NY: The Commie State

 The running joke is Commie-fornia. I think NY, specifically NYC is giving California a run for it's money. NY is becoming a singular example of what happens when there are no personal consequences for illegal, unconstitutional and immoral behavior by government agents.

Lets start with Latitia James who campaigned on corrupt use of her public office. She campaigned on getting Trump and has proceeded to do so. And while she is not the only agent to violate Trump's civil rights via lawfare she serves as THE example. In a properly functioning federal DOJ, James would have been plaed under investigation as soon as the charges were filed. She would have been charged with violating Trump's civil rights as in America, supposedly, crimes are investigated and suspects prosecuted rather than people targeted by the state to make up crimes to charge them with.

Consider judge Engeron. How does a judge come to the conclusion prior to the trial? That such a thing can be done in America where guilt is to be determined by a jury AFTER a trial, his behavior, and indeed the law that allows such activity ought to have gotten an express lane to SCOTUS where a unanimous vote nullifying the law AND removed the judge from office would be rendered.

Not to be outdone, another judge in NY actually said, in public and on record, that the second amendment does not exist in NY state or her court.  How exactly does this judge still have a job? How is it she was not immediately removed from office and her law license revoked? How is she not currently on trial for violating the civil rights of the defendant? How is she literally not having to consider 'learning to code" for the rest of her life as her law degree is worth less than the toilet paper she wipes and flushes with?

A judge has recently ruled that NYS can tell Verizon (and I assume other providers) to charge low income residents $15 for broadband. Really? Since when do we have state agents dictating the prices businesses charge for goods and services? The state has an interest in preventing gouging. The state can, unfortunately tax a business to operate in it's jurisdiction. The state can choose to use money it collects from citizens to subsidize the cost of a good or service, but since when does it have the right to say "you must charge this"? Since when is the state a business partner of a private entity?

I'm sure there are answers to those questions but that there are illustrates how far down the socialism slope NYS has gone down. 

 

AI generated

 

Lastly, I'll revisit the congestion pricing issue because that one really, reaaaaly bothers me. There are various road tolls out there. The justifications for these tolls were to pay for the construction of said bridges or roads. Then it was said that they continuation of said tolls were to maintain those roads. Personally, I think there should be no tolls whatsoever. It is generally known how much it costs to maintain x amount of road and bridges. After all, these agencies budget and forecast all the time.  Implement a tax that covers that cost and everybody pays in. Yes, everyone benefits from the roads whether they drive on them or not. Mail delivery, food delivery, furniture, etc. all travel on various roads many citizens may never ever see in their lives. Chip in.

The point here is that, if there was and is to be a toll, it was paid for by the people who were using the service. I use the bridge, I pay the tax. Fine (this is not a piece advocating taxes). I hate when road tolls are increased but at least I know I'm paying for the good and service.

NYC congestion pricing completely abandons this principle. Drivers are not being asked to pay a toll in order to maintain or even pay for new infrastructure THEY USE. They are being asked to pay an exorbitant amount of money to pay for services and goods used by other people who DO NOT pay for the services and goods paid for by drivers.

I do not use mass transit. The times that I have used mass transit, I have paid my fare. I use the service, I should pay for it. That is fair. If the service is being run below what it costs to maintain and upgrade it, then either the fare is too low or the state agency responsible for it is not properly funded.

Unlike the roads, mass transit does NOT benefit everyone. Food does not travel on the bus or subway. Nor does furniture, fuel. In general, mass transit benefits businesses that are able to have employees shuttled from various areas to and from their offices. Don't believe me? Next time you're in NYC or even outer suburbs, see how many people are on the busses during the week and then look at how many people are on the busses on the weekends.

When the state closed up shop during COVID, MTA finances fell into deep hole as ridership became simply homeless people "enjoying" the newly empty trains. 

Congestion pricing is how NYC figured it could kick it's affordability problem out a few more years. It knows full well that it cannot raise fares to where they would need to be to make the MTA profitable enough to do what it needs to do, so it figured that drivers could be milked instead. The whole "pollution and congestion" angle was just to get the liberals on board. Drivers in NY already pay high fees to register their vehicles every two years.  They pay gas taxes. Then IF they drive into manhattan on a weekday, they usually have to pay for parking unless they are smart enough to sleuth alternate side of the street parking and figure out where and when to get free street parking. Of course this pisses off residents.

But returning to the issue, this is the first time I can think of, where one class of NY residents will be asked to pay a tax for a service they did not use. I think that is a very dangerous trend. I think congestion pricing should have been struck down on that principle alone.  Nobody would accept going to a store and being made to pay for someone other person's goods. This is exactly what is being done here. 

