31 thoughts on “News/Politics 5-6-22

  1. They’ve gone full on communist now.

    First the Disinformation Czar who does nothing but push disinformation and propaganda, and now this…

    “Attorney General Unveils “Office Of Environmental Justice” As Part Of Biden’s “Enforcement Strategy”…”


  2. When this goes wrong, blame the White House. Psaki hack was just pointing out how America protests like these are and how they encourage this.

    I wonder if she’s feel the same if we protested at her house?

    This is an intimidation tactic, nothing more.

    “Liberal group calls for protests at conservative Supreme Court justices’ homes”


    “Left-wing activist groups are planning to send protesters to the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices following a leak indicating the court may soon overturn Roe v. Wade.

    The activists are organizing under the moniker “Ruth Sent Us” and have published the supposed home addresses of Justices Amy Coney Barrett, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

    “Our 6-3 extremist Supreme Court routinely issues rulings that hurt women, racial minorities, LGBTQ+ and immigrant rights,” the group’s website reads. “We must rise up to force accountability using a diversity of tactics.”

    Fox News is told there has been a strong police presence at the justices’ homes following the leak. The group says they will visit the homes on May 11.

    The D.C. Police Department has erected fencing around the Supreme Court building in anticipation of escalating protests this weekend. Police have also activated protest-response units through Sunday.”


  3. Grifters grift, it’s what they do.

    “Stacey Abrams-tied loan firm shifted its liabilities to U.S. taxpayers, and it paid off handsomely

    Once portrayed as person of modest means, Georgia activist now a millionaire who earned $300k from loan business in single year, ethics disclosure shows.”


    “Stacey Abrams’ net worth skyrocketed over 2,800% in just three years thanks in part to her holdings in a company called Now Corp. (previously called NowAccount or “Now”), a Government Accountability Institute study has found.

    In 2018, Abrams reported a net worth of just $109,000 in her personal financial disclosure ahead of her failed 2018 gubernatorial bid in Georgia. Now, as she heads into the 2022 gubernatorial race, Abrams’ campaign filings show her net worth is more than $3.17 million after making more than $6 million in book advances, speaking deals and growing corporate investments like NowAccount.

    Abrams cofounded the NowAccount financial technology (“fintech”) start-up in 2010 with business partners Lara Hodgson and John Hayes. Their business got off to a slow start, but NowAccount was able to pay Abrams $80,000 in salary in her first year as senior vice president and $60,000 per year in subsequent years.

    In 2013, Abrams’ fintech company pulled in just $100,000 in annual revenue, but thanks to a federal small business loan program overseen by the state of Georgia, NowAccount would soon have the power to distribute nearly $10 million in taxpayer funds to its network of applicants. By 2016, NowAccount’s applicants were defaulting on their loans, and taxpayers were left to bail out more than $1.5 million in bad loans.

    In 2018, the year Abrams ran for Georgia governor the first time, NowAccount paid her nearly $300,000—a dramatic increase—her financial disclosure shows.

    NowAccount’s value spiked in October 2021 after a $29 million financing and investment deal that the company made with two private equity firms. Abrams, who has owned as much as 16% of NowAccount, announced her 2022 bid for governor on Dec. 1 — less than eight weeks after the $29 million windfall.

    Abrams was the minority leader of the Georgia House from 2011 until she resigned ahead of her 2018 run for governor. The fact that her business got federally backed state contracts while she held high-level positions in the state Legislature drew sharp criticism during her first gubernatorial campaign in 2018. Abrams told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that she “played no role in securing the state contracts” for NowAccount and that she “scrupulously avoided conflicts of interest,” the outlet reported in 2018.

    The decision to apply for taxpayer funding under the 2010 Jobs Act was Abrams’ idea. “I read the Jobs Act,” Abrams said. “I brought the provision to” NowAccount’s cofounders. Abrams was aware that her role as minority leader of the Georgia House might pose a conflict so she “talked about it” with her cofounders and said, “Here’s what we can do,” but she emphasized that she “did not want there to be any conflict at all.”

    One of the firms associated with Abrams’ NowAccount was Happy Faces Personnel Group, Inc. Happy Faces was the election night staffing firm hired to scan and count ballots in Atlanta’s Fulton County on election night, Nov. 3, 2020.

