalization and death rates were also significantly smaller than previous months. According to March data, people not fully vaccinated were hospitalized at a rate 2.4 times higher than fully vaccinated people, and they died at a 3.4 times higher rate.

    When the DHS last reported illness after vaccination data it was in January with December data, it found residents not fully vaccinated were 10 times more likely to be hospitalized and 14 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than the fully vaccinated.

    The Washington Post also reported that the disparity in fatality rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated elderly patients was dwindling. However, the article also continued to toe the line on vaccinations.

    The pandemic’s toll is no longer falling almost exclusively on those who chose not to or could not get shots, with vaccine protection waning over time and the elderly and immunocompromised — who are at greatest risk of succumbing to covid-19, even if vaccinated — having a harder time dodging increasingly contagious strains.

    The vaccinated made up 42 percent of fatalities in January and February during the highly contagious omicron variant’s surge, compared with 23 percent of the dead in September, the peak of the delta wave, according to nationwide data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed by The Post. The data is based on the date of infection and limited to a sampling of cases in which vaccination status was known.

    …“It’s still absolutely more dangerous to be unvaccinated than vaccinated,” said Andrew Noymer, a public health professor at the University of California at Irvine who studies covid-19 mortality. “A pandemic of — and by — the unvaccinated is not correct. People still need to take care in terms of prevention and action if they became symptomatic.””

    Like

  18. Well we have confirmation, the leak is real.

    Like

  19. Hillary committed treason and must pay.

    https://www.theepochtimes.com/durham-alerts-judge-to-federal-ruling-against-hillary-clinton-dnc_4442646.html

    “Special Counsel John Durham on May 2 alerted the judge presiding over the case against a former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer of fines the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) paid after a federal body found probable cause that they violated election laws.

    Durham filed the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and conciliation agreements that the campaign and the DNC entered into with the FEC along with paying the fines for what the FEC described as probable violations of laws governing the reporting of political entity disbursements.

    At issue is the Democrat entities’ ties to Fusion GPS, a firm that specializes in opposition research.

    The entities primarily paid Fusion GPS through a law firm they tapped, Perkins Coie.

    The payments were described as for legal services but actually went to Fusion to perform opposition research on former President Donald Trump, at the time Clinton’s rival for the presidency.

    “Specifically, the FEC found ‘probable cause to believe’ that the DNC and [the Clinton campaign] improperly reported their payments to Perkins Coie for Fusion GPS’s opposition research as ‘legal and compliance consulting,’” Durham told U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, an Obama appointee, in the new filing.

    The special counsel attached the documents to a motion to compel the Clinton campaign, the DNC, Fusion, and Perkins to produce documents that the parties are withholding or producing in redacted forms based on claims they contain attorney-client communications or other privileged material.

    Durham argues that Fusion did not provide legal services to the other parties, rendering the privilege claims moot—a position bolstered by the FEC’s findings.

    The parties say Fusion was helping Perkins in its provision of legal advice to the campaign and the DNC.”

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Yes you clown, that is how it works when they aren’t killed in the womb.

    It’s pathetic that our tax dollars pay these hacks.

    ——

    Liked by 1 person

  21. ——

    Like

  22. Another clueless hack put in office by idiot Democrat voters.

    She has no idea how the 3 branches of govt work.

    ———

    Like

  23. No, this is the best they have.

    ———

    Like

  24. Well no…. not those, of course.

    Hypocrites.

    ——-

    Indeed.

    Like

  25. Oh look, horse drugs are now a good thing….

    Hypocrites….

    ——

    Like

  26. Something to keep in mind as the pro-abortion left loses their’s….

    ——–

    As the Florida “don’t say gay” law, which never actually said that shows us, the left’s narratives are impervious to facts and truth.

    Like

  27. ———

    Like

  28. I’m amused by the irony of a Supreme Court ending the “right to privacy” upset it’s privacy has been violated.

    Yes, this will motivate the Democratic base in November. Abortion is a white middle class and a black working class issue — the Democratic base.

