The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Monday, March 11, 2024

Stopping The Donald


For John, BLUFThere are a noticable number of Democrats who are exploring ways to thwart Former President Donald Trump from regaining the Oval Office.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From Rasmussen Reports, on 11 March 2024.

Here is the lede plus three:

After the Supreme Court rejected attempts to disqualify former President Donald Trump from the ballot, a majority of Democratic voters now support another way to block Trump’s possible return to the White House.

A national telephone and online survey by Rasmussen Reports and The National Pulse finds that 35% of Likely U.S. Voters say, if Trump wins this year’s election, they would support Democrats in Congress refusing to certify the election results, including 20% who would Strongly Support such a move.  However, a majority (55%) would oppose Congress members refusing to certify a Trump victory, including 44% who Strongly Oppose the idea. Another 10% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Before the Supreme Court ruled against Colorado’s effort to bar Trump from the ballot in that state, it was suggested that Democrats in Congress could stop Trump from being certified as the election winner.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Democratic voters would support such a maneuver, including 34% who Strongly Support it.  However, the idea of Congress blocking Trump from office is opposed by majorities of both Republicans (78%) and voters not affiliated with either major party (67%).

One wonders if they would be willing to show up, and demonstrate on Capitol Hill, ahead of the vote come januasry 2025.  Mais non Monsieur.  Good, America loving Democrats would never do such a thing.  Or would they?

Perhaps the old saw applies—What goes around comes around.

Stopping Donald J Trump, through means fair or foul, seems to dominate the thinking of Democrats.  Or is it just the Progreswsives?

Regards  —  Cliff

Sunday, March 10, 2024

6 Jan Issues Again Surface


For John, BLUFSome wish to make 6 january into a terrible tragedy and a threat to our way of Governmnent.  I am not sure they are convincing.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From Blaze Media, by Reporter Paul Sacca, 10 March 2024.

Here is the lede plus six:

Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and the January 6 Committee suppressed key evidence that former President Donald Trump pushed for 10,000 National Guard troops to protect the U.S. Capitol building ahead of the riots, according to a report.

Cheney and the Democratic-led House Select Committee on January 6 contended that there was "no evidence" to support Trump officials' claims the White House had pressed for 10,000 National Guard troops ahead of the protests in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.

However, a transcribed interview conducted by the committee from January 2022 appears to show evidence that Trump urged Democrat leadership to bring in thousands of National Guard troops to prevent any widespread violence on Jan. 6, according to a new report from The Federalist.

Then-Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato was interviewed by the committee on Jan. 28, 2022.  The transcripts show that he told Cheney and other investigators that he overheard White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows urge Democrat D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser to request as many National Guard troops as she needed to protect the city before the demonstrations centered around the results of the 2020 presidential election.

By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, and agree to receive content that may sometimes include advertisements.  You may opt out at any time. Ornato testified that Meadows "wanted to know if she need[ed] any more guardsmen."

"And I remember the number 10,000 coming up of, you know, 'The president wants to make sure that you have enough.'  You know, 'He is willing to ask for 10,000.'  I remember that number," Ornato told the January 6 Committee.  "Now that you said it, it reminded me of it.  And that she was all set.  She had, I think it was like 350 or so for intersection control, and those types of things not in the law enforcement capacity at the time."

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway wrote, "Not only did the committee not accurately characterize the interview, they suppressed the transcript from public review.  On top of that, committee allies began publishing critical stories and even conspiracy theories about Ornato ahead of follow-up interviews with him.  Ornato was a career Secret Service official who had been detailed to the security position in the White House."

President Biden's State of the Union characterization of our political ssituation is dire:
Not since President Lincoln and the Civil War have freedom and democracy been under assault here at home as they are today.
Do we believe that, aside from the persecution of Donald Trump by a form of Lawfare, that our political system is in trouble?  I am not so sure.  How does it compare to the Palmer Raids or the 47,000 who showed up for the Bonus March?  What about the shoot-up of the House of Representatives, wounding four Congressmen, back on 1 March 1954, just over 70 years ago?