Wait until those people traveling the Queensbridge get their bills for the 3 block drive between the bridge and the nearest highway. Wait until they drop the speed limit to 20MPH and those fines get racked up. Wait until the other tolled bridges have the tolls go up to match the cost of the congestion zone.

They'll still vote for the Democrats who did it to them.

The Chun Li Argument

One after the other, 'Western" institutions continue to beclown themselves as they bend to the cult of trans. The IOC is the latest to ruin its reputation:

A groundbreaking study that was sponsored by the International Olympic Committee and released late last week sought to compare a range of athletic abilities between trans athletes and their cisgender counterparts.

You'll see MSNBC using the propaganda language of "cisgender". 

"But the study that the IOC commissioned, and the University of Brighton conducted, found that while trans women are stronger in some respects, like grip strength, cis women have stronger lower bodies. The study also found that trans women have a similar bone density as their cis women counterparts, which rebuts a frequent refrain from conservatives who’ve argued otherwise to justify banning trans girls and women from sports."

 There are no such things as "trans women". There are men/males and women. Men have, as a group, greater grip strength than women. Hence males have an enormous advantage in things like dead lifts and pullups.

Below is a chart of the average difference between men and women (adult human male and female. respectively):

 

 

 You'll note that the maximum average female grip strength happens between ages 30 and 34. This maximum is dwarfed by males in this 65-69 age range. Even though this is well known in the relevant fields, the IOC actually trying to argue that it's not a big deal.

Per the greater leg strength, here's a piece from PubMed from 2021:

The aim of the present investigation was to compare male and female resistance trained athletes in absolute and relative strength and power performances. Firstly, women had lower maximal strength values when compared to men at bench press (−59.2%), squat (−57.2%), deadlift (−56.3%), and mid-shin pull (MSP, −53.2%). In addition, lower levels of power were detected in females in both the upper (−61.2%) and the lower body (−44.2%). This is consistent with previous studies [5,6] that reported similar differences between men and women in the upper body. The same authors however, reported that women were only 27% less strong than men in lower body strength. The larger differences found in the present investigation between male and female athletes may be related to the strength assessments performed. Some of these maximum strength assessments (e.g., deadlift 1RM), are deeply influenced by the upper-body strength [34]. These findings indeed, are similar to those previously reported for powerlifters of both sexes [35,36,37]. (My underlines)

 27% less strong that men in lower body strength.

Oh.

And that lower body performance is "deeply influences by the upper body strength".

Oh. So like, it doesn't matter if women are built like Chun Li, they are STILL at a competitive disadvantage. 

The 35 trans athletes had to have completed at least one consecutive year of hormone replacement therapy.

35 athletes were on drugs that would have gotten them banned if they hadn't claimed being "trans". How about they test some post op?

"It’s just one study, so we should avoid drawing grand conclusions from it, but, at the very least, the study shows that the bodies of trans women who’ve been on at least one year of hormone replacement therapy are very, very different from cis men’s bodies."

We all know that the actual attempt is to have men who claim they are women compete in women's sports  who have NOT have any surgeries or hormones. 

Aside from that, I'm all here for when these men get brittle bones and have massive breaks during their competitions.

Also, notice that none of these folks are making what should be the obvious accompanying argument: Women on hormones (and surgeries) are not at a disadvantage when competing against men.

NYC Gets Its Bridge Toll

 For those of us with memories that go beyond last week, we know that NYC has been trying to put a toll on the Queensboro bridge for quite some time.  For example

:

"The East River bridges between Queens and Manhattan have been free since 1911. And business, civic and political leaders stood in the shadow of the Ed Koch-Queensboro Bridge on Sunday demanding that it be kept that way..."

 “Tolling the East River bridges would be devastating for Queens, Brooklyn and Long Island residents,” Weprin said in a statement issued by his office. “The people who rely on these bridges are a diverse group of New Yorkers who are trying to make affordable choices in this city and any future transportation plan for New York must take into the account the needs of outer borough residents.”

That's from 2017. Here's 2015 from the AP:

NEW YORK (AP) — Reviving a congestion-pricing idea that has been rejected before, an influential transportation coalition proposed implementing tolls for all cars that cross 60th Street in Manhattan and the free bridges spanning the East River...

The new toll of $5.54 each way with E-ZPass would be charged to drivers crossing 60th Street on every avenue, northbound and southbound, from the West Side Highway to FDR Drive. It would also apply to four major bridges owned by the city: the Queensboro, Williamsburg, Brooklyn and Manhattan bridges. That matches the current toll fare on the Queens Midtown and Brooklyn Battery tunnels. Metered taxi cabs would be exempt from all tolls.

