Senatorial gravitas?

I hear Senate incumbent Raphael Warnock (D, GA) says challenger Herschel Walker (R, GA) will not be able to cope with the cognitive demands of being a Senator.

What is Warnock’s opinion of John Fetterman’s Senatorial capability? Was he ever asked?

Should Mehmet Oz have used this tactic against Fetterman in PA?

If not, why not?

Hillary. Projecting.

Hillary Clinton: “Right-Wing Extremists Already Have A Plan To Literally Steal The Next Presidential Election”

If she were serious, and constrained by logic, she would be supporting some voting process which would:

    1) Ensure every voter is a) a citizen, b) who they say they are, c) not deceased, d) registered in a single state (yes, c and d are redundant with b, but Jocelyn Benson isn’t the only Dem SecState who had to be sued to purge voter rolls of dead people);

    2) Ensure ballot integrity. Meaning a) no illegitimate vote (see 1) is counted, b) polling places are closely monitored by both major parties without interference, c) voting machine software is open source, d) no unsolicited mail in ballots are sent (for example, to the P.O Boxes of vacant lots), e) ballot harvesting is outlawed, f) military ballots are counted, if properly postmarked, in any state where the number of military personnel could potentially change the outcome, even when delivered a month after election day.

That would be, literally, a good start on stopping ‘election theft.’ The only thing on that list about which reasonable might disagree is voter ID.

Therein lies a problem. Some of the people putatively portrayed as reasonable by the legacy media (Stacy Abrams, Joe Biden), still invoke Jim Crow laws as a reason to suppress the votes of living citizens by insisting deceased and/or non-citizens have a right to dilute legitimate voter rolls.

We are substantially past the Jim Crow era.

On the other hand, we are not past ballot fraud. Technology and the relaxing of ballot verification have made it easier than ever. No one worried about ‘election theft’ would countenance it. Much less promote it.

I won’t go into the simple utilitarian argument that voter ID is a much smaller threat to the Republic (it is not a Democracy) than violating the other restraints I have mentioned. You could look this up and form your own opinion.

Given Hillary’s history, do you think her advice is credible? Or is it partisan political maneuvering and personal spite?

Let’s hear your proposal, Ms. Rodham. Does it involve Sid “Vicious” Blumnenthal as Federal Election Czar?

The pre-theft of election plots, like suppression of the Hillary email story, and the Hunter Biden laptop story, is left to another post.

Vote NO on Michigan Proposal 2

It Destroys Michigan’s Election Integrity

An email from The Association of Mature American Citizens (AMAC).

The deceptively positive sounding “Promote the Vote 2022” is the campaign behind Proposal 2. It a dark money-funded attempt to write many of the worst things about the 2020 election disaster into the Michigan Constitution. This will result in making unsupervised voting, restricted election audits, and third-party funding of elections permanent in Michigan.

Here are just a few of the awful provisions contained in Proposal 2:

  • It would make the now infamous ballot drop boxes permanent, taxpayer-funded, and everywhere. This will make illegal ballot harvesting and ballot trafficking even easier! And it will cost your township or city to install and to monitor these boxes — more of your tax dollars!
  • It would let people vote without photo ID. One of the biggest problems in 2020 will never be fixed.
  • It would restrict election audits to government entities only. Sorry, no independent audits by concerned citizens allowed.
  • It would allow funding of — and thus control of — elections by outside organizations directed by billionaires.
  • It would promote and facilitate unsolicited absentee voting — perhaps THE biggest single problem in 2020. When a state is awash in mail-in ballots, the job of the fraudster is much easier.
  • Please consider the consequences — this would be the end of free and fair elections!

    VOTE NO on Proposal 2.

    Please share this with family and friends.

    Proposal 2 does promote voting. By making it easier to cast illegal votes. It makes fair and free elections impossible.

