24 thoughts on “News/Politics 7-1-22

  1. What in the world does Gates want to do with all this land?

    Don’t allow this globalist to control food production…


    Microsoft founder Bill Gates has won legal approval to buy a massive swath of prime North Dakota farmland over the objections of some local residents and questions about the legality of the purchase.

    North Dakota’s attorney general, a Republican, cleared the sale on June 29 after finding that the entity linked to Gates complies with a Depression-era law meant to protect family farms because the land is being leased back to farmers.

    Red River Trust, a Texas-based entity with ties to Gates, in November bought some 2,100 acres of farmland in North Dakota, near the borders of Minnesota and Canada.

    The move drew scrutiny from North Dakota’s top prosecutor in context of possible non-compliance with laws that prohibit corporations or limited liability companies from owning farmland or ranchland, but allow individual trusts to own the land if it is leased to farmers.

    Attorney General Drew Wrigley was looking into the land sale and on June 29 issued a letter saying the transaction complies with the anti-corporate farming law because the farmland is being leased back to farmers.

    Besides legal questions, the land sale also sparked concerns about ultra-rich landowners who may not share the state’s values.

    Gates is the fourth-richest man in the world, according to Forbes, and is America’s largest private owner of farmland.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Feel the unbiased journalism…..

    Danger! 🤡🤡🤡🤡 Ahead!

    “On ‘Morning Joe’: Trumpist Republican Party Should ‘Literally Be Burned To The Ground'”

    You know, like the left is currently doing to pro-life crisis centers across the country.


    “Nothing about Roe v. Wade, and nothing about the problems that are pummeling Americans at full force. For Thursday’s Morning Joe edition, it was back to politics’ newest thriller/drama: The January 6 Committee and gushing about Wyoming Congresswoman Liz Cheney’s (R) speech at the Reagan Library where she called on Republicans to no longer be loyal to Trump, but to the Constitution.

    A perplexed Mika Brzezinski asked her husband and co-host Joe Scarborough, “is it too late for that choice? For the Republican Party?” When Scarborough spoke, he once again tied religion into his “answer.” “You know me,” he started, “I’m a Baptist.”

    He continued on to say that he always believes “in deathbed conversions,” and will “take anything.” However, the Lord will show the Republican Party no mercy in Pastor Joe’s eyes, as he thinks it’s “too late for this Republican Party.”

    Filled with self-righteousness, Scarborough condemned “the base” of the Republican Party. These are the people who “are chasing around these conspiracy theories” of the pandemic, “Jewish space lasers,” and “the Italian dude that’s stealing the election.”

    The “Baptist” then went on to say that Georgia “picked so many freaks, and weirdos, and insurrectionists in their primaries,” and that the only way the party can be reformed is if “they get beaten.”

    So that must mean that in Joe’s Bible, mercy is conditional. And very exclusive. Just like Jesus taught. Not.

    The buck did not stop there. Princeton University Professor Eddie Glaude Jr. added some of his own fuel stash (in this economy) to the fire by saying that the Republican Party “needs to literally be burned to the ground,” even though he also believes in “deathbed conversions.”

    However, that sounded too extreme for anti-GOP Scarborough, because he was stuttering while trying to calm the flames before they got out of control.

    “Not— not– not literally. Hol—hold on let me help me help you out here,” he insisted, “not literally.” That seemed to calm the crisis, with Glaude expressing “not literally, not literally,” with a flustered Scarborough further clarifying “yeah–you–like– figuratively.””

    Wink, wink….

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I’m sure this has absolutely nothing to do with Paul Pelosi’s recent felony DUI (that’s what it is when accidents with innocent victims are involved, unless you’re connected and have a Soros bought DA) arrest.

    Just a coincidence.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Yep.

    And he’s no Trump fan….


    Liked by 2 people

  5. ———

    The only Republicans allowed were the traitors Kinzinger and Cheney, who would play along like the Dems wanted.


  6. Hillary wannabe.


    That one’s easy, because the left will never, ever vote for her. The sins of the father and all….