Each time this came up Queens polls rejected the plan. Now under the congestion pricing, they got their toll. I don't think outerborough citizens realize what is in store for them in about two months. From the Gothamist:

The MTA has sold congestion pricing as a simple tolling scheme: $15 during the day for vehicles that enter Manhattan south of 60th Street. Drivers are exempt from the tolls if they stay on the FDR Drive, West Side Highway and Battery Park Underpass.

But about two months before the MTA hopes to flip the switch and begin tolling, the agency has confirmed it’s not quite that simple.

Ye olde..bait and switch. Let me give you a scenario that was sold to us. Say you live in NJ and you want to go to JFK. The most direct route would take you over the GW Bridge. That's a $17 toll as of this post. Then down the FDR to the triboro bridge. That toll is currently $9.11 for non NY residents. 

Each way.

We haven't discussed gasoline.

So in tolls alone your out $36 dollars. Now say you decide to not pay that extra $10 and spend your time going further south to the Queensboro bridge. It's "free" but you lose time and burn more gasoline. Your trip cost drops a whopping 47%. Do that enough times and you're saving quite a bit of money. So of course a lot of people make that decision. On a side note, using the Queensbridge during rush hour is, shall we say, a painful experience. When I did that commute, I found paying the toll on the triboro to be a decision that was better for my mental health.

I am also of the opinion that citizens should be able to cross into and out of any borough of NY without paying a toll. Back when the "outer boroughs" were NOT considered a part of NYC, I could see an argument for a toll. A bad argument to be sure, but I could see it. Once they were brought into the fold, I find such tolling ideas fundamentally contrary to free movement.

Anyway, 

Certain exits on both the Queensboro and Brooklyn bridges will be tolled differently. One route on the Queensboro Bridge avoids the toll, while some drivers crossing the Brooklyn Bridge into Manhattan will face an unexpected charge despite taking an exit for the FDR, which is exempt from the toll.

 You can read the entire article but I'll give my explanation here.

The Queens Bridge has NO direct on or offramps that puts you onto a highway like the Verazano or Brooklyn Bridges. The planners KNEW THIS and threw up a plate reader BEFORE any street that gives entrace to the bridge anyway.  When I saw it I knew there was going to be a problem. But the city continued to claim that people going to the bridges would be exempted.  Therefore I expected to see a reader at the entrance to either the upper or lower levels so that drivers who passed under reader one, would be read again at the bridge entrance and given a credit. However, if you didn't pass under reader two (within a specific timeframe), then you paid the congestion fee (which I disagree with anyway but that's another post). No such reader has been installed on the bridge. Therefore since you MUST pass "into the zone" in order to get onto  The Bridge (shout out to MC Shan) outbound, they have effectively tolled that bridge.

When it comes to inbound traffic, there is ONE way to avoid the toll. The upper level off ramp places traffic above the congestion zone. Currently  there is only ONE LANE functioning in that direction. 

One.

I can imagine everyone trying to avoid the toll by trying to get on the upper level, That will not work out for very long (I say no longer than a week). All other inbound lanes dump the driver in the zone with the closest being exactly 2.25 blocks into the zone. That 1/4 is the portion of block 3 that is within the zone before the gantry.  Yes, you will pay anywhere from $3 to $11 to drive 2 blocks to get from the bridge exit closest to the FDR to the FDR.

Yes, the planners in NYC new this and said "Meh. Too bad".

Now they did NOT have to do this at all. Since it is known by all the relevant parties that there is no way to get onto The Bridge, without entering local streets, they could have made a carve out so that the readers would be located on the southern side of the bridge access streets until 2nd avenue and then place them back on streets north of the bridge AFTER the entrance to the bridge from the affected streets. 

Similarly they could have made carve outs for the most direct routes from The Bridge to the FDR. For example the lower level exit that dumps at The Tram should allow vehicles to make the "U Turn" onto the same street the "earlier" exit. Of course the reason you cannot do this is because 1st Avenue is one way, in the opposite direction. Drivers so situated must go another block west, make the right turn, go another block, then make another right to go back east.

Again, it's not their fault. That's how the bridge was designed. How about some eminent domain and knock down those towers and build on and off ramps? Oh right. Too....rich?

I kid. Its not practical or necessary. This is a policy problem not a geography problem.

Speaking of, I understand there is a plate reader ON the FDR.

Why?

Well I believe that eventually they will collect on the FDR south of a certain point. Just like how the speed cameras were posted to, you know, save the children and are now 24/7 revenue generators. They will NOT be satisfied with bending drivers over for driving 2 blocks.

Of course NY residents, well some of them, will complain but they won't do anything about it. They voted in the people who made these decisions and they apparently like it.

They get taxed and are good with illegal aliens running up in their city and getting paid to be there. They're good with rising subway crime and having people who defend themselves or others get  arrested and prosecuted. They are good with fake trials of ex-presidents whom they don't like.

