There's a followup. This all seems mighty suspicious, considering Tina Peters was the favorite in the race and also the Colorado election official who discovered what may well be a plot to delete election records to cover up cheating in 2020.
Biden admin offering backhanded pardons to illegals
According to the blog author but not the article, this will leave illegals with the ability to apply for legal residency and potentially citizenship. In other words, it's an amnesty. This shouldn't surprise anyone since Biden is Barack's mini-me and Barack had his DACA program to do the same thing, except DACA was publicized because Barack thought he would get political credit for doing it. He learned better when he got massively increased opposition. Biden is going to hide it and hope we don't notice.
I can only agree with Technofog here. This is a desperation move. It makes America look like a third-world nation -- because the FBI is, evidently, as corrupt as law enforcement agencies are in such nations.
House Republicans voting for the bill: Steve Chabot (Ohio) Liz Cheney (Wyo.) Brian Fitzpatrick (Penn.) Tony Gonzales (Texas) Anthony Gonzalez (Ohio) Christopher Jacobs (N.Y.) David Joyce (Ohio) John Katko (N.Y.) Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) Peter Meijer (Mich.) Tom Rice (S.C.) Maria Elvira Salazar (Fla.) Michael Turner (Ohio) Fred Upton (Mich.).
Three Republicans didn’t vote; 193 voted against it.
Senate Republicans voting for the bill: Mitch McConnell (Ky) Roy Blunt (Mo.) Richard Burr (N.C.) Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.) Bill Cassidy (La.) Susan Collins (Maine) John Cornyn (Texas) Joni Ernst (Iowa) Lindsey Graham (S.C.) Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) Rob Portman (Ohio) Mitt Romney (Utah) Thom Tillis (N.C.) Pat Toomey (Pa.) Todd Young (Ind.).
To the "authorities" in Oslo, being a violent follower of Islam is apparently a mental health issue rather than a law enforcement one. Clearly western society is not handling these individuals well.
Lawyers who won gun rights case forced out of law firm
You would think any law firm would consider itself lucky to have two skilled lawyers with major Supreme Court wins on their resume. But apparently not.
In the wake of Dobbs and Bruen, whither Obergefell?
Although the opinion disclaims this direct conclusion, there's just no way Obergefell survives a history and tradition analysis. There can be no constitutional right to gay marriage without an amendment specifically intended to grant it. What the discussion of Obergefell in the recent opinion means is simply that it's not going to happen in the near future. Possibly that one or two new justices are needed to have the votes to do it.
Other opinions mentioned are less certain. But I think Obergefell's days are numbered with the right case and/or the right justice.
Imperial College London are the same folks who gave us horrible studies predicting how bad the pandemic was going to be, including mountains of dead people, before all those studies turned out to be complete bullshit and we found out the vaccines don't work. Now they are trying to claim credit for preventing the bullshit apocalypse with their vaccines that still don't work. And just who is paying for all of this bullshit?
That's right, the same people who were pushing the vaccines, which we now know never worked, and are starting to learn might actually cause serious harm.
So why would anyone listen to these people and their obviously self-serving claims?
Biden admin prepping to put its thumb on the election scale
Using federal agencies this way is a clear violation of the Hatch Act, but the Democrats know that if they win all sins will be forgiven. And as the people grow angrier, the Democrats in government are beginning to realize how much they need the protection of their lofty positions and control over the tools of law enforcement to remain alive and free. Facing such dramatic consequences for losing, is it really any wonder that they are willing to cheat? And is there ay doubt they will try to cheat again, and again, and again?
I've been wondering similar things, but adding in the sheer number of mass shootings we've had recently, and the very convenient cluster of timing that the series of shootings started up the same weekend as the NRA annual meeting in a year the NRA itself was distracted by troubles both internal and external. The timing is suspicious. The apparent choice to let the murderer in Uvale rampage rather than immediately stopping him is suspicious. The number of incidents in short time is suspicious. All that we lack is a known mechanism for deliberate incitement of mass shootings by some government or political source.
Getting there -- to either the weak case (deliberately responding poorly) or the strong case (deliberate incitement) -- is difficult. But we have cases already that strongly suggest both (see, eg, the Draw Mohammad shooting where FBI agents encouraged the attackers and may have ridden to the scene of the attack with the suspect, along with many other reports).
Quite simply, the FBI has become a political "dirty tricks" arm of the federal government and lost the trust of the American people. The FBI clearly has opeeratives willing to violate the law and incite violence in support of political ends. How many other police agencies are willing to take similar steps?
I don't know, but at a minimum, it's now a valid question to ask.
This is the same fundamental error made by gun control supporters, except even less rational. The building didn't kill anyone. It's just a place. Yes, the people in the building when the murderer attacked would probably be traumatized to return to it (and should not be forced to); it's unlikely anyone not told of those events would even know.
The problem is, every time we agree to one of these extravagant emotional gestures, we're training future generations to be even less stoic.