    The wording of Proposal 2 is highly deceptive:

    Proposal 2 would amend the state constitution to add provisions regarding elections. This amendment would recognize the fundamental right to vote without harassing conduct. Require military or overseas ballots be counted if postmarked by election day. Provide voters right to verify identity with photo ID or signed statement. Provide voter right to single application to vote absentee ballot in all election. Require state funded absentee ballot drop boxes and postage for absentee applications and ballots. Provide that only election officials may conduct post-election audits. Require nine days of early in person voting. Allow donations to fund elections, which must be disclosed. Require canvass boards certify elections based only on the official records of votes cast.

    Somebody messed with his migrants

    In his first week in office President Biden revoked President Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy.

    In April he tried to stop the application of Title 42, under which DHS has the authority to expel migrants during a pandemic. It remains in place only through court order.

    Biden’s fellow Democrats at all levels deny there is any problem at the southern border. Vice President Kamala Harris calls it “secure.” As does Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

    These political signals invite would be immigrants to cross the border illegally. Placing themselves in great danger in so doing.

    Having enticed millions of migrants to cross the border, where processing capacity and housing facilities are catastrophically inadequate. In order to avoid pictures of kids in cages For compassionate reasons, the Biden administration was forced relocate tens of thousands of them away from the border. This was a mostly surreptitious effort conducted at night to avoid public scrutiny.

    In addition, hundreds of thousands of them have moved on on their own. Secretary Mayorkas admits we have no idea where they are.

    I an effort to assist the President, the governors of Texas and Florida have moved a few hundred migrants, who volunteered, to ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions in other parts of the United States.

    Fifty (50) of these were recently flown to Martha’s Vineyard, provoking primal NIMBYism from wealthy Progressive residents at whose behest the “sanctuary” label became their community credo. They’ll need new slogans.

    The President is unhappy anyone dares to move a few migrants to places well situated to care for them. Places, until confronted with reality, advertising a deep desire to care for the displaced.

    He is apparently not unhappy about this, though: More than 250,000 migrants have arrived this year alone in Yuma, Arizona – population ~100,000. It’s easily possible that 100,000 of those have gone off the radar on their own, of course, so Federal authorities no longer need worry about them. It’s a solution of sorts.

    Yuma’s job is to take care of Biden’s future voters. Martha’s Vineyard’s job is to donate to Democrat election campaigns. Don’t mix them up.

    So, the President’s anger is unappeased. Somebody messed with his migrants.
    Biden condemns Republicans for using migrants as ‘props’

    “Republicans are playing politics with human beings, using them as props. What they’re doing is simply wrong, it’s un-American, it’s reckless,” Biden said Thursday evening.

    “And we have a process in place to manage migrants at the border. We’re working to make sure it’s safe and orderly and humane,” Biden continued. “Republican officials should not interfere with that process by waging these political stunts.”

    Never mind that Biden’s open border policy is using migrants as props to force passage of some form of amnesty, while cynically salivating over the prospect of millions of new Democrat voters and denying there is any crisis in Yuma, for example.

    Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott are the ones playing politics.

    If there were evidence for the Democrat claim that Desantis’ and Abbott’s efforts are making the lives of the migrants worse, there might be room to discuss the practice. As it is, here’s how Biden’s “process” is working out (This isn’t a story the US corporate media wants to touch. We have to turn to the Brits.):
    Apocalyptic El Paso: Shocking photos show 1,000 migrants sleeping on border city’s streets which now resemble ‘a third-world country’ with no sanitation

    Sounds a lot like the paradise of downtown San Francisco and the streets of Los Angeles. Except Frisco and LA asked for it.

    What is the collective noun…

    … for Progressives.

    You know, as in a “Murder of Crows”, a “Confusion of Weasels”, a “Cackle of Hyenas”, an “Infestation of Mosquitos”, a “Plague of Rats.”

    I know a “Collective of Progressives” is self nominating, but I reject it because it is a tautology. “Hive-mind” would do better, but if Progs liked it (and why would they not?), it would just generate a bunch of new Hymenoptera based pronouns.

    Let me suggest a “Diversity of Progressives.” Progressives already embrace it. And it encapsulates the natural hypocrisy of a group that worships D I V E R S I T Y so long as diversity does not involve any divergent thought.