    According to a devastating 29-page witness report by election observer Carter Jones, Happy Faces presided over a “massive chain of custody problem” when absentee ballots came “in rolling bins 2k at a time” rather than “in numbered, sealed boxes to protect [the ballots].”

    Hired by the Georgia Secretary of State’s office to report on any voting or counting irregularities, Jones was shocked when he found out that one Happy Faces employee revealed his election night intention to “f@#$ s@#$ up.”

    Happy Faces has denied consummating any financial relationship with the company cofounded by Abrams, but financial records indicate that NowAccount was listed as a “secured party” for Happy Faces.”


  4. Of course….

    The R establishment are an enemy of the party.

    “J.D. Vance And The New Right Are Racking Up Wins, While The Establishment Stabs At Their Backs”


    ““What is conservative?” columnist Bret Stephens asked in Tuesday’s New York Times.

    “It is,” he posits, “above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus.”

    Stephens was responding to the broad conservative and Christian excitement that America’s extreme abortion regime might finally be struck down by the Supreme Court; but Stephens might as well have been writing about J.D. Vance’s hard-fought Tuesday night victory in Ohio’s Republican primary. Or Blake Master’s primary race to represent Arizona. Or Tucker Carlson’s intellectual ascendancy. Or the rise of a young and invigorated American New Right.

    Stephens is wrong, of course. Conservatism isn’t remotely about process: It’s about traditional wisdom and values; it’s about conserving things of generational, transcendent value.

    It means understanding that man is fallen, and society must protect families, workers, traditions, and, yes, the unborn from being wiped aside; oppressed from above.

    It means conserving the truth — the truth about men and women, the truth about the unborn, the truth about human equality, and the necessary limits on government power.

    That’s not to say there isn’t still an important place for process: In a civilization governed by prudent and benevolent institutions that buttress and strengthen traditional wisdom and values, process protects those cherished things from rapid change.

    In a world governed by imprudent and vindictive institutions, however, that claw, gnash, and tear at traditional wisdom — that usurp traditional values — the “process” merely fools us into believing that what these institutions are doing is normal, when in reality it is profoundly abnormal.

    In the September 1961 issue of Young Americans for Freedom’s New Guard magazine, a young M. Stanton Evans asked, “Can a conservative be a radical?” Yes, he concluded: “Confronted with an established revolution, the conservative must seek to change the status quo; he has no other means of affirming his tradition.”

    Vance understands this. That is why, Axios’s Jonathan Swan and Lachlan Markay report, “The Republican establishment privately regards [him] with the same disgust many felt toward Donald Trump when he entered the White House on Jan. 20, 2017.”

    It’s why Senate Minority Whip John Thune looked forward to reading the coverage of Vance’s loss.

    It’s why one “senior Republican aide told The Hill 70 percent of Senate Republicans share that sentiment.”

    The reality is, they should all fear Vance. He’s a man who doesn’t “care if Google is a private company, because they have too much power; and if you want to have a country where people can live their lives freely, you have to be concerned about power — whether it’s concentrated in the government or concentrated in big corporations.”

    He thinks our corporate overlords would happily satiate us with whirling gizmos and gadgets while capturing our culture and selling us out to China. This places him directly at odds with tired, established Republicanism, which would prefer to slander the ghost of Ronald Reagan while they simp for corporations that work to undermine our national economy, our traditions, our families, and even our children’s sexuality.

    Vance is also a man who doesn’t “really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another,” and thinks “it’s ridiculous that we are focused on” their border over our own.

    Far more than Ukraine, he cares “about the fact that in [his] community right now, the leading cause of death among 18- to 45-year-olds is Mexican fentanyl.” This places him directly at odds with all of established Washington, where $5 billion for our country’s border security is too much to ask, but politicians crow about sending six times that amount to defend the sacred territorial integrity of another’s.

    Vance is a man who thinks, “If any of us want to do the things that we want to do for our country and for the people who live in it, we have to honestly and aggressively attack the universities in this country.”

    “So much of what we want to accomplish,” he recognizes, is “…fundamentally dependent on going through a set of very hostile institutions, specifically the universities, which control the knowledge in our society, which control what we call truth and what we call falsity, that provides research that gives credibility to some of the most ridiculous ideas that exist in our country.”

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Like I said, purely for intimidation and harassment purposes.


    I’m sure Garland will be right on that, like never.