So they're good with this because I guarantee that not a single representative in Albany will lose their seat in the next election over this. 

I see reports of NYC residents complaining about the NJ plates and the lot. These dummies don't realize that the presence of out of state plates (that don't belong to residents) is a sign of money (and therefore tax revenue) INTO the city by people volunteering to come into NY. All that traffic equals money. No traffic means people are not coming into the city and spending money. 

Y'all may find out sooner rather than later how that turns out.

Where Vox Clears Trump of Insurrection

 One of the legs of the "Trump is an insurrectionist" argument is the speech that Trump gave on Jan 6. Those proposing this argument, including the Colorado court, claim that Trump knew or should have known that peopld would take his speech as a call to violence. Indeed, they say that Trump should not have even exercised his right to petition his government BECAUSE such people would likely be in attendance.

Now, sane people know this is a bunk argument even without citing the follow up video that was deleted from Twitter BY Twitter telling people to go home. Now we have Vox making the argument against the Colorado court AND those still hanging onto the chad that is "muh Trump speech":

Now what would this article have to do with anything?

Indeed, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor points out in a brief opinion accompanying the Court’s decision not to hear Mckesson, the Court recently reaffirmed the strong First Amendment protections enjoyed by people like Mckesson in Counterman v. Colorado (2023). That decision held that the First Amendment “precludes punishment” for inciting violent action “unless the speaker’s words were ‘intended’ (not just likely) to produce imminent disorder.”

Unless what?

"The speakers words were intended (NOT JUST LIKELY) to produce imminent disorder .

Hence even if they were to argue that Trump's speech as "likely" to produce "imminent disorder", There still could not be a case against him based on that.

The reason Claiborne protects protest organizers should be obvious. No one who organizes a mass event attended by thousands of people can possibly control the actions of all those attendees, regardless of whether the event is a political protest, a music concert, or the Super Bowl. So, if protest organizers can be sanctioned for the illegal action of any protest attendee, no one in their right mind would ever organize a political protest again.

You don't say.

Indeed, as Fifth Circuit Judge Don Willett, who dissented from his court’s Mckesson decision, warned in one of his dissents, his court’s decision would make protest organizers liable for “the unlawful acts of counter-protesters and agitators.” So, under the Fifth Circuit’s rule, a Ku Klux Klansman could sabotage the Black Lives Matter movement simply by showing up at its protests and throwing stones.

Or you know, instigators at the Jan 6 rally.

I would expect this to show up in the Jack Smith trial, should it occur.

Babylon Bee on Censorship

 Given the recent censorship applied to this blog, I find the below appropriate. I want to highlight the part where Twitter tried to get them to delete their own post AND check a box stating that they had committed "hate speech". It was a clear example of what these people want (and why I won't give it to them).

The second thing, was when he discusses how people were waiting on BB to back down and just do what Twitter wanted and check the box and get back to "making money". They refused. This is like what I went through when I was put under pressure and eventually fired from my job. People thought I was crazy to leave 6 figures plus a lot of sick pay, over "just a shot". These people like, unfortunately most, did not understand standing on principle. Too many people are beholden to the almightly dollar. Too many people who proclaim "God is in control" and "The Lord is My Sheppard", folded the minute the pressure was applied.

But enough about me. 

Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon says a lot of things. This time, it's an important message about the battle against censorship. pic.twitter.com/ltpeMu40hK

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) April 5, 2024

Fix The Battery Problem

 A change of topic today. For the past year I've been eyeing used BMW i3s. My employment situation severely changed my commute and so I was considering a change in vehicle. At one point I was looking at an 2015(?) i3 REX. Black of course. I knew that the battery range meant I could get to work on the battery (at least in decent weather) but I would be on gasoline on the way home.

But I was wary of the battery. I've had phones, earbuds, and other things with lithium ion batteries and I know that its only a matter of time before they go bye-bye. This particular model was ~19k at the time. I passed on it and went on with my life.

A few weeks ago, I saw an article online where people who recently purchased an I3 discovered they needed to replace the battery. The replacement cost would be between $30k and 70k.  More than the vehicle was purchased for. More than the vehicle was purchased for NEW.  I said then , that once word got out how expensive the battery is, Nobody in their right mind would pay for one of these vehicles. It is literally a wallet destroying time bomb.

Lo and behold, I took a gander at Autotempest.com and saw that the bottom has fallen out from under the i3 and prices have dropped into the mid to upper 4 figure range. It was bound to happen and it underscores a major thing that needs to be addressed if EVs are going to be suitable replacements for gasoline and hybrid vehicles:

The Battery Problem.