    Exploits

    Florida Governor Ron DeSantis recently flew two plane loads of illegal immigrants (a bare smattering of those flown into Florida in the dead of night by Joe Biden) to Martha’s Vineyard. One of the most affluent places in the US1.

    Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren was not pleased. She had this to say on Twitter:

    Exploiting vulnerable people for political stunts is repulsive and cruel. Massachusetts is fully capable of handling asylum seekers, and I’ll keep working with local, state, and federal partners to ensure we have the necessary resources to care for people with dignity.

    Senator, Governors Desantis and Abbott are providing your constituents with what they voted for when they elected you. DeSantis handed you an opportunity to renew your compassionate commitment to ‘asylum seekers’. And you did. What’s not to like?

    Your compassion and the Vineyard’s wealth can now be brought to bear directly on healing the trauma of the volunteers DeSantis accepted from the random people foisted on his state by the leader of your party.

    Asylum seekers. Enticed by President Biden’s open borders invitation, exploited by the hives of scum and villainy from which they fled, by the Coyotes who smuggled them to the border, and by random perverts, thieves, and killers they met along the way. There’s nothing DeSantis could do to worsen the conditions they escaped. In fact, he’s bidding to do quite the opposite by commending them to your wealthy and compassionate hands. What I don’t get is why you haven’t been demanding these poor and downtrodden souls to be given into your care immediately upon crossing the border.

    Desantis and Abbott are sending exploited people to wealthy places where immigration enforcement is called fascist and border control officers are equated with Auschwitz guards. Certainly that’s Martha’s Vineyard*.*

    As someone with Native American heritage, like Senator Warren, will deeply appreciate – Martha’s Vineyard is properly called Noepe in the Wampanoag language of the Algonquian’s. That’s what you should say in your paleface land acknowledgement rituals.

    But also Chicago, Washington DC, New York City (where non-citizens can even vote), California (where they are eligible for free health care), and…

    Oh, wait. Not California. Coal to Newcastle and all that.

    These Governors are performing a public service. And besides, as I always say, “If you are going to exploit vulnerable people for personal or political gain, it’s best not to fake anything.”


    Giving sanctuary cities an opportunity to actually exercise the virtue they signal is a creative approach to satisfying a demand by someone who has an excess supply. It is charity to the vulnerable and to the pious.

    Here’s a brief portrait of that piety in action from Wikipedia. I know, I know, but Wikipedia’s leftist slant makes this all the more credible to Progs not named Elizabeth Warren.
    1

    Since the 19th century, the island has had a sizable community of Portuguese-Americans, concentrated primarily in the three down-Island towns of Oak Bluffs, Tisbury, and Edgartown; they have traditionally worked alongside other island residents in whaling and fishing. It also has a large community of Brazilian immigrants who work mainly in the maintenance of the island’s vacation facilities.[98]

    The island’s permanent residents were profiled in a London Telegraph article showing “the dark side of Martha’s Vineyard”.[99] In the same month an article titled “Edgartown’s Darker Side” appeared in the Boston Globe detailing the extremely poor working conditions suffered by Irish and Serbian students in a newly built private members club in Edgartown.[100] Concerns over munitions that may be buried on Martha’s Vineyard, most from World War II,[101] have led to an 8.1 million dollar project to remove and rebuild part of a privately owned barrier beach off the Tisbury Great Pond.[102]

    The year-round working population of Martha’s Vineyard earns 30 percent less on average than other residents of the state while keeping up with a cost of living that is 60 percent higher than average.[103] Many people are moving to more affordable areas.[citation needed] Schools have seen a successive drop in enrollment over the past few years.[citation needed] Typically home to artists, musicians, and other creative types, the Island has many residents who manage by working several jobs in the summer and taking some time off in the winter.[citation needed] The lack of affordable housing on the island has forced many families to move off-island.[citation needed]

    Many high-profile residents, movie stars, politicians, writers, and artists contribute to fundraisers and benefits that raise awareness of the fragile ecosystem of the Vineyard and support community organizations and services. The largest of these is the annual Possible Dreams Auction.[104]

    There are, then, acceptable immigrants on Martha’s Vineyard.