    Yes, yes you are.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. It is disgusting that there is no protest from the Whitehouse on the leak or the protests at the homes of justices. There is nothing new about the three parts of our government all jockeying for power, but I never thought things would go bad so fast.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Getting back to that particular misleading tweet from yesterday. We can’t condemn the misleading and false information shared by those on the other side of an issue, but give a pass to that stuff by folks on our side of an issue just because we agree with the gist of it. Making up a chart, boiling down reasons one disagrees with to “no reason”, and then claiming it is from a well-known source is not only misleading, it is lying.


  8. Like I keep telling you, the numbers are there.

    Her delivery may be lacking and not to your tastes, but the facts remain the majority are for selfish reasons with under 7% for what could be called legit reasons. I even showed you the source for the chart was from a PBS link.

    But you keep ignoring that.

    So I’m done with that.


  9. But her point is the misleading tweet, right? It’s not about the numbers “being there” or not (and we did discuss those yesterday); it’s about the misinformation issue we all deal with continually, on both sides, via beloved sites such as Twitter and other social media. It’s a big part of what’s creating havoc in the nation right now. A separate issue.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. What she found misleading in the tweet was the graph, which came from a PBS link. Take it up with them.


  11. Oh look, another Jew hater in the Biden admin, this time as their official mouth piece.

    “Biden Taps Anti-Israel Activist, CNN Spouse as White House Press Sec

    Karine Jean-Pierre takes the podium after stints with MoveOn.Org and Kamala Harris.”


    “The White House announced on Thursday that Karine Jean-Pierre, a veteran anti-Israel activist who is married to CNN correspondent Suzanne Malveaux, will replace outgoing press secretary Jen Psaki, raising potential ethical quandaries.

    The announcement drew celebratory headlines in the mainstream press: Jean Pierre is the first black woman and openly gay person to serve in the role.

    But her relationship with CNN reporter raises ethical questions about her new role. The White House did not respond to a request for comment about whether Jean Pierre would recuse herself in dealing with CNN. Malveaux’s colleagues include Valerie Jarrett’s daughter, CNN justice correspondent Laura Jarrett, and Israel ambassador Tom Nides’s wife, Virginia Moseley, who serves as CNN’s senior vice president of news gathering.

    Jean-Pierre’s anti-Israel past—which includes a stint as senior adviser and national spokeswoman for MoveOn.org, a far-left anti-Israel group that advocates for boycotts of the Jewish state—is raising red flags in the pro-Israel community. The selection of an Israel critic is also likely to further strain ties with the pro-Israel community and Israeli government, which already is strongly opposed to the Biden administration’s efforts to ink a new nuclear deal with Iran.

    Jean-Pierre has been open about her animosity towards the Jewish state. She has accused Israel of committing “war crimes” and has backed efforts to boycott the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the United States’ most prominent pro-Israel lobbying shop, cheering Democrats in 2019 for boycotting the group’s annual gathering in Washington, D.C., for “boldly [chose] to prioritize diplomacy and human rights over the power of a lobbying organization.” AIPAC, she claimed, helped the Trump administration “sabotage” the Iran nuclear deal and also “supported the group that’s credited with inspiring President Trump to enact the Muslim Ban and has been known to spread anti-Muslim racism.” She accused the group without evidence of trafficking in “severely racist, Islamophobic rhetoric.”

    Ellie Cohanim, who served as the State Department’s deputy special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism during the Trump administration, told the Free Beacon that Jean-Pierre’s promotion sends the wrong signal during a time of rising anti-Semitism.

    “”Joe Biden’s promotion of Jean-Pierre signals to all would-be Israel haters that their efforts will be rewarded with White House appointments and promotions!” Cohanim said. “At a time of rising anti-Semitism in America, Biden’s promotion of Jean-Pierre is exactly the wrong signal to send.”

    “Promoting Jean-Pierre further proves the point that the Democrat party has become a breeding ground of anti-Israel hostility that goes right up to the White House,” Cohanim added.”


  12. And really, if disinformation is truly your concern, there’s bigger fish to fry, yet I’ve heard nothing from you two on the things I’ve posted of her spreading lies on video to far more people than some tweeter. Your complaints only seem to target one side. That’s weird, right?



  13. Bigger fish….



  14. ——-


  15. Of course….



  16. Because the cowards in the White House support the killing of babies right up until birth, and those willing to riot to preserve that made up “right”.