Imagine you purchased a car and every year it lost power. Doesn't matter how much maintenance you do or how many miles you do, the engine would lose power.  Eventually you'd get in the car and it wouldn't start.  Now some people would get lucky and get 300k before that happened but on average, it would hit people at 100k (I'm making up numbers here for effect).  Imagine then, you had to replace the engine on this car to the tune of more than the car is worth. Imagine even worse that if you wait too long, there will be NO ENGINE for you to replace it with!

Imagine the second hand market for such a vehicle. Yeah, me neither.

Yeah, battery tech will get better in the future (and hopefully far less exploitative of child labour) but there needs to be a widespread development of third party battery services and suppliers who can provide cost effective replacement batteries for old(er) EVs. If not the environmental waste that will be "old EVs" will be massive.* There needs to be an ability to put new batteries with better range and BMS into older vehicles as well. There is absolutely no reason that an I3 battery cannot be replaced with an upgraded one from a 3rd party. These are carbon fiber vehicle with mostly aluminum appendages. These can go for years. We already know the industry is going out have to move on from Lithium Ion tech. There simply isn't enough of it to replace all gasoline propelled vehicles and the environmental impact is huge (we just don't see it).  When that transition happens, all the current vehicles will be dead if they cannot be retrofitted and nobody in their right mind would pay more than a few bucks for a used one knowing that the battery will go to sleep on them in short order.

So the problem, at least A problem I see that needs to be addressed quickly is the battery replacement problem. I believe the range problem will eventually sort itself out with tech (and not weight 4 tons), but in the end, it is simply not feasible to expect people to dole out 5 figures for a replacement battery or purchase another vehicle (and putting yet another one in the EV graveyard) when their battery degrades too much.

Meanwhile, I continue to look at a 120ah i3 REX (with sun roof) which I too can put a gas tank in the frunk and hope I don't rear end someone.

Biden's Child Labourers

 As we know, Biden has been flying Illegal aliens all over the US via private flights. They use the euphemism "migrant" to get around the laws they are breaking but we know exactly what is going on. Well we also now know what these aliens are doing (and why there is no serious Republican efforts to stop this):

Kids as young as 14 were found working at a Tennessee factory that makes lawn mower parts

What kind of kids?

Immigrant children as young as 14 were found working illegally amid dangerous heavy equipment at a Tennessee firm that makes parts for lawn mowers sold by John Deere and other companies, according to Labor Department officials.

Immigrant children? Well that's interesting. What KIND of immigrant children?

 Pott, the general counsel for Tuff Torq’s majority owner, said the child workers were temporary and were not hired directly by Tuff Torq. He said they used fake names and false credentials to obtain jobs through a temporary staffing agency

What kind of immigrants use fake names and fake credentials (all crimes by the way)?

Illegal aliens do so in order to get work. 

So this is actually a story of illegal aliens breaking more laws in order to work for people who are also breaking the law by hiring them. It's not mentioned in this piece whether the agency (if in fact that claim is true) has ALSO been prosecuted. You'd think THAT would be important. Perhaps the Feds are ONLY concerned with the type of work being done rather than the fact that they shouldn't be employed anywhere in the first place. 

The Diddy Raid

The saying goes something along the lines of:

When you plot revenge, make sure to dig a hole for yourself.

When I saw the raid on Diddy's two properties, I knew that it was fallout from the decision to allow people with claims of sexual abuse from way back when, to get to file suits. Diddy's lawyers said as much in response to the raids.

The alleged reasons for this extension of limitation was to get pedo priests and Trump.  Russell Simmons saw the writing on the wall and broke the hell out of the USA to a non-extradition country, making sure nobody from his past could file charges against him for things he either did not do or were done consensually at the time but could now generate income for those who suddenly find themselves aggrieved.

As we know, Diddy has had 3 suits filed against him. I believe 2 have been settled and settled QUICKLY. The swiftness of the settlements leave the skeptical person thinking there was fire to that smoke.

Another thing I was thinking about is this: Is Diddy everything Michael Jackson was said to be? Is Diddy worse? I do not know and I'm not claiming to know anything in particular. I don't generally follow celebs so I don't really care. I just find it interesting how we still don't have the Epstein client list and then this goes down. If there was in fact sex trafficking going on, WHO took part? Will we be told? How many black celebs will be caught up AND will they be exposed? If they are then why the protection of the Epstein people?

Haiti Shits The Bed. Again.

 I know that sounds harsh.

I have a poster of Toussaint L'Ouveture and Jean Jaques Desalines on my walls.  That the Haitian people threw off slavery back in 1804 is a great thing.  But that was a long time ago.

Yes, I know France made Haiti pay for it's freedom. 

But still.

Haiti first came to my knowledge due to Papa and Baby Doc Duvalier. 

Then there was a the very pretty Haitian girl in high school, but that's another story.

Hearing about the horrors of the Duvaliers stuck with me. 

