11 thoughts on “News/Politics 5-26-22

  1. Reprehensible. So typical Democrat politician.

    “Greg Abbott Responds to Beto O’Rourke’s Disgusting Stunt at Uvalde Shooting Presser”


    “As RedState reported, Democrat Beto O’Rourke, who is running to be the Governor of Texas, pulled one of the most brazen and disgusting political stunts in recent memory on Wednesday. O’Rourke interrupted a press conference covering the school shooting in Uvalde, TX, in order to heckle current Gov. Greg Abbott for supposedly not passing “real” gun laws.

    What unfolded was a hectic scene, with the Mayor of Uvalde standing up and calling O’Rourke a “sick son of a b****” before the Democrat was escorted out of the room.”

    “It’s unconscionable that any politician would think it’s appropriate to crash a press conference giving valuable information about a mass shooting in order to up his ActBlue donations. And rest assured, that’s exactly what O’Rourke was trying to do with this stunt. He knows that none of the “real” gun laws he has proposed would have stopped this shooter from killing people. To him, this is a political opportunity to breathe some life into his latest failing campaign. Unfortunately, he will probably be rewarded for it with a boost in fundraising and fawning national media attention.

    For his part, Abbott has now responded, both directly and to O’Rourke’s fallacious argument.”

    “Abbott is right on both fronts. It is disgusting to try to make a tragedy about politics when it’s abundantly clear that those screaming “gun control” the loudest are only doing so for partisan gain. Universal background checks, which have become the rallying cry on the left, would not have stopped this shooting. O’Rourke is well aware of what he did and why he did it, and Abbott is right to call him out for being an insensitive clown. That presser wasn’t about him, it was about the families and delivering the information the public needs.

    I’ll also say that Abbott is completely right on this farcical idea that we just need “real” gun laws. As the governor points out, multiple blue states have “real” gun laws and they’ve done nothing to curtail the violence. In fact, states with far-left governments have some of the worst gun violence issues in the nation. Abbott mentions Chicago, New York, and California, not to diminish the death that happened in Texas but to point out that it is ghoulish opportunism for a politician to act as if his chosen policy prescription, completely void of evidence, would have prevented this horrific act.”

    Liked by 2 people

  2. “Guns Aren’t Radically Deadlier Than They Were 50 Years Ago, But Our Sick Culture Is”

    “Our culture has incubated a disdain for human life while preaching a gospel of indulging selfish urges, no matter how evil.”


    “After another school shooting — this one at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, leaving at least 21 victims dead — politicians like President Joe Biden are already capitalizing on the tragedy to push their anti-gun agenda. They’ll tell you that the vague category of “assault weapons” has no place in American citizens’ hands, or seize the moment to vilify “the semiautomatic weapons that terrorize us” (as a New York Times essay put it). But these firearms have been accessible for decades — far before school shootings were such an unfortunately common occurrence.

    Various versions of the AR-15 are some of the popular firearms most relentlessly targeted by anti-gun lobbyists, with their semiautomatic capability (i.e., the ability to fire multiple rounds without manual reloading, while still requiring the pull of a trigger) blamed for the deadliness of many recent shootings. But Colt sold an AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle starting in 1964, 58 years ago.

    As for semiautomatic handguns, one of the most iconic models dates back to 1911. (The Colt M1911 held fewer rounds than many of today’s handguns, but the 13-round Browning Hi-Power came on the market in 1935, and the 16-round Beretta Model 92 appeared in 1976.) The firearms that civilians have access to today are not significantly deadlier than the ones that were manufactured for civilian use over half a century ago. Furthermore, the number of Americans who possess a gun in their homes has overall been lower in the last 30 years than it was from the 1960s to the 1990s.

    Yet we’ve seen a heartbreaking rise over the past several years in incidents where evil, disturbed cowards choose to target schools full of vulnerable children. Before Uvalde, there were Santa Fe High School and Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018, Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, and Red Lake High School in 2005 — and those are just some of the names you probably already know.

    Crimes committed by evil people are nothing new, of course, and schools in particular had experienced shootings and violence before these. In the 19th and 20th centuries, there were records of shooting deaths at schools caused by personal feuds, accidental shootings when guns were thought to be unloaded, arguments gone wrong, or disgruntled students or administrators seeking revenge on authorities.

    But until the late 1980s, the concept of a mass shooter walking into a school and arbitrarily targeting people was incredibly rare, if not completely unheard of. In 1988, a 19-year-old shooter fatally shot two 8-year-olds and wounded nine other people at Oakland Elementary School in Greenwood, South Carolina. In the same year, a woman fired on an elementary school classroom in Illinois as part of a bizarre crime spree. In 1989, a gunman killed five children at Cleveland Elementary School in California. And in 1994, a 37-year-old walked into Wickliffe Middle School and killed custodian Peter Christopher.