    Liked by 1 person

  7. But no mean tweets! 🤣😂🤣


    “Poll: Majority of Americans Believe Country is on Wrong Track, Including 78% of Democrats

    “Since last month, the percentage of Democrats saying the country is headed in the wrong direction rose from 66%.””


    “A new and devastating poll for Joe Biden dropped this week, indicating that most Americans believe the country is on the wrong track.

    We could probably cite a bad poll for Biden on a near-daily basis, but this one is significant for what it shows about members of Biden’s party.”


    Liked by 1 person

  8. Sure the water is heavy, but it must be carried nonetheless, right media?

    Liked by 1 person

  9. This is good news for doctors and patients who suffer with chronic pain.

    “A Unanimous SCOTUS Lifts The Fear Of Prosecution For Physicians Prescribing Pain Medication In Good Faith

    Instilling fear of jail time and financial ruin in the hearts of doctors for good faith prescription of pain medication is not the way to go. As recognized by all 9 SCOTUS justices.”


    “What a week in SCOTUS news! While the media has chosen to focus almost exclusively on you- know-what, there is another medical holding that merits coverage. In the consolidated cases of Ruan v. United States and Kahn v. United States, the Court delivered a 9-0 opinion, written by Justice Breyer, taking the feet of the law off of the necks of doctors who prescribe drugs to treat pain in their patients.

    Drs. Ruan and Kahn were convicted under a provision of the Controlled Substances Act (codified at 21 U. S. C. §841) which makes it a federal crime to prescribe a controlled substance, “except as authorized.” A prescription is only authorized when it is a prescribed “for a legitimate medical purpose… acting in the usual course of his professional practice.”

    The Department of Justice portrayed the doctors as pseudo drug dealers operating “pill mills.” At trial, Dr. Ruan asked for a jury instruction that would have required the State to prove that he subjectively knew that his prescriptions fell outside the scope of his prescribing authority, but that request was rejected.

    Instead, the District Court instructed the jury that a doctor acts lawfully when he prescribes “in good faith as part of his medical treatment of a patient in accordance with the standard of medical practice generally recognized and accepted in the United States.” The court further instructed the jury that a doctor violates §841 when “the doctor’s actions were either not for a legitimate medical purpose or were outside the usual course of professional medical practice.” Following his conviction, Dr. Ruan was sentenced to over 20 years in prison and was ordered to pay millions in restitution and forfeiture. Dr. Kahn was sentenced to over 25 years in prison.

    The question before the Supreme Court was what state of mind the government has to prove in order to convict a doctor for dispensing controlled substances not as authorized. The Court held as follows:

    “We now hold that §841’s “knowingly or intentionally” mens rea applies to the “except as authorized” clause. This means that once a defendant meets the burden of producing evidence that his or her conduct was “authorized,” the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally acted in an unauthorized manner.”

    Mens rea or guilty mind is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as the state of mind that the prosecution, to secure a conviction, must prove that a defendant had when committing a crime.

    If a prosecutor decides to go after a doctor who prescribed pain meds to a patient, said prosecutor needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the doctor knew he or she was acting in an unauthorized manner or intended to do so. So without the mens rea to dispense prescriptions for an illegitimate purpose outside of the course of usual professional practice, a doctor cannot be convicted.”

    Liked by 2 people

  10. This is the one case I think the court got wrong this week. But that’s because Kavanaugh and Roberts the Milquetoast joined the wrong side. This will only exacerbate the problems at the border. They think this will force Congress to act, but once again, they won’t, at least not in the country’s best interest.

    “SCOTUS: Biden Can End ‘Remain in Mexico’ Policy

    Kavanaugh: “The larger policy story behind this case is the multi-decade inability of the political branches to provide DHS with sufficient facilities to detain noncitizens who seek to enter the United States pending their immigration proceedings.””


    “SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that the Biden administration can end the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), otherwise known as the Remain in Mexico policy.”

    “DHS tried to explain its reasoning to terminate MPP in an October 29 memorandum.

    The five justices determined MPP does not violate section 1225 of the INA or the APA.

    Roberts wrote a long-winded opinion, but Kavanaugh’s stuck out to me.