Then there was Aristide, a "saviour" who, being familiar with how things went down on that Island, knew would not last long.  By that time having seen what had gone on in Gaza/Palestine, I had become very wary of charismatic leaders AND the volatile situation that occurs when citizens of such places think that this guy is going to make their lives better...RIGHT NOW.

Of course we know what happened to Aristide.

To be honest, right now, I don't even recall who came after or how many. I do know that there have been repeated failures to properly run that country. It has been example number one of those who points out the failures of black rule. And lets be honest, it's really hard to argue. Particularly when a less black half of the shared Island doesn't have the same problems.

One would have to seriously consider if Haiti is cursed. After all, there are other Islands not having such misfortune. But so long as the leadership diverts money to private accounts in America and Europe (like others such as Mobutu), and people think the government is some magic organization that produces wealth out of thin air, I don't see how I'll meet my life's end without seeing another "uprising in Haiti" story splash across a screen somewhere.

Does the Clinton Foundation, the UN and others who have been involved in Haiti bear some responsibility? Sure. Ultimately though it comes down to Haitians themselves. It's easy to burn down a building, kill a few elites and whatnot. Destroying is ALWAYS easier than building. Shooting is easier on the ego than peaceful resolution of conflict. The long game is always harder than the short game. But these are things that will need to happen to end this cycle.

This morning I read that a few power stations were destroyed by the rebels. Why? Do they not plan on using electricity ever again? Who's going to pay to rebuild these stations that need not have been destroyed? Who's GOING to get paid to rebuild?

Who's going to be making money [this time] to change the proverbial sheets?

I don't know and I don't wish I'll on Haitians, but it's time to get "potty trained" and stop being the laughing stock [and ward] of the world.

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.

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.

Snow Roach?

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

This is James (J.R.) Reeves

Reeves is Chief Information Officer and IT Director for USAGM, the federal agency responsible for global media coverage

He refers to Whites as "snow roaches" and celebrates the fact that the "roaches" will become a minority in the United States… pic.twitter.com/VburFKWqaB

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) March 1, 2024

 

 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

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

The NATO Comment

 So Dems have also went to town on two NATO comments. One from Putin's interview with Carlson and the other from the mouth of Trump. In regards to the former, Putin said that NATO had agreed to not expand eastward after the end of the Warsaw Pact. Dems have responded by saying that there was no such agreement. Except:

I suppose the LA Times, an outlet I stopped following some time ago, was a Kremlin front organization back in 2016.

Leaders in Moscow, however, tell a different story. For them, Russia is the aggrieved party. They claim the United States has failed to uphold a promise that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe, a deal made during the 1990 negotiations between the West and the Soviet Union over German unification. In this view, Russia is being forced to forestall NATO’s eastward march as a matter of self-defense.

The West has vigorously protested that no such deal was ever struck. However, hundreds of memos, meeting minutes and transcripts from U.S. archives indicate otherwise. Although what the documents reveal isn’t enough to make Putin a saint, it suggests that the diagnosis of Russian predation isn’t entirely fair. Europe’s stability may depend just as much on the West’s willingness to reassure Russia about NATO’s limits as on deterring Moscow’s adventurism.

Does this mean there was an actual signed contract? No.

Anyone who knows how these things go know that there are often a lot of unsaid things and unmentionable "promises". Often these "gentlemens agreements" are "off the books" and are used by BOTH parties to have plausible deniability later on when the political winds change.

"We never promised that..."

In early February 1990, U.S. leaders made the Soviets an offer. According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion.

Gorbachev, in my opinion was negotiating from an extremely weak position and probably wanted such a promise in writing but could not get the concessions he wanted/needed with such a demand. At best, the "iron clad guarantee" was merely a stalling tactic, but if it had been a promised kept, then would Ukraine be in the position it is in today?

I doubt it.

Nevertheless, great powers rarely tie their own hands. In internal memorandums and notes, U.S. policymakers soon realized that ruling out NATO’s expansion might not be in the best interests of the United States. By late February, Bush and his advisers had decided to leave the door open. 

Like I said.

It’s therefore not surprising that Russia was incensed when Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Baltic states and others were ushered into NATO membership starting in the mid-1990s. Boris Yeltsin, Dmitry Medvedev and Gorbachev himself protested through both public and private channels that U.S. leaders had violated the non-expansion arrangement. As NATO began looking even further eastward, to Ukraine and Georgia, protests turned to outright aggression and saber-rattling.

So yeah. There was an agreement. Paper agreement? No. As they say, get it in writing. Verbal agreements rarely hold up in court.

The Next Narrative Dropped

 So with the report about Biden making the rounds, where I even saw a very left television show admit that the report is 'not good" and admitting that most voters see Biden as not able to do the job, the next narrative has dropped.