A for the 6 January 2021 event itself, there is too much hand waving to satisfy me.  For example, the murder of Ashley Babbitt.  The pipe bombs.  The Capitol Police waving in visitors.  The failure to release hours of video.  The fact that arrests in the wake of of 6 January are increasing today, rather than decreasing. However, there are certain time limits.  U.S. Attorney for D.C. Matt Graves says the statutes of limitations for many of the charges used by prosecutors will expire on 5 January 2026 – "on the eve of the riot's five-year anniversary."

If then Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not appeared to stack the Special Committee I would be more trusting of the cohnclusions.  As it is, it appears tainted and that is on Ms Pelosi.

Regards  —  Cliff
  The thing most glaring to me is the way DoJ has passed over Preside4nbt Biden's mishandling of classified information from when he was a Senator and Vice president, but prosecution of President Trump for like offenses, from when Mr Trump was President, when he had vastly greater powers.  while some don't see it, it screams at me.   Is this some form of political intimidation?

Thursday, March 7, 2024

Fighting Trump All the Way


For John, BLUFI expect Democrats to fight a Trump Second Term through Inauguration and beyond.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




Here is the sub-headline:

Hostile to freedom, fair elections, and America itself.

From Behind the Black, by Blogger Robert Zimmerman, 6 March 2024 3:29 pm.

Here is the lede plus five:

The reaction by Democratic Party politicians and pundits to the Supreme Court ruling on March 4, 2024 — voiding the effort by Colorado to throw Donald Trump off its ballot — reveals some very fundamental realities that must be faced by all Americans. To put it bluntly: These Democrats have no intention of accepting a victory by Donald Trump in the upcoming election, even if he should win by a majority so vast that no amount of election rigging can disguise it.

The first reaction to that decision was a major tell. Jean Griswold is the secretary of state of Colorado who had taken Trump off the ballot, claiming he was an insurrectionist even though that was merely her opinion as Trump has not only never been convicted of that crime, he has not even been charged with it. Immediately after the court rejected her actions unanimously, she tweeted the following:

I am disappointed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision stripping states of the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for federal candidates. Colorado should be able to bar oath-breaking insurrections from our ballot.
Spurred by her blind hatred of Trump, Griswold’s refusal to deal with reality here is disturbing, to say the least. First, the court made it very clear, unanimously, that the states don’t have this authority when it comes to federal elections. That she as a lawyer could not recognize the plain legal arguments here that were agreed to by even the most radical leftists on the court indicates how blind she has become to reasonable disagreement.

Second, Griswold clearly thinks she by herself, based on nothing but her opinion, has the right to determine who is or is not an insurrectionist. In a country where by law and a very long tradition all people are innocent until proven guilty, by what law does she think she has that right?

The bottom line is that Griswold reveals the mindset of the Democrat Party. They are mentally unprepared to accept a Trump election victory, no matter what, and will do anything to block his victory.

I think Mr Zimmerman may be underplaying the hostility of Progressives to Mr Trump and his reelection.  I have been reading about a broad range of people, with a broad range of ways of thwarting the election and inauguration of Mr Trump.  Then there are the eg,) of the nation talking about thwarting Mr Trump if he makes it to the Oval Office.

It would appear that the Progressives have adopted as their motto "We had to destory the village in order to save it.".  that is a pretty stark view of the situation.  I winoder wht the villagers thought?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Saturday, March 2, 2024

Getting to the Truth


For John, BLUFIt takes Mr Kruiser a while to get to his point.  But, it is an important one.  Governments are not the best way to deal with false information.  They have a bad track record in that area.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




Here is the sub-headline:

From PJ Media, by Reporter Stephen Kruiser 29 February 2024, 2:48 PM.

Here is the lede plus nine:

In the ever-leftward marching world of the erstwhile American political party known as the Democrats, assaults on our most cherished constitutional freedoms are the cornerstone of their efforts to fundamentally transform the Republic.