    Other shootings were perpetrated by disgruntled or troubled students, including at Olean High School in New York in 1974; Atlantic Shores Christian School in Virginia in 1988; Lindhurst High School in California in 1992; Bethel Regional High School in Alaska, Heath High School in Kentucky, and Pearl High School in Mississippi in 1997; and Westside Middle School in Arkansas in 1998.

    The infamous shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado in 1999 shocked the national conscience and launched the concept of school shootings further forward as a growing and tragic problem. Since Columbine, American families have faced unimaginable tragedies at Santa Fe High, Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High, Sandy Hook Elementary, Red Lake High, as well as Santana High School in California in 2001, Rocori High School in Minnesota in 2003, SuccessTech Academy in Ohio in 2007, Chardon High School in Ohio in 2012, Sparks Middle School in Nevada in 2013, Marysville Pilchuck High School in Washington in 2014, Townville Elementary School in South Carolina in 2016, Aztec High School in New Mexico in 2017, Marshall County High School in Kentucky in 2018, Saugus High School in California in 2019, Oxford High School in Michigan in 2021, and countless others.

    So if the guns in Americans’ hands and homes haven’t radically changed in the last few years, what has? As The Federalist’s Mark Hemingway noted, we’ve seen “no big advances in firearm lethality compared to what citizens could own decades before we ever had regular mass shootings.”

    While humanity has been fallen since Eden, the past 50 years have seen countless indicators of exponential cultural decline, not the least of which have been falling marriage rates and skyrocketing numbers of children who are denied the chance to live with both their mother and father. We’re also seeing a pandemic of mental illness, which the years of mental angst and isolation caused by Covid school closures will certainly only worsen.”

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Broken.



    “I was skeptical that the Sussman prosecution would tell us much that is new, but some significant nuggets have come out. Like this one: “FBI brass were ‘fired up’ about now-debunked Trump-Russia ties.”

    FBI leaders, including then-Director James Comey, were “fired up” about a potential connection between the Trump campaign and Russia — which ultimately was proven false, text messages and court testimony revealed Tuesday.

    On Sept. 21, 2016, two days after Hillary Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann gave then-FBI General Counsel James Baker info about a supposed digital back channel between the Trump Organization and Moscow-based Alfa Bank, agent Joe Pientka texted colleague Curtis Heide: “People on 7th floor to include Director are fired up about this server.”

    So there was zero evidence of any connection between presidential candidate Donald Trump and the Alfa Bank, or any other Russians of note, and all one of Hillary Clinton’s lawyers had to do was waltz into the Bureau with some fabricated “data” and FBI Director James Comey and others were “fired up.” The lust to defeat the interloper Trump and elect Hillary Clinton is palpable.

    “Did you guys open a case? Reachout [sic] and put tools on?” Pientka asked. “If not I will call Dan as Priestap says its [sic] not an option – we must do it.”

    That is, did they open a case to investigate presidential candidate Trump? Failing to do so is “not an option,” evidence be damned. And one wonders what “tools” were to be put on the case.

    “[R]oger,” Heide replied. “we are opening a [counterintelligence] case today.”

    Later in the day, Pientka told Heide that a unit would be assigned to the case shortly, adding, “go forth and conquer.”

    That is, go forth and conquer the rebel Donald Trump, who was standing up for the American people against the swamp–of which the FBI’s political leaders are charter members.

    The FBI almost immediately began lying about Sussman:

    Two days later, Heide and fellow FBI agent Allison Sands drafted an electronic communication to investigators incorrectly stating the Justice Department had referred the matter to the FBI on Sept. 19, the day Sussmann met with Baker.

    In fact, it wasn’t DOJ, it was the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign. But this lie strikes me as curious. If the FBI really believed that Sussman was acting as a disinterested, concerned citizen, why didn’t it just say that the investigation was prompted by information from a concerned citizen? Why lie, unless key people within the Bureau knew that Sussman was acting for the Hillary Clinton campaign, and the purpose of the FBI’s investigation was to help Clinton get elected?

    In any event, the agents charged with the “investigation” quickly concluded that Trump’s purported link to Alfa was bogus:

    Despite the enthusiasm of their bosses, rank-and-file agents quickly became convinced the data handed over by Sussmann was worthless. Last week, FBI supervisory agent Scott Hellman testified of the white paper: “I thought perhaps the person who drafted this document was suffering from a mental disability.”

    Well, that is pretty strong! So why did the “investigation” continue?

    When asked by prosecutor Jonathan Algor why he kept up with the investigation if he believed there was no evidence to back it, Heide answered: “Headquarters told us that not investigating the matter was not an option.”

    It was not an option because James Comey and other top FBI officials were determined to help Hillary. They expected to be rewarded when she inevitably won. They were shocked when the upstart Trump won instead, and immediately set about undermining his administration, which they did with all of the skill you would expect from seasoned political infighters.”