    And that is true.


  17. Paraphrasing will get you in trouble…. Even when it’s true.


  18. ——-


  19. Just a reminder, what Biden and leftists are calling for is illegal and a crime.


    “42 U.S. Code § 1985 – Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights”

    “(1)Preventing officer from performing duties
    If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;

    (2)Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror
    If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;”


  20. If we are, then I’m proud of it.

    “Dem Rep. Hakeem Jeffries Says Pro-Life Americans Are Part Of A “Cult”…”

    What this hack ignores is that he’s advocating for the largest cult in the world, the murderous pro-kill babies cult.

    Here’s another acolyte, like Biden, and every other Dem but 2.

    “Elizabeth Warren Refuses To Name Any Limitations On Abortion She Supports…”


  21. Winning voters?


    “Abortion Activists Vandalize a Catholic Church in Boulder for the Second Time in Seven Months

    “Once again a parish community showed up for a morning mass and had to walk in and witness that their parish had been targeted. I hate to say it. I was not surprised to learn of this, this morning.”


    “Because we all know the Sacred Heart of Mary Church in Boulder, CO, totally had a say in Justice Alito’s leaked opinion overturning Roe v. Wade.

    However, it’s the second time infanticide activists targeted the church in less than a year!

    Archdiocese spokesman Mark Haas told CBS4: “Once again a parish community showed up for a morning mass and had to walk in and witness that their parish had been targeted. I hate to say it. I was not surprised to learn of this, this morning.”

    From The Denver Post:

    Property and statues at Sacred Heart of Mary Church, 6739 S. Boulder Road, were damaged overnight with graffiti bearing abortion-rights messages and one window was shattered, officials with the Archdiocese of Denver said Wednesday.

    “My Body My Choice” was painted on a door of the church and “Keep Your Religion Off Our Bodies” on an exterior wall. A pickup truck was damaged with graffiti, as were statues.

    A similar attack happened at the church in September, said Mark Haas, an archdiocese spokesman, in an email.

    “We knew that the upcoming Supreme Court decision might lead to this again, so I can’t say we were entirely surprised this morning,” Haas said. “We’ve certainly had internal discussions on simple ways parishes can improve their security.”

    The Boulder County Sheriff’s Office is investigating the incident. A monetary estimate of the damage was not available Wednesday.”


  22. AJ – It surprises me that you don’t catch up on the rest of the comments from a previous day. That link was not from PBS, the TV network. As I commented last night:

    “Re: the link you gave to where the chart came from: “The pbs.twimg.com subdomain is Twitter’s image-hosting domain and PBS stands for “Photo Blobstore.” ”

    So this seems to mean what I thought from the beginning, that the tweeter made up the chart.

    As for your comment at 1:32, aimed at DJ and me, which included, “Your complaints only seem to target one side. That’s weird, right?” . . .

    You are already posting plenty on the disinformation that you find, so why would we need to add to that? Quite frankly, I find it more disturbing to see disinformation from someone on our own “side”. If we think that we take the moral high ground on an issue, then we cannot take the low ground to try to prove a point. That will only end up backfiring.

    Back to that tweet: If the person had shared the actual chart from Guttmacher, and then commented that she thought that 92% of those reasons were invalid, that would have been fine. But she did not do that. She made up a chart to boil it down to her own interpretation, and then introduced it with “Here are the stats from the Guttmacher Institute.” I’ve seen you take leftist sources to task for less.


  23. Democrats rejoice…..

    Kids, not so much.

    Democrats have told women for decades, men aren’t necessary, except as sperm donors and child support payers. The comments to his tweet show that line of idiotic thinking is still alive and well among the pro-child death crowd. Reaping and sowing is at play. As someone likes to say, God will not be mocked.


  24. Enjoy Putin. 🙂



  25. Just stop drama queen. It already did.

    It’s killed 62 million and counting. Ending it won’t lead to worse.

    “Michelle Goldberg: Overturning Roe will tear America apart”


    “Michelle Goldberg has written something about the leaked SCOTUS decision. Her take isn’t really focused on the decision itself but on what comes next if the final decision looks like the leaked draft.

