Still Free

Yeah, Mr. Smiley. Made it through the entire Trump presidency without being enslaved. Imagine that.

Monday, March 18, 2024

Brown-Jackson Reveals True Rot

 So i come home after driving all day returning from a half-marathon when I open my feed to see Brown-Jackson of SCOTUS claim that she's "bothered" that the First Amendment is inhibiting the government from "interacting" with speech *it determines* to be harmful.

I had to listen to the comment a few times because I thought maybe she had been taken out of context or the way she was speaking made it look like she was saying one thing (pauses can do that) but really was saying something else. 

Nope.

She had responded to a solicitor suggesting, correctly, that the government can make it's own speech. Her commentary about the First Amendment made it clear that she did not believe it is good enough that the government can speak. No, she's concerned that some other speech by citizens, could be deemed problematic by the government...let me stop here.

The minute "that the government determines" popped out of her mouth she should have paused HERSELF given the gravity of the train of thought she was embarking on. Also, I seriously believe that the OTHER JUSTICES should have given audible gasps and yes, interfered with her question at that point. But I heard no such thing. I can only hope she gets put on blast in the decision, whichever way it goes.

But I am not surprised by this from Brown-Jackson. Not in the least bit. I said she had disqualified herself when she boldly lied about not knowing what a woman is. It was a bold faced lie. It was a clear sign that she was willing to put ideology ahead of facts if that was what required to get where she wanted.

That the senate approved of her appointment is a stain on their already nasty grimy garment that is their reputation. That answer ALONE should have resulted in her removal from consideration and WOULD HAVE a mere 10-15 years ago.

Now Brown-Jackson (and no doubt others) are looking for an end run around the First Amendment so they can censor just as Google removed my factual post about a report on  myocarditis following "vaccine" doses.  They just want to declare a swatch of speech "harmful" and "conspiracy" and then censor it and punish those who dare speak the "unspeakable".

There are those saying Brown-Jackson should be impeached over this. I would agree but as I said earlier, The senate approved of her even after her bald faced lie. And those senators were put into office by the voters. Inevitably, Jackson's commentary reflects a rather large percentage of the electorate.

That is the true rot.

Tuesday, March 05, 2024

9-0

 SCOTUS dropped it's Colorado decision yesterday. Every sane person knew what to expect, insofar as Colorado would be overturned. The question was what the four liberal justices would do. Well they got a 9-0 decision. This decision revealed or re-enforced a few things.

1) Keith Oberman is not a stable person. His unhinged tweet yesterday should give his employer, if he has one, reason to terminate their relationship. He should be persona-non-grata in any circle of sane people.

2) Keith Oberman shows people who are nominally left, that they took will be the target of radical leftism when the latter decides that their previously acceptable positions are no longer acceptable. They will also change up on you on a dime if you cross them. 

Once again, you have been warned.

You would have thought that since it was a 9-0 decision, people who had sworn up and down that Colorado was right, would be eating humble pie and admitting their error.

3) Neither Trump nor SCOTUS need to prove Trump is innocent of "Insurrection". A lot of left commentators pointed out that SCOTUS did not "exonerate" Trump of insurrection. These barely literate people apparently do not understand that in America:

    A) The accused doesn't have to prove a damn thing.

    B) Trumps actions on that day were not the point of the decision.


It actually would have been out of order for SCOTUS to discuss the claims of insurrection. Their point was that the constitution, via the 14th Amendment and further acts of congress had designated the power to CONGRESS to exclude federal officers. 

When I made a video on the matter, I conceded that the states have a limited ability to exclude candidates. SCOTUS said the same thing. 

4) The left wins by declaring "facts" whether they are facts or not. The left commentators has declared Jan 6 an insurrection and that's that. If the left is to be defeated, their terms, their "facts" must be dismissed. This is the same tactic used with the tranny nonsense. They up and declare a man who thinks they are a woman is a woman and will punish you for not accepting the clearly false statement. We must,  at each and every opportunity reject the premises (that are false). Playing along in order to be cordial or escape being called an 'ist" or "phone" is not a winning strategy.