Yes, The report about Biden is not really about Biden you see. It's actually an attack on Kamala Harris as the would be first black female president. The initial narrative (or perhaps sub narrative) paints Harris as black rather than biracial or POC, because:

Black women.

And it has been largely black women (at least in profile appearance) that have been pushing this new narrative. The narrative is that whites are attacking Biden in order to discredit Harris because they don't want to see a black female as president.

While I have no doubt that there are some who actually hold that position, this narrative requires short term memory loss.  Kamala Harris was very much unliked *by Democrats* when she ran in 2020.

The latest RealClearPolitics average of recent polling showed Harris with just 3.4 percent support nationally, and just 3.3 percent and 2.7 percent backing in the early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire, respectively.

 

So in reality Democrats didn't want her to be president period. They know, like we know, that Harris is a literal DEI appointment. Dems wanted to shore up the black vote so they decided upon black woman.  This was done in part to keep women on board as well even though I think that to be the lesser issue. Single white women are overwhelmingly Democrat and all you have to say to them to keep them in line is "abortion".

It will be interesting how Dems go after black voters, particularly males, when you're on year 3 of spending their taxes on illegal aliens and going so far as to say those illegal aliens are their priority.

If This Is True...

Last night I saw that a special council reported that current US president Joe Biden was unable to remember things like when he was VP, the date of his son's death and perhaps other things.  The decided that they could not prosecute because a jury would be sympathetic to Biden't frailties and perhaps the prosecution would not be able to show criminal intent.

There are a few things about this. Disregarding the actual alleged crime, the report means one of three things must be the case:

1) Biden's legal team purposely went about having their client appear as demented as possible in order to give the DOJ a good reason to decline to prosecute. In other words, they are using a form of the insanity plea that some lawyers will use to get their client off while knowing full well their client is fine.

2) The Special Council made all of this up in order to, once again, provide cover for not prosecuting Biden. This would be like what happened with Clinton where the facts as known by the DOJ were enough to prosecute but they declined based on some made up "intent" explanation.

3) Biden is in fact that far gone.

That Biden was, that same day put out in front of the press, suggests that item one is a strong likelihood.  I've already pointed out that Biden is, at minimum in the early stages of Alzheimer's. I didn't think he'd get past year one because I thought Dems had more decency than that. So here we are in 2024. That Biden mixed up two leaders and colors is not a big deal. Seriously. The image painted by the prosecutor would have us expecting far worse a performance.

Item three brings many important questions to mind, first of which is, who exactly is running the country. Clearly Biden would be a figurehead who does what he is told by whoever is wielding the actual power. This is, how do they say it? Undemocratic. Whoever would be wielding actual power was not elected by the people to do so. Nor were they elevated to such a position through constitutional means.

Secondly, If Biden is that far gone, there should be calls and moves to invoke the 25th Amendment. We know that such a move was considered for Trump. Those responsible and empowered to do this would be shirking their constitutional duty by allowing Biden to continue as president. 

If item one is the case, then Biden's own performance and claims to the contrary would and should be enough for the prosecutor to reverse his decision (assuming that is possible), I don't see how that triggers double jeopardy since Biden was never charged with a crime to begin with. Of course that would presume that item two is not true (as well).

However it turns out, the report would provide cover for the DNC should they decide to replace Biden on the ballot for 2024.

Undocumented Americans?

Sen. Chris Murphy: Congress “has failed to deliver for the people we care about most, the undocumented Americans in this country.” pic.twitter.com/UJjehYiFr1

— Immigration Reform Law Institute (@IRLILaw) February 8, 2024

I don't know which is worse. That he called illegal aliens "Undocumented Americans" or that he /Dems care about them "the most".

I mean, we know Republican Inc. have members that feel the same way but GOT DAMN, they know better than to say this kind of bullshit.

Watch African-Americans still vote for these folks 90+ percent. 

Yes The President Is Not Immune...

 But that's not actually the point.

Lets get this out of the way. The president of the United States can be tried for the same crimes you or I can be. That includes if he is in office. This is obvious on it's face. What a president has is, like police officers, qualified immunity. There is a higher bar of presumed innocence given to the police given the very nature of the job. Even then, police can, and are, held to account.

Similarly POTUS has wide latitude when exercising his duties. That latitude is not immunity.  An obvious example is that if a president decided to break into a person's home and kill them. That is breaking and entry and murder. Whether he is POTUS at the time is irrelevant.

Since this is all very obvious, why are his lawyers going through this? There are two answers I can think of:

1) The usual delay tactics: Lawyers will make motions, etc. in order to buy their client time. This time could result in the charges being dropped or any other number of circumstances that are favorable to their client. If your client is guilty of the crime they are accused of, these tactics buy time before the inevitable trip to jail.