    The laws we have only give DHS two options, Kavaugh pointed out. DHS can “grant noncitizens parole into the United States if parole provides a ‘significant public benefit.’” DHS can also “choose to return noncitizens to Mexico.”
    “In general, when there is insufficient detention capacity, both the parole option and the return-to-Mexico option are legally permissible options under the immigration statutes,” wrote Kavanaugh. “As the recent history illustrates, every President since the late 1990s has employed the parole option, and President Trump also employed the return-to-Mexico option for a relatively small group of noncitizens. Because the immigration statutes afford substantial discretion to the Executive, different Presidents may exercise that discretion differently. That is Administrative Law 101. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U. S. 29, 59 (1983) (Rehnquist, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).”

    Kavanaugh reminded everyone that SCOTUS does “not have the authority to end the legislative stalemate or to resolve the underlying policy problems.”

    In other words, get your act together, Congress: “The larger policy story behind this case is the multi-decade inability of the political branches to provide DHS with sufficient facilities to detain noncitizens who seek to enter the United States pending their immigration proceedings.””

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Love it! 🙂

    “The Jan. 6 Committee Is Causing Never Trumpers To Lose Their Minds”

    “So many right-of-center commentators want so badly to be liked by the left they’re willing to ignore the truth about the Jan. 6 committee.”


    “Something is very wrong with the supposedly right-of-center media outlets and commentators treating the Jan. 6 committee like something other than the appalling Stalinesque show-trial that it is. In particular, the Washington Examiner and National Review both ran embarrassing, delusional op-eds about the hearings this week. The Examiner even ran an editorial declaring, “Trump proven unfit for power again.”

    Why is Trump “unfit for power”? Because of former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony on Tuesday. It was hailed by the corporate press as “explosive” and “damning,” featured on the front pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post, and replayed ad nauseum on all the cable news shows.

    Before we get to the Examiner and National Review, we need to talk about the Hutchinson testimony. Hutchinson, who was billed as a star witness for the committee, did indeed make a number of explosive claims on Tuesday. The problem is that she didn’t actually witness anything. Her hearsay claims were blown to pieces almost as soon as they appeared, in some cases because people with firsthand knowledge immediately came forward to dispute them, and in other cases because the claims themselves were ridiculous on their face.

    Perhaps the most outrageous accusation from Hutchinson was that on Jan. 6 an enraged President Trump tried to grab the steering wheel of his presidential vehicle and lunged at his security detail when he was told he could not join the protesters marching from the White House to the U.S. Capitol after his rally.

    Hutchinson admitted she had no firsthand knowledge of this alleged physical altercation between Trump and his security detail, and said she was relaying a conversation she had with Tony Ornato, White House deputy chief of staff for operations, and Bobby Engel, head of Trump’s security detail.

    Not long after Hutchinson testified, NBC News’s Peter Alexander reported that Engel and the Secret Service agents inside the vehicle with Trump that day say the president didn’t try to grab the steering wheel and didn’t assault any agents. Later, a Secret Service spokesman told Alexander that all the agents who were in the president’s SUV on Jan. 6 are “available to testify under oath, responding to [Hutchinson’s] new allegations.””

    “Politico later reported that the Jan. 6 committee didn’t even reach out to the Secret Service before airing Hutchinson’s testimony: “Anthony Guglielmi, the service’s chief of communications, told Politico that select committee investigators did not ask Secret Service personnel to reappear or answer questions in writing in the 10 days before asking Hutchinson about the matter at the hearing.”

    But that wasn’t the only problem with Hutchinson’s testimony. She also claimed to have written a note about a potential Trump statement meant to quell the rioting at the U.S. Capitol. In fact, the note was written by Trump White House attorney Eric Herschmann.

    “The handwritten note that Cassidy Hutchinson testified was written by her was in fact written by Eric Herschmann on January 6, 2021,” said a spokesperson for Herschmann. “All sources with direct knowledge and law enforcement have and will confirm that it was written by Mr. Herschmann.”