    As Goldberg sees it, Roe didn’t become the most contentious issue in our national politics because it imposed a legally and ethically dubious one-size-fits-all framework on people who fundamentally disagreed with its reasoning and conclusions. Goldberg sees Roe as a kind of legal Pax Romana bringing stability to the US over the past 50 years, a stability which is about to end with terrible consequences for America.

    …the demise of Roe will exacerbate America’s antagonisms, creating more furious legal rifts between states than we’ve seen in modern times.

    “If you think it’s polarized now, you haven’t seen anything yet,” said Mary Ziegler, a visiting professor at Harvard Law School and author of the forthcoming book “Dollars for Life: The Anti-Abortion Movement and the Fall of the Republican Establishment.”

    Very soon, if the Supreme Court really discards Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision partly upholding it, we will have two wildly different abortion regimes in this country. About half of states are expected to mostly prohibit abortion; according to the Guttmacher Institute, in 11 states there won’t even be exemptions for rape and incest. A bill moving through the Louisiana Legislature would allow prosecutors to charge those having abortions with homicide.

    Blue states, meanwhile, are setting themselves as abortion sanctuaries. Oregon lawmakers recently passed a bill to create a $15 million fund to help cover abortion costs, including for those traveling to the state for the procedure. Something similar is in the works in California. Abortion clinics in Illinois, bordered by several states where abortion is likely to be made illegal, are preparing for a huge influx of patients.

    She’s certainly correct that there will be two opposing sides leaning in to this divide. We know that because there have been two sides to this debate since Roe was decided. Just to make the point crystal clear, here’s a bit of the editorial which Christianity Today published in February 1973:

    In a sweeping decision January 22, the United States Supreme Court overthrew the abortion statutes of Texas, indeed, of all the states that protect the right of an unborn infant to life before, at the earliest, the seventh month of pregnancy. The Court explicitly allows states to create some safeguards for unborn infants regarded as “viable,” but in view of the present decision, it appears doubtful that unborn infants now enjoy any protection prior to the instant of birth anywhere in the United States. Until new state laws acceptable to the Court are passed—at best a long-drawn-out process—it would appear impossible to punish abortions performed at any stage.

    This decision runs counter not merely to the moral teachings of Christianity through the ages but also to the moral sense of the American people, as expressed in the now vacated abortion laws of almost all states, including 1972 laws in Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania, and recently clearly reaffirmed by state-wide referendums in two states (Michigan and North Dakota). We would not normally expect the Court to consider the teachings of Christianity and paganism before rendering a decision on the constitutionality of a law, but in this case it has chosen to do so, and the results are enlightening: it has clearly decided for paganism, and against Christianity, and this in disregard even of democratic sentiment, which in this case appears to follow Christian tradition and to reject permissive abortion legislation…

    Pleading “the established medical fact” that “until the end of the first trimester, mortality in abortion [of course the reference is to maternal mortality—fetal mortality is 100 per cent] is less than that in normal childbirth [nine maternal deaths per 100,000 abortions vs. twenty-five per 100,000 live births, a differential of 0.016 per cent, of course not counting the 100,000 fetal mortalities]” (ibid., X), the Court decreed that a state may not regulate abortion at all during the first three months, and during the second, only to protect the health of the mother. After “viability,” defined as “about six months,” when the fetus “presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb,” then, “if the State is interested in protecting fetal life … it may go so far [emphasis added: since abortion is 100 per cent fatal to the fetus, it is hard to see the value of “protection” that goes less far] as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother” (ibid.). Since health is explicitly defined to include “mental health,” a very flexible concept, this concession to the protection of the fetus from seven to nine months will, in practice, mean little…

    In view of this, Justice Rehnquist’s dissenting observation that the Court is engaging in “judicial legislation” may seem almost insignificant. Nevertheless, we must ask what remains of the democratic process and the principle of local initiative when not only long-standing older laws but the most recent state laws and even the will of the people expressed in state-wide referendums are swept from the board in a single Court ruling, when the people and their representatives are prohibited forever—or at least until the Constitution is amended—from implementing a higher regard for the life of the unborn than that exhibited by seven supreme judges.

    People objected to Roe from the day it was passed and they have continued to voice their objections to it ever since. The following year on the first anniversary of the Roe decision, the March for life was started. ”


    Or is she saying pro-deathers won’t be able to control their violent urges and act like adults as pro-lifers have done for 50 years?


  26. ——


  27. Liked by 1 person

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.