    Just not any who haven’t had a background employment check. Those are being exploited.

    Alternative Civil Liberty Umpires

    The American Civil Liberties Union was once a stalwart, scrappy, absolutist defender of free speech and due process. It took serious heat for its defense* of American Nazi’s right to free expression in 1977.
    *There are many accounts of this. You will find some here, here, and here.

    That indomitable devotion to the First Amendment prompted me to become a card carrying ACLU member. But I haven’t been a member since ~1985 because the ACLU drifted away from this purity of principle. It continued downhill for many years, but after the 2016 election the corruption rapidly became complete and absolute.

    The rotten yolk of this organization may still be called a “union,” but it now diametrically opposes the other three words in its name. Enthralled by the money gushing out of the Diversity/Inclusion/Equity cabal, ensnared by rote identitarianism, and blinded by Trump Derangement Syndrome – the ACLU turned its back on the Constitution.

    RIP. Here are comments from two high profile liberal lawyers. Like me, former ACLU supporters:

    Alan Dershowitz:

    The ACLU has defended Nazis, the KKK, pornographers and purveyors of hate speech. I was privileged to serve on the national board of the ACLU during its golden age.

    Then everything changed. The board decided to “diversify.” This meant that a certain number of women, African Americans, Latinos and gays had to be represented—which, in turn, meant the representatives of these groups were expected to prioritize the parochial interests of the groups they represented over the more general interests of all Americans pertaining to free speech and due process.

    Unsurprisingly, the organization stopped prioritizing free speech and due process. Instead, it began to prioritize a woman’s right to choose, gay marriage, racial issues and “progressive politics.” This trend began well before the election of President Donald Trump, but it came to a head when he took office. The ACLU turned into a money-making machine by prioritizing the anti-Trump attitudes of its new members over its traditional role as a nonpartisan defender of free speech and due process.

    The ACLU is now rolling in money, but it is intellectually bankrupt in its defense of free speech and due process—especially when these core liberties conflict with its money-making progressive agenda. This is particularly true with respect to the attacks on free speech and due process on university campuses, which are rampant and largely ignored by the current ACLU.

    Jonathan Turley:

    For years, many of us who have long supporteded the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have grown alarmed by its abandonment of core principles in the support of civil liberties in favor of support what seems a more political agenda…

    Free speech protection was once the touchstone of the ACLU which was fearless in its unpopular advocacy. It is now an area of open retreat for the organization as the leadership seeks to appease irate donors. Despite the right to carry being a constitutional right, the ACLU has indicated that it will not vigorously support the right to lawfully carry weapons at protests. That is no more evident than in the truly shocking filing of the ACLU to oppose due process rights for students at our colleges and universities, particularly in the imposition of a higher and more consistent evidentiary standard…

    The group seems increasingly committed to appeasing liberal donors and supporters in avoiding such fights. Now it has actually taken up the cause of reducing due process — a position that disgraces its long and proud legacy… It is now actively trading off civil liberties to achieve beneficial social ends.

    We need new civil rights umpires.

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and the New Civil Liberties Alliance are worth supporting in the vacuum ACLU betrayal has left.

    New Civil Liberties Alliance

    NCLA views the administrative state as an especially serious threat to constitutional freedoms. No other development in contemporary American law denies more rights to more Americans. Although Americans still enjoy the shell of their Republic, there has developed within it a very different sort of government—a type, in fact, that the Constitution was designed to prevent. This unconstitutional administrative state within our U.S. government is the focus of NCLA’s concern. NCLA urges Americans to recognize the administrative threat and join our civil liberties movement against it.

    Here is a look at litigation NCLA supported: State of Missouri ex rel. Schmitt, et al. v. Biden, et al.

    Public statements, emails, and recent publicly released documents establish that the President of the United States and other senior officials in the Biden Administration violated the First Amendment by directing social-media companies to censor viewpoints that conflict with the government’s messaging on Covid-19.

    NCLA joined the lawsuit, State of Missouri ex rel. Schmitt, et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., et al., representing renowned epidemiologists and co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, as well as Dr. Aaron Kheriaty and Jill Hines. Social media platforms, acting at the federal government’s behest, repeatedly censored NCLA’s clients for articulating views on those platforms in opposition to government-approved views on Covid-19 restrictions.