5) There needs to be consequences. The lawfare being used to corrupt this election has to be met with consequences. It is not enough to "be so ordered" by SCOTUS. Trump's civil rights were blatantly violated, as Colorado is wont to do to conservatives (see the baker) and those doing so need to be held to personal account. If election workers in Ga can be handed millions for defamation by Giuliani, then this Colorado election secretary (or whatever) should meet a similar fate (though I am in favor of jail time). Also, since this is the second time SCOTUS has had to overrule COLORADO on basic constitutional issues, there needs to be a house cleaning.  I saw someone comment that when police departments are found to be deficient, they get "consent decrees" where they are overseen by a body. This needs to happen to the Colorado courts (and NY too). 

The next shoe to drop will be the immunity case. I'm on record saying that they will not say that the president has total immunity. They will probably say that like police they have an assumption of lack of mens-rea and so long as their behavior is within the scope of executing the duties of their office, they are generally immune.  If they do NOT make such a finding Obama is facing murder charges (not that he would necessarily be convicted). 

I believe that some on the left will regret having stirred this particular pot. 

We shall see.

Friday, March 01, 2024

Snow Roach?

 Yes, Snow Roach. Apparently this is an actual term to reference [certain] white people.

 


 There are people out there claiming that black people cannot be racist.

Exhibit A.

That's bad enough but I cannot fathom how a black person this side of the Rwanda genocide where those targeted for elimination were literally called roaches, could write that and not say to himself,

"You know, I'm using the same language used by those who committed  genocide in 1994. Perhaps I should evaluate my thinking."

Nope. 

When you relieve and entire race of people of the human flaw of hate based on race, then they feel free to say these kinds of things with no moral brakes.

"roaches" 1994


Saturday, February 24, 2024

You Budgeted, She Splurged

image from gab.ai

I just saw this and was, well, not amused. 

Those that follow me know that I was fired in Feb of 2022 (after multiple unpaid suspensions) from my 20+ year career/job for asserting my rights to medical privacy and refusal of experimental biological products (among other things). During that time, I put my finances on lock. Out went every non-essential food item and entertainment. Outside dining and vacations. I had no idea how long I would be out of work (turned out to be a total of 5 days) or how much that work would pay.

It being the "pandemic" and all, my employment opportunities were severely limited and I had to consider that I may have to leave my state of residence. For the next 20 months, I was a contractor. Meaning that if I didn't work, I didn't get paid. This meant zero vacations as I wasn't blowing a week's pay to sit on a beach or in my apartment.

I also created a spreadsheet in order to keep detailed records of where my money went and was going so that I knew how much I needed to live. You should do this as you'd be surprised at how much you spend above your "base needs". Previously I hadn't had a need to do this as my general budgeting was fine for my lifestyle. However, for the point of this post I want to emphasize that I did not take a vacation for 2 summers (where I usually took 3 weeks total).

Now this story:


You know what, I'm annoyed by this.  But this part got me:

She was also receiving funds from the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families fund, which helped her cover her $120-a-month rent.

$120/month rent? So when she got this money, it was the equivalent of 83 months of rent. 7 years of rent. Instead she blew it on a week's trip to Miami. In essence DC gave $10k to Florida.

"But still, Miller said she was struggling to make her food stamps last.

“Groceries last us the first three weeks of the month, then it’s trying to figure out the last week of my benefits,” she explained."

Say you used one year of that rent and put towards food. 

"She justified her spending by saying she hoped to inspire her children and teach them that if they work hard enough, they may one day be able to afford one of the mansions."

There is absolutely no need to make a trip to Miami to "teach" that lesson.  It's called Silver Spring Maryland, and it's not far. Matter of fact, assuming she has a working smartphone, Google maps can show her kids all manner of mansions without spending a penny on airfare or bus fare.

It's one thing if a private party wants to fund someone's lifestyle. It's another thing when it's from tax payers. Many tax payers have foregone trips and other luxuries to better or maintain their lives. Even the ones who did not do not deserve to have their income extorted for this kind of behavior.