We're all used to them making a lot of noise about their disdain for the Second Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is one of the few freedoms that they're at least a little bit honest about wanting to take away. They may not admit to their gun-grabbing fantasies, but many of them now don't say "no" when asked if that's the end game.

The assault on due process is mostly denial-based. They've been using college campuses to test market their gulag/kangaroo court approach to justice for years now. That approach was put into public practice with their treatment of the J6 defendants. When any of the Democratic elite are pressed about the J6 victims of injustice, however, they get the kind of blank stare that Joe Biden would if someone told him to find the exit on his own after a speech.

The Democrats' assault on the First Amendment has always been the most complex of their anti-American initiatives for a couple of reasons. One is that they love to cherry-pick the First Amendment when needing justification for their war on religion or their right to riot and burn everything to the ground peaceably assemble. The other is that they need to avail themselves of the very right that they seek to destroy.

Awkward.

Leftists come at free speech from a variety of euphemism-laden angles, the most popular one of late being a concern about "disinformation." Caterwauling about disinformation was key to the Democrats' political weaponization of the COVID-19 pandemic.

They had so much success with it that they're not letting it go.

The New York Post:

MSNBC legal analyst Barbara McQuade argued Monday that the United States’ “deep commitment to free speech” makes Americans uniquely susceptible to disinformation campaigns.

McQuade, a University of Michigan law professor, went on “The Rachel Maddow Show” to promote her new book, “Attack from Within: How Disinformation is Sabotaging America.” She said her “goal” with the book was to spark a “national conversation about truth and our commitment to it.”

Professor McQuade sounds like that Army Spokesman from the Viet-nam War:  "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

We have been sorting through misinformation and disinformation since we got here.  And think of the Vikings, with that whole Iceland/Greenland thing.

For over two hundred years we have been well served by freedom of information.  This era is no more fraught than others in our history.  We can deal with it.  Give us access and let us sort it out.  After all, that is what Voting is all about.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Except When Inconvenient


For John, BLUFA Federal Judge has decided that press freedoms don't apply in his courtroom.  Sad.  Very sad.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From The Blaze, by Reporter Chris Enloe, 1 March 2024.

Here is the lede plus one:

federal judge held veteran investigative reporter Catherine Herridge in civil contempt of court on Thursday for upholding journalistic ethics and not revealing her confidential sources.

Federal district Judge Christopher Cooper ordered Herridge to pay a fine of $800 per day until she divulges the information the court wants.

I would say $800 a day is serious money.  In a month that is $24,000.  In less than a year it is a nice home in some suburb.  And, it is outrageous.

What is happening to Freedom of the Press?.

Yes, the media is a mixed bag, but we still need press freedom so we are somewhat informed and able to have insight into wat the government, at whatever level, is up to.

Regards  —  Cliff

Monday, February 26, 2024

The End Game for Mr Hur


For John, BLUFDOJ Special Prosecuter Robert K Hur concluded that the Federal Government should not prosecute President Joe Biden for the mishandling of classified information.  He did it in a way to protect Special Prosecutor Jack Smith's case againt Donald J Trump for a similar activity.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From The Daily Caller, by Reporter Hailey Gomez, 25 February 2024, 2:42 PM ET.

Here is the lede plus one:

Florida Republican Rep. Byron Donalds and NBC host Kristen Welker clashed Sunday over the conclusion from special counsel Robert Hur’s report which investigated President Biden’s handling of classified documents.

Donalds appeared on “Meet the Press” to discuss his support of former President Donald Trump for the upcoming general election.  During the interview, Welker questioned the congressman on a claim from Biden campaign co-chair Cedric Richmond calling a recent comment from Trump over his criminal charges “plain racist.”

My interest is further down, where Host Kristen Welker tried to say that Special Council Robert K Hur didn't have enough evidence:
“Hold on, I have to hit the pause button for one minute, Congressman, because the Hur report was very clear that there was not enough evidence to bring charges against President Biden and that ultimately there was not —,” Welker stated before Donalds cut in.
It would seem Ms Welker missed this sentence in Mr Hur's report:
Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen.
That seems pretty straight forward.  As someone who has handled classified information I would take that as saying Mr Biden broke the rules.  If that sentence had been written about one of my Brothers i would recommend they hire a lawyer immnediately.  Handling classified information is serious business.

