I'm hearing our military academies are exempt from yesterday's affirmative action ruling.

Sigh...

I'm hearing our military academies are exempt from yesterday's affirmative action ruling.

Quoting here:

"However, the Court specifically exempted the military academies from its decision on race-based affirmative action. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, said in a footnote that this policy would not impact how military service academies approached admissions, citing "distinct interests" those institutions have.

"The special nature of military academies and their interests was addressed in an important amicus brief filed in Grutter v. Bollinger almost 20 years ago," said Lawrence Friedman, JD, professor of law at New England Law Boston. "The Supreme Court's decision tacitly acknowledges that."

The Supreme Court's decision allows the academies to continue race-conscious admissions policies that have historically been justified by the need for a diverse officer corps. As of 2022 the Department of Defense’s Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion assessed that while 19% of the military’s enlisted personnel were Black, only 8% of its officers were Black."

THAT makes zero sense. There is NO other endeavor which should be based more on achievement than the military.

Further, the basis for getting rid of AA insanity is it's a violation of the 14th Amendment. How is it possible to carve out an exception to a Constitutional amendment?

In a combat situation, do you want your leadership to have become your leadership based on what they've accomplished or as a result of their skin color?

It is VITAL that only the very best and brightest of our youth gain entry into the Academies that produce so many of those whose profession is to protect this country.

And how is ROTC effected by this?

Most officers in the military do not come from the Academies. Most are from ROTC across this country... now ALL in institutions of higher learning that can no longer consider race-based admissions.

Exempting the Academies will not achieve whatever goal the Court was looking for. How they thought this would do anything except to lower the standard of excellence typically required for Academy admission is beyond me.

There could, of course, be a political element to this: Appointments to Academies are typically as a result of congressional nomination and, Heaven Forbid that any member of Congress be denied the opportunity to secure admission for whoever they want, whenever they want.

But generally, those doing the nominating don't have to live with the consequences of their actions.

It's the troops in the field who do.

Affirmative action, at best, is an ongoing violation of the 14th Amendment. It's not limited to colleges. It's a violation ANYWHERE it's practiced, including private employment and military recruitment.

It makes zero sense to hold the Academies, which provide a college education, to a lesser standard than any other college.

While I was in the Army, I didn't give a rat's ass what color my commanders were. The question boiled down to competence.

An officer's competence has nothing to do with their race. One knows what they're doing or one doesn't. One can cut it, or one can't. And in the Army, as we said, there is only one color: Green.

Until now. NOW, special consideration for race will become written policy under the cover this insanity provides as Biden continues his destruction of the US military.

This decision will lead to lower standards across the board. It will lead to race-based, as opposed to merited; promotion, assignments and schooling.

The argument that the military must put "diversity" AHEAD of competence, ability and achievement is insanity.

Sadly, it's yet another sign that civilians who never wore the uniform have no more idea of what that responsibility entails than they can levitate.

And they completely blew the call here.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/06/29/military-academies-exempted-supreme-court-ruling-ending-affirmative-action.html

Ten years ago today, the then GOP-controlled Senate sank the CRC scam... back when Rivers was an actual Republican.

It was 10 years ago today, when Ann Rivers (Now not only a senator, but enjoying her CRC scam payoff as Assistant City Manager of Longview in ADDITION to being a state senator so she can double dip AND bring home the bacon for her REAL employer) actually was a Republican, that the GOP Caucus in the state Senate ended the CRC Scam 21 YES to 26 NO.

It was a tremendous rush to have seen this victory secured for the people of Southwest Washington as the billion-dollar Light Rail Project masquerading as an unneeded, unwanted and unaffordable bridge replacement project... when every sentient being in Washington and Oregon knows, as the Oregon Supreme Court ruled, that the entire purpose for this project was to ram loot rail down the throats of people who have repeatedly voted against it... went down to defeat.

It was a tough, tough slog. The Democratian was rabidly in favor of this scam (Of course, it's always easy to be in favor of something that YOU won't have to pay for in taxes and./or tolls to use) and they would RABIDLY attack anyone opposed to this insanity (One does recall Brancaccio's Pit Yorkie, John Laird, referring to those of us opposed to this theft as "cockroaches," doesn't one?) and would repeatedly lie about the project's impacts and the utterly fake efforts for the CRC Scammers to get "public input" which, as it turned out there were, by policy, then going to ignore.

For years, Brancaccio made it his mission to lead the charge to destroy those smart enough to see this rip off for what it was, including yours truly. He'd use his fantasy columns to attack those who could not fight back for the most part. It became the typical litmus test for political support (or at least, acceptance) Light Rail Lou, with the usual exception of, you guessed it, Rivers.