 

Friday, February 23, 2024

8 U.S. Code § 1324

 In light of NY finding a renewed sense of "rule of law", Please note the following:


(1)

(A) Any person who—
(i)
knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
(ii)
knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
(iii)
knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
(iv)
encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
(v)
(I)
engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
(II)
aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
 
This is the law on immigration. Now the point:
 

 This is harboring and inducing residence.

"NEW YORK -- Questions are being raised about a controversial program launched by the Adams administration to give migrant families pre-paid debit cards to buy food and other necessities.

Mayor Eric Adams says giving asylum seekers debit cards to buy their own food will save the city millions, but the head of the City Council's oversight and investigations committee wants to know why the city issued a $53 million no-bid contract without seeing if it could get a better deal.

"I think you should bid it out to see who would do the best job at the best cost for taxpayers," Councilmember Gale Brewer said.

Brewer says she wants to investigate a pilot program launched by the mayor to give asylum seekers pre-paid debit cards that will allow them to by food, baby products and other necessities at supermarkets, bodegas, grocery and convenience stores.

Of course "Asylum seeker" is a euphemism for illegal alien which is used to provide cover for the blatantly illegality of this program
"The $53 million contract reviewed by CBS New York gives the firm, Mobility Capital Finance, lots of fees for services, including:
  • A $125,000 one-time set-up fee, 
  • $250,000 in annual management fees,
  • And fees based on how much money is distributed to migrants -- $1.5 million for the first $50 million handed out, and $2.5 million for the next $100 million.

The pilot program will involve 500 families staying in short-term hotels."

That's a nice chunk of change for criminal activities. And the hotels? They are harboring. Knowingly. 

"The mayor insisted that part of the allure of the company was that it was a minority-owned firm.

"WMBs -- you know, women- and minority-owned businesses -- have historically been locked out ... So I know I'm disrupting what people traditionally would like for us to do," Adams said."

Well that makes it OK then.

It's one thing when sanctuary cities and states said they would not enforce federal law. That is and was their right. One is not compelled to report an illegal alien or assist in their apprehension. However; these actions by NY have moved far beyond a "hands off" approach. They are clear violations of law. Not only by the state but the private entities contracted to do the financials as well as the hotels.

Trump (and Sessions) should have dropped the hammer on NYC when they did the ID cards, which were ALSO in violation of 1324.

Tuesday, February 20, 2024

The Goodfellas NY Court

 Unless you live under a rock, or on that Island that Tom Hanks was cast away on, you know that Trump was hit with a $350m fine plus interest. You've probably read and seen a lot on the subject and I have a rather lengthy video from when this first hit so I'm not going to go into details or be long winded on the matter. Suffice it to say, this was a gangster move on by a gangster state. Hence the title.

Supposedly in America, you have the rule of law. Supposedly in this "free" society, we do not investigate people in search of crimes, but we investigate crimes to find people. That is, unless someone has been injured, the state ought not have any business prosecuting anyone. Actual harm is key. There have been many cases that have been dismissed because the complaining party has no standing because they are alleging future probable harm but no actual  harm. NY apparently has a law on the books in which no harm need be presented.

If that wasn't bad enough, The US Constitution, which all states are bound by, explicitly prohibits excessive fines (along with cruel and unusual punishment). 

In what world is $350m fine for an "offense" that had no actual harmed parties, not "excessive"?  In what world is it that a $350m fine due to "fraud" where the alleged victims of said fraud would actually engage in more business with the person who 'defrauded" them?

Gangster world. That's where.

I was watching Goodfellas (again) and whenever someone fell out of favour with the bosses, they got whacked. Trump fell out of favour with the bosses and this was the assassination attempt. Despite claims to the contrary, Trump was pretty well liked in NY until he made that fateful descent down the escalator. Everybody knew Trump played all kinds of tricks to get and make deals (and he stiffed some people too). None of this was unknown by anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Trump. Generally speaking banks lent money to Trump because Trump was good for business. They knew he lied and "stretched the truth" to get what he wanted. They had accountants and lawyers who did the real investigating and loaned money to him anyway. A lot of them got paid even on Trump's many failures. What you think those bottles of "Trump water" were free to Trump?