    All of this was known and reported, at least in part, the same day Hutchinson testified before the committee. That didn’t stop the Examiner’s editors from going along with the rest of corporate media and simply regurgitating Hutchinson’s outrageous and disputed claims before concluding, “Hutchinson’s testimony confirmed a damning portrayal of Trump as unstable, unmoored, and absolutely heedless of his sworn duty to effectuate a peaceful transition of presidential power.”

    Hutchinson’s testimony did no such thing, and the ridiculous moral preening of the Examiner’s editors doesn’t make her account any more credible. If anything, Hutchinson unwittingly confirmed that the Jan. 6 committee is a farcical show-trial, the purpose of which is to criminalize political opposition to Democrat Party rule and advance the false narrative that President Trump is not just responsible for the Jan. 6 riot, but that he’s guilty of treason.

    You have to wonder what’s wrong with these editors that they would publish such garbage. Do they not realize that one of the propaganda goals of the Jan. 6 committee is to elicit these kind of editorials? Mission accomplished, Liz Cheney!

    Even worse in some ways was the take from Tim Carney, a columnist for the Examiner and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (who, to be fair, has had a hard time thinking clearly about Trump lately). On Wednesday, long after the problems with Hutchinson’s testimony were widely known, Carney penned an unintentionally hilarious column headlined, “Ignore Democrats’ distractions: Here’s how Trump proved his unfitness on Jan. 6.”

    Ah, yes, because the thing we need to focus on here isn’t the phony hearsay testimony from a patently unreliable witness in a Soviet-style show trial being conducted by House Democrats, but how we can spin this episode to scold the right about how Trump wasn’t a “good shepherd.” It’s like Carney sits around thinking up ways to help the left, even when their deceptive schemes are exploding in real time.”


    The left are never gonna like you Tim. Just accept it. Same for you Andy. The left isn’t interested in your product, so stop trying to sell it to a new audience who isn’t into you.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Real estate trust funds are quite common in the US — Zillow and Blackrock being the two most well known. Gates has shares in another. Their main target seems to be rental properties including farmland but they are starting to look at suburban homes. The concentration of wealth in the US is now manifesting itself in the concentration of land ownership as a safer investment than corporations. Its a distressing trend worldwide but the solution may not appeal to Americans.


    Just seize the property.


  13. The Republicans refused to participate in Jan 6th cmttee. Its was a decision taken by McCartney so they could discredit the committee later. It was a bad decision which even Trump has called out.


    Refusing to participate in elections is a tactic used by opposition groups in various countries but it often backfires on them. The same happened here. If McCartney was on the committee, he could have asked the questions that would discredit witnesses and put Trump in a better light. As much as Trump supporters like to discredit the committee, it does appear to have a negative effect on the Republican party.

    In fact, a survey on the direction of the country could be tied to the revelations of the Jan 6th committee just as it may be tied to Biden’s performance. Those types of polls are fairly useless in terms of political support.


  14. The 9-0 decision was so obviously correct that I’m surprised it had to go to the Supreme Court before it was ruled correctly. The “War on Drugs” continues to distort the US justice system.

    The next decision was also correct but not because of the specific issue. Instead its because the court should not shape policy. Kavaugh rightly calls out the legislature for its failure. Given the legislature failure, the executive has filled in the last few decades. Observing US politics all these years it never ceases to amaze me how the legislature is so useless. Removing the filibuster would do a lot to restore the legislature’s ability to carry out its function. You may not like the results when your party is not in power but at least gov’t would function and you can rule when its your turn.


  15. Well, she kinda has a point.



  16. ——–


  17. Clowns.



  18. Ouch.



  19. Made for TV show trial, nothing more….



    Liked by 1 person

  20. For perspective, the 2100 acres of potato farmland Gates bought is hardly a “massive swath” of land. The area equivalent to a square a bit less than 2 miles on a side, it’s kind of small potatoes.

    It is true, though, that that purchase is only about 1% of his total farmland holdings in the US, so I do wonder why, but I don’t see anything malevolent in it. Investment, perhaps?


  21. AJ, what is it about SCOTUS’s decision on “Remain in Mexico” that you think was incorrect? If the only reason is that it’s bad policy, that’s not the court’s place to decide.

    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.