    This insidious censorship was the direct result of the federal government’s ongoing campaign to silence those who voice perspectives that deviate from those of the Biden Administration. Government officials’ public threats to punish social media companies that did not do their bidding demonstrate this linkage, as do emails from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to social media companies that only recently were made public.

    The Administrative State is nowhere better established than in our Universities, and FIRE started out as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education before recognizing a broader mission. The examples below indicate that FIRE is dedicated to defending the First Amendment. The content of speech is not the issue. Whose Ox is gored is irrelevant. The speakers opinions are sacrosanct, even… especially… if they are unpopular.

    Punished for not using a student’s preferred pronouns, theater professor sues

    A lawsuit filed last week by theater professor Richard Bugg against administrators at Southern Utah University alleges that key school officials violated his First Amendment rights when they punished him for refusing to use a student’s preferred pronouns.

    Bugg is represented by FIRE Faculty Legal Defense Fund network attorney Jerome H. Mooney, with FLDF’s financial support. FLDF offers “first responder” legal assistance to protect the academic freedom and free expression rights of faculty at public colleges and universities, and where appropriate supports litigation when on-campus efforts meet resistance.

    Bugg’s lawsuit alleges that when a student in his 2021 fall semester acting class requested Bugg use they/them pronouns when referring to that student, Bugg instead offered to use that student’s given or preferred proper name. Although Bugg attempted not to use female pronouns to refer to the student, he mistakenly did so two to three times, by his own admission. Despite Bugg’s proposed accommodation, the student filed a Title IX complaint against him alleging Bugg would not refer to the student using gender-neutral pronouns.

    After a hearing, SUU determined Bugg violated university policy by engaging in “conduct that constitutes ‘discrimination’ and ‘harassment’ based on gender identity.” As punishment, SUU has required Bugg to take a class about the use of gender-neutral pronouns in the English language, and that Bugg use students’ preferred pronouns. SUU also cautioned that if Bugg’s continued refusal to use preferred pronouns causes students to avoid registering for his classes, SUU will open additional sections, and will reduce Bugg’s pay to offset the cost of the additional sections. It also threatened Bugg with possible termination.

    FIRE urges Twitter, Carnegie Mellon not to censor professor who wished Queen Elizabeth ‘excruciating’ death

    Queen Elizabeth’s death yesterday spurred a global outpouring of grief from many of her fans, alongside discussion and debate about the complicated history of England’s monarchy. Much of this debate took place on Twitter, which, for better or worse, serves as a modern public square for commentary about current events.

    But critics succeeded in at least partially silencing one such commentator: Carnegie Mellon University professor Uju Anya, who wrote on her personal account hours before the Queen’s death was announced: “I heard the chief monarch of a thieving raping genocidal empire is finally dying. May her pain be excruciating…”

    CMU must publicly refuse to investigate or punish the professor
    Regardless of public controversy, Anya’s tweets remain protected under First Amendment standards. Private institutions like CMU are not bound by the First Amendment to promise free expression, but, laudably, the university has chosen to do so, committing that it “values the freedoms of speech, thought, expression and assembly — in themselves and as part of our core educational and intellectual mission.” CMU goes so far as to say the “university must be a place where all ideas may be expressed freely and where no alternative is withheld from consideration.”

    Now that CMU has promised faculty free expression, it cannot backtrack from “all ideas may be expressed,” to all except this one because people are mad. CMU has not backtracked, but it also has not foreclosed the threat of punishing Anya in its public statement. That’s why FIRE is asking CMU to publicly commit not to investigate or punish Anya for expressing her opinion. As we told CMU:

    While some may find the timing or substance of speech about the deceased to be offensive, freedom of expression does not observe a mourning period. It applies whether speech about the recently departed takes the form of a venerating eulogy, scorn, or something in between.

    If you are so inclined you can join me in supporting NCLA here, and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression here.

    We do need institutions to take up the banner the ACLU has ground into the mud.