2) They are setting up other officials, Democrat officials in particular. See, if the court rules that government officials are not immune from prosecution of crimes while they are in office or acting in an official capacity, There are a LOT of officials that would be in legal jeopardy. As I mentioned in my last post, all these sanctuary cities are in clear violation of federal law. If they try to argue that they were acting in their official capacities, well precedent would say "too bad". Not that Republicans actually have the balls to put this to the test, but the possibility would be there.

All that aside, what I'm bothered by is the accepting of the terms. The legal team seems to be accepting the framing of the prosecution:

Their argument in that regard has three main planks: First, that Trump’s actions amount to “official acts” in his role as president and are therefore not prosecutable. Second, that any prosecution of Trump would excessively constrain future presidents and invite partisan prosecutions once they left office. And third, that a president cannot be convicted by the criminal courts if he or she has been acquitted by Congress in impeachment proceedings regarding the same conduct.

The actual issue is WHAT Trump is being charged with, not whether he can be charged with anything. Perhaps I don't understand lawyering, but my contention is that the charges themselves are bogus and should never have been brought because they criminalize constitutionally protected behavior by trying to criminalize legal speech of THIS person.  Further they criminalize the stated constitutional right to petition the government. This right to petition includes the president. Lastly it attempts to use the heckler's veto in the form of alleged "insurrectionists" threat that Trump should have known about and thus not spoken.

These are ridiculous charges and THAT is what SCOTUS should rule unanimously about should it reach them.

As for the immunity argument, I think those thinking Trump should have such immunity should step back and think of what they are saying. Do you really want a president to not have to consider the law when going about his duties? I sure don't.  As far as I'm concerned executive disregard of the law IS a large part of the problem!

We Don't Need New Laws

 Various Dem legislators and media mouth pieces spent the day yesterday talking about how they have a "bipartisan" bill to secure the border and send money to Ukraine and Israel. It was the biggest show of nonsense we have witnessed possibly since the response to COVID.

One of the things that Dems do is "never let a crisis go to waste". Create a crisis and when the people say "do something", government agents then go about expanding their power. It's an old trick and it continues to work. This bill was nothing more than  Democrats taking yet another inch on their quest for the metaphorical mile.

Lets get this out of the way first: There is no need for any laws. Period. We have all the laws already on the books. The problem isn't the law, it is the non-enforcement thereof. The "crisis" is not the numbers. The crisis is the unwillingness to do what the law demands. It is the unwillingness of those in charge to do their jobs. It is a crisis of voters not holding their represantives to account. It is a crisis of parts of America holding the other in such contempt that they literally do not care what happens to them if it gets in the way of their showing how "good" they are. 

Lastly, it is a crisis on communist agents to destroy America. Period.

It is already within the power of the president of the United States to declare "no entry" to any class of people. It is not subject to judicial review. This is why when SCOUTS interfered with Trump's power to do what has been called the Muslim ban, they should have been ignored just as Texas is currently defying the Feds.

It is already the law of the land that aiding persons to enter or stay illegally in the US is a crime. Yet there are actual government agencies along with multiple private parties engaging in this clearly illegal behavior. None of them have faced prosecution even though they have put their name to paper. Trump had the opportunity to go after these people but failed to do so. Now they are doing to him (RICO charges) what he should have done to them on year one of his presidency.

All these jurisdictions providing shelter and money to illegal aliens are in violation of the law. Period. Each of them should be seeing prosecutions. Perp walk entire city councils if need be. 

Right now Democrats are arguing in court that Trump committed crimes while in office and that him holding office doesn't provide him with immunity. Fine. That then applies down to the members of NY and Chicago city councils. Let's go and arrest these people and put them on trial.

If Trump is guilty of insurrection because he vigorously made claims that the election was stolen from him and made a speech, then how can these sanctuary city leaders who have openly stated their defiance of law any less guilty?

Enough letting these Dems get away with that which they would do to Republicans or any other party that gets in their way. Knuckle up and defy their unlawful acts and put them on the dock when the opportunity arises or sit down and let strong spine people do the job.

Lastly, the idea that security of the US Border is somehow connected to sending money the US doesn't have to Ukraine, who, I remind the reader, broke it's treaty with Russia. Not to mention the US instigated removal of it's [Russia friendly] president, OR the US's continued eastward push via NATO even though there were promises not to do that.

And why is any money going to Israel? It's a relatively wealthy country that can defend itself (as we've seen via the rubble that is currently vast parts of Gaza).

It's pretty clear that to Democrats and a large portion of Republicans,  the American citizen is just a sucker to be squeezed for money to send to someone else. Too many citizens are fine with that though. If they weren't the last few elections (and this primary) would have gone much differently.