Perhaps Ms Welker was mislead by the first paragraph of Mr Hur's Report Executive Summary:

We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter.  We would reach the same conclusion even if Department of Justice policy did not foreclose criminal charges against a sitting president.
Yes, and the Report goes on:
However, for the reasons summarized below, we conclude that the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecution of Mr. Biden is also unwarranted based on our consideration of the aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in the Department of Justice's Principles of Federal Prosecution. For these reasons, we decline prosecution of Mr. Biden.
This is where the "diminished faculties and faulty memory" came in:
Mr. Biden's memory was significantly limited, both during his recorded interviews with the ghostwriter in 2017, and in his interview with our office in 2023.
The more expanded version is:
We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,  Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt.  It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him — by then a former president well into his eighties — of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.
I would suggesst that in order to prevent long term libility for the President, Mr Hur had to fuzz up the ability to obtain a guilty verdict.  If he did not, then his efforts to exonerate President Biden would then be turned against DoJ in terms of its efforts to prosecute President Trump.

I suggest that a conclusion was drawn that the easiest way to protect President Biden from prosecution, while not getting in the way of the prosecution of Mr Trump for similiar activites, was to suggest a jury would view Mr Biden sympathetically, due to his age and faulty memory.  He would remind them of a beloved Grandparent.

At the same time the President would need to be able to show his strength, so as to avoid removal from office under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.  Or be removed from the Democratic Party 2024 ticket.

Meanwhile, the prosecution of Mr Trump could proceed.

It worked.  The report came out.  Mr Biden held a Press Conference where he did pretty well, showing himself fit to be President.  And, Mr Trump is still under indictment.

The down side is that this will increase the cynicism of a portion of our Citizens and lead to even more distrust of the Department of Justice.  If this group is merely from the Basket of Deplorables, then it may be an acceptable outcome for Democrats.

Regards  —  Cliff

Wednesday, February 21, 2024

Farewell NYC


For John, BLUFDid the Empire State shoot itself in the foot by going after Mr Donald Trump?  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From The Hill, by Reporter Miranda Nazzaro, 19 February 2024, 8:17 PM ET.

Here is the lede plus one:

“Shark Tank” investor Kevin O’Leary ripped into what he called “loser” New York and vowed to no longer invest in the state, when asked about a New York court’s $355 million verdict against former President Trump last week.

Trump, his business and his top executives — including the former president’s sons — were dealt a major blow last Friday when Judge Arthur Engoron ordered him to pay more than $355 million for conspiring to alter his net worth to receive tax and insurance benefits.  The order also blocks Trump from participating in New York business for three years.

“This award, I mean, just leaving the whole Trump thing out of it and seeing what occurred here … And I’m no different than any other investor, I’m shocked at this,” O’Leary said in an interview Monday with Fox Business.  “I can’t even understand or fathom the decision at all.  There’s no rationale for it.”

The award was part of New York Attorney General Letitia James’s (D) lawsuit against the former president, the Trump organization and his executives based on more than a decade of fraud and capped off a months-long civil fraud trial in the state.

O’Leary, the chairman of O’Leary Ventures, argued New York was “already a loser state,” citing policy, high taxes and uncompetitive regulation as primary reasons.

“It was already on the top of the list of being a loser state.  I would never invest in New York now,” O’Leary said.  “And I’m not the only person saying that.”

Here is the Epoch Times report on the same srory.  And, Not he Bee.

Remember Mr Trump's signature catch phrase.  "Thet're not after me.  They are after you?  I am just in the way."  I think for a lot of voters that rings true.

Time will tell if Mr O'Leary's prediction comes true.  In the mean time, I don't see how the levied fines can not have an impact on Mr Trump's businesses.  In the mean time, where does Mayor Eric Adams turn the next time he needs an ice skating rink rehabilitated.

Regards  —  Cliff