    And yes it will very little effect on the actual number of abortions performed in the US. In comparison to pre-Roe vs Wade, its far easier to find information on abortion providers outside your state and Plan B is dispensed quite easily. And there is very little correlation to the rules in place and the abortion rate in a country or state. I’ve compared different country rates in the past and the US despite having strict rules already in place has one of the higher rates in the OECD. Canada, on the opposite end with no rules, is in the middle of the pack in terms of abortion rates.

    I have my doubts about the Texas abortion rates. Poland claims a near zero rate of abortion but visits to a Swedish aunt are newly popular. Previously, Irish women also visited “aunts” in Liverpool. Mexico decriminalized abortion last year — much like an other medical procedure, I’m sure abortions are available across the border and are popular and far cheaper. Those health clinics which cater to Americans are up to American standards.

    I do wonder how repealing Roe vs Wade will affect other privacy rights.

    In some respects, this is all an unnecessary gov’t intrusion, abortion rates have been declining since 1980. Its now below pre Roe vs Wade. Pro-life won the information war and the moral argument; trying to win the legal argument might be a step too far.

    Instituting strict abortion laws is not a complete pro-life policy. Calling a fetus a pre-born child and then charging the fetus a fee to enter the world is rather bizarre. Once born, no provisions are made for its care other than what the parent can afford or the insurance company permits. For the mother, the risk of death during pregnancy and delivery is far higher in the US than in other developed countries. The US rate is 17 deaths per 100,000 births, Canada is 7 and the most of Europe is around 5 to 2 per 100, 000. I criticize Poland’s abortion policies but they do walk the talk and have a complete pro-life policy. They have one of the lowest maternal death rates in the world, post natal care is exception for its wealth, government child income supports are high and education is extremely good.

    If lowering the abortion rate was a Republican aim, providing free medical care is a no-brainer — it would lower abortions and maternal deaths. Furthermore providing post natal care and income supports would also go a long way to lower abortion rate. Its rather sad and an indication of the immorality of capitalism that finances are a consideration in abortions. Instead of using the heavy hand of the government (not exactly a conservative principle) eliminate reasons for abortions.

    Like

  29. Roe was made up. There is no such right in the Constitution. This just restores the obvious.

    This will not bring new voters to Democrats, and given what they’ve lost in Hispanic and Black voters, they bleeding supporters. This does nothing but keep those voting for them that were going to anyway.

    But you just keep whistlin’ past the graveyard…. 🙂

    Moloch and his followers in the Dem party can cry all they want, but it won’t change a thing. 🙂

    ——-

    You’ve been shown before that your statistics on birth/deaths are garbage, as are the sources for them. I’ll not waste my time yet again.

    And just a reminder…..

    Liked by 1 person

  30. I put the “right to privacy” in quotes because I actually agree. It was a construct to legalize abortion.

    Abortion rates and maternal rates are relatively accurate. The measurement of abortion rates do vary but the general comparison between countries and the change over time is accurate no matter how you measure it. No matter the sources or numbers, the comparisons and difference in rates are similar.

    No matter how you feel about my statistics, the idea that a pro-life policy includes child income support, free health care and maternity leave is not wrong. America’s maternal death rate is incredibly high and the lack of maternity leave makes one wonder how valued mother and child really are. Every country, except the US, has paid maternity leave — its a pro-life pro-family policy.

    The key word in Posobeic’s tweet is “elective”. Far more than seven countries allow abortions after 20 weeks in the case of the woman’s health (physical or mental), fetal defects, rape etc. Generally all of Europe, except Poland, have liberal policies on abortion that exceed the 20 weeks Prosobein mentions.

    And this does not eliminate my claim that there is very little correlation between abortion laws and abortion rates. A simple comparison between Canada and the US indicates the law does not make a difference — Canada’s abortion rate is far lower than the US despite having no rules. You want to lower abortion rates — don’t rely on the heavy hand of the state, eliminate the perceived need for abortions.

    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.