    Funny that Mueller and his sham investigation never mentioned any of this, huh?


    Liked by 1 person

  4. The media lies, it’s what they do best.












    There’s even more examples. Click a Tweet and keep reading.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. “Tragedies Like The Texas Shooting Make A Somber Case For Homeschooling”


    “At least 19 children and two adults died on Tuesday after an 18-year-old opened fire at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas. The shooter, now deceased, previously warned on social media that “the kids should watch out.”

    Tragedies like the shooting in Texas are heartbreaking but far too common. Since 2018, there have been 119 school shootings wherein at least one person was injured or killed. Name-calling, blame-shifting, and calls for gun restrictions fill social media in the public’s quest to find a solution. But to protect the most precious, innocent lives among us, parents must educate their kids at home.

    It is clear now from the long list of school shootings in recent years that families can’t trust government schools, in particular, to bring their children or teachers home safely at the end of the day. The same institutions that punish students for “misgendering” people and hide curriculum from parents are simply not equipped to safeguard your children from harm.

    While some school districts devote time and resources to screening, training, and licensing teachers to carry firearms in their classrooms, most states and districts have policies that explicitly prohibit educators from carrying guns on school property for self-defense. Instead, they create gun-free school zones and allow only one or two security guards a weapon meant to protect hundreds of people in a crisis. Democrats on the national level have also blocked federal funds from arming and preparing teachers for the worst-case scenario.

    Schools should be a safe place for children to learn, but saying “guns have no place here” only stops good people with kids’ best interests in mind from being able to protect them. At home, parents don’t have to worry about jumping through bureaucratic hoops to shield their kids from a bullet, the trauma of seeing their classmates slaughtered, or even terrifying shooting drills. They live and teach in a controlled environment where guns can be safely carried for self-defense or locked away when not in use.

    You can’t protect your kids from everything. There’s no telling when a crazy gunman might open fire in a movie theater or a grocery store. You can, however, do your best to prevent them from being sitting ducks at frequently targeted locations such as schools by keeping them by your side.”

    Liked by 3 people

  6. Yesterday I said the police waiting for back up seemed wrong.

    It was. This is disgusting. Police waited outside while the gunman spent 40 minutes killing children.

    Authorities need to answer for this, Gov. Abbott included.







    The shooter is to blame for his evil actions. Authorities are to blame for their inaction. They allowed additional deaths due to their inaction.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Nope, no grooming here….

    Again, these people are gross.


  8. Once again, the Politi-Fact “fact checkers” lie to protect a Democrat. They are garbage.




    Liked by 1 person

  9. Did we really expect to get a fair trial?

    Unfortunately, the corruption goes too deep.


    WASHINGTON—Testimony that suggested the Donald Trump-Russia claims given to the FBI by a Hillary Clinton lawyer may have been fabricated will be struck from the record, along with mention of the email that triggered the testimony, a judge has ruled.

    On Tuesday, FBI agent Curtis Heide was presented with an email sent by Rodney Joffe to researchers with the Georgia Institute of Technology dated Sept. 14, 2016. Joffe discussed one of the white papers Michael Sussmann, a lawyer representing both Joffe and the Clinton campaign, later handed over to the FBI alleging a secret link between Trump and a Russian bank.

    “Please read as if you had no prior knowledge or involvement, and you were handed this document as a security expert (NOT a DNS expert) and were asked: ‘Is this plausible as an explanation?’” Joffe wrote. “NOT to be able to say that this is, without doubt, but to merely be plausible.”

    DNS stands for Domain Name System, or the type of information that Joffe and the researchers said linked Russia’s Alfa Bank and Trump’s business in the papers they compiled. Sussmann gave those papers to the FBI shortly after the September email.

    Asked about the language in the message, Heide said that “it appears, from this email, that this report may have been fabricated.”

    Sean Berkowitz, a defense lawyer, said while the jury was out of the room that the answer was “prejudicial” to his client.

    “I did not want to draw attention to it. But given the parameters of the court’s prior ruling and the way that they went through that, I think that was improper to elicit, and nonresponsive,” Berkowitz said.

    Jonathan Algor, a prosecutor with special counsel John Durham’s team, said asking Heide about the email was “legitimate” because it followed a series of questions from the defense about David Dagon, one of the researchers Joffe emailed, and the source for the paper in question.

    U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, the Obama appointee overseeing Sussmann’s case, on May 24 ordered Heide’s quote struck from the record. His justification was that the answer was “at odds” with his earlier ruling that prosecutors could not delve into whether the data was concocted or “spoofed” because Sussmann was said to not be involved in the research itself.

    On Wednesday, Cooper said the email itself can no longer be an exhibit.

    Liked by 2 people

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.