New Yorkers knew the game and played the game, just like the gangsters in Goodfellas. But Trump crossed the line.

9% interest? 

Daily?

That's gangster loanshark behavior and we all know it. Engoron should be disbarred and removed from the bench for that alone. So should James. Won't happen though. 

Hochul all but admitted that this was a targeted hit with her recent comments. Other business people would be fools to think it's just Trump. That if they just keep their head down and "do business" they won't be caught up in an extortion scheme.  They forgot that NYS previously went after gun sellers and the NRA for no other reason than anti-gun politics. Today you're safe because you are on the "right side" of the NY  bosses. Tomorrow you could be the one getting the proverbial shot to the back of the head by the same people who you were laughing and playing cards with.

Friday, February 16, 2024

Now We Know The Mandate Was Politics

Back when Biden was attempting to use OSHA to force people to get the experimental shots for COVID, the reasoning given was that COVID represented a threat to employees and the shots prevented death and transmission. For the purposes of this post we will concentrate on "transmission". 

Now we know that neither claim was true. Furthermore, as I wrote and vlogged about, these mandates were a clear violation of the ADA, the 4th Amendment and the 1st Amendment to the US constitutions. In addition to being a violation of title 1983 of the CRA.

I also noted that the reason no court has found both government and private entities guilty of these violations is because the courts themselves engaged in this illegal activity. In NY those that prevailed against the city of NY did so only on "arbitrary and capricious" grounds. Essentially the court said that if the city had been "less arbitrary" then it could force a person to take an experimental medication.

Total bullshit. 

The real reason for this though was to boot non-conformist from various organizations including the military.  How do we know this? Well news out of Tennessee:


What could the state of Tennessee be doing to people with HIV that could warrant such a lawsuit?

"The Justice Department filed a lawsuit today against the State of Tennessee and the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The department previously notified Tennessee and the TBI that they violated the ADA by enforcing the state’s aggravated prostitution statute against people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)."

Aggravated prostitution statute? 

"he department’s investigation found that the state and TBI subject people living with HIV to harsher criminal penalties solely because of their HIV status, violating Title II of the ADA. Tennessee’s aggravated prostitution statute elevates what would otherwise be misdemeanor conduct to a felony because the individual has HIV, regardless of any actual risk of harm."

So if a prostitute, already committing a crime, has HIV and knows it and is still committing the crime, then the state charges a more severe penalty. Why? Because HIV is a deadly disease that, if it doesn't kill, subjects the infected person with a lifetime of medication. Absent that medication death is almost certain in the long term.

For example, the complaint identifies one person who has struggled to find safe housing that complies with the registry’s requirements and has experienced periods of homelessness, has been denied employment because she is on the registry, and is prevented from spending time alone with her nephew because of her conviction.
Boo the fuck hoo.

This person decided to trick (for whatever reason) while having an actual deadly disease (unlike COVID).

So in this case the Biden admin is of the opinion that a person who, in the process of comitting a crime, also is capable of transmitting a lethal virus which can only be survived via a lifetime of drugs, should be protected from consequences of that action. On the other hand this same admin was and is of the position that people going about their law abiding lives who refuse to take an experimental injection without any consequences from the state or private party, as is their right, should be fired from their jobs, denied unemployment and be barred from employment due to said mandate.

I bolded that on purpose because the contradiction is so blatnant that it should be enraging to anyone who suffered as a result of the Biden (and private party) mandates.

"Tennessee’s aggravated prostitution statute elevates what would otherwise be misdemeanor conduct to a felony because the individual has HIV, regardless of any actual risk of harm."

The actual nerve. Regardless of actual risk. For students who were (and still are) subject to these mandates, the actual risk of COVID is negligible (as in 10ths of a percent). The risk of harm FROM the shots are far higher. Yet such thinking did not prevail. For the vast majority of the public the risk from COVID was being ill for a few days. HIV is a long term killer without lifelong drugs. The contrast could not be more plain.

They, the Biden admin and their lackeys, simply hated those that refused and used whatever power they had to punish those persons. And have gotten away with it.