His utter hatred and contempt for David Madore was on display for all to see, and it was the lede in literally dozens of his published screeds, week in and week out.

Any political figure could lie their collective ass off about the CRC scam in support of that insanity, and Lefty had no problem with it.

However, lie to get elected by claiming you opposed tolls and then magically CHANGE your position to SUPPORTING tolls AFTER you were elected? And Lefty didn't bat an eyelid. Right, Tim Leavitt?

Even in the end, when Lefty was forced to acknowledge that we'd been lied to and played by the low-life's pushing this horrific waste of money that they people opposed, it made no difference, and lies or no, that nimriod STILL wanted us to support this insanity.

"There have been so many missteps on this Columbia River Crossing project that if it was entered on "Dancing With The Stars," it would be voted off before Mike Tyson. It's just mess after mess. The tomfoolery is epic. Even its most ardent supporters would agree with this. For me, I hold my nose and close my eyes, and say we should move forward."

And local politicians who decided to become useful tools on an utterly worthless advisory committee... and then expressed amazement that having been figureheads, their "concerns" were dismissed. Why that was not right, or unfair or something when, oddly, anyone paying attention knew from the get KNEW they were merely figureheads getting played, and the importance of what they felt or wanted or believed was right up there with what my Spaniel felt or wanted or believed by the CRC Mafia.

In short, of zero importance.

How come *I* knew it from the start, but they didn't?

Because the sold us out for nothing. They DID know, and the "surprise" they showed was merely political cover. Why, they were as "shocked" as could be.

Bull.

And here’s the list of those who sold us out, which included Marko Liias, the legislative Dr. Mengele behind the Child Mutilation/Parental Removal bill, SB5599

Cleveland, Annette (D)
Fey, Jake (D)
Harris, Paul (R)
Liias, Marko (D)
Orcutt, Ed (R)
Rivers, Ann (R)
Wilson, Lynda (R)
Wylie, Sharon (D)

The question is, will it matter?

Everyone on this list who was a part of this insanity will be reelected in 2024 should they choose to run, and if their office is up.

In the 49th, Cleveland and Wylie won’t even have to lie about it. The 49th is so much Charlie’s Country that the left could run bricks with “D’s” after their names and they’d get elected. Just look at who they HAVE run. And yes, both Cleveland and Wylie voted for the Child Butchery Bill.

Those from Seattle don't care: they don't care about butchering our children, so why should they care about this?

Who knows if Wilson or Rivers, (who both also voted to screw us on our property taxes with their fantastical support of the McLeary Budget rip-off) or Harris and Orcutt will ever be held accountable for their stupidity?

I'm sorry it turned out this way. I'm sorry these scum ganged up on us to cost us hundreds of millions up front and then hundreds of millions in never-ending, always increasing tolls. I'm sorry that the voters who went along with this charade fail to hold these people accountable.

And what a sorry state this has become as a result... on this bridge scam... and dozens of other things that hurt us every day.

On conflating a "want" with a "right." Dobbs decision among others.

One of the major issues infesting this country, even in 2023, is that very few people have a clue as to what's actually IN the Constitution.

Oh, most adults may have some passing acquaintance with the first ten Amendments, AKA The Bill of Rights, but for the most part it's from watching shows like "Law and Order" or "The Good Wife" or TV of that sort.

But schools these days spend far more time socially engineering children into little fringe-left automatons than they do into knowledgeable adults that understand both what the Constitution is and how it works.

Far more time is wasted on pronouns and grooming than on the academics concerning the founding of this country and the framework of the laws in this country.

We hear a great deal concerning rights.  The definition of a right has many parents.  Simply stated, 

1. Rights the U.S. Constitution provides to American citizens, especially the first ten amendments to the Constitution, a.k.a. the Bill of Rights.

In short, if it can't be found or enumerated in the Constitution?

Then it's not a right.

(Enumerated rights are those specifically listed in that document. For Example: the First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress (and, as the Supreme Law of the Land through the Supremacy Clause (Art 4 Sec 2) lesser governments, such as state legislatures, etc.) cannot "abridge" freedom of speech or freedom of the press. It says so in the Constitution.)

Abortion was wrongly determined by the past Supreme Court (1973) as being a "right." What enabled that determination was legal reasoning breathtakingly tortured to support a nonsensical conclusion absolutely political in nature as opposed to Constitutional. Subsequently, that decision was overturned roughly a year ago.

The primary reason it was overturned is simple: there is nothing in the Constitution that provided or enumerated such a "right."

And, as I stated, if it's not in the Constitution, it's not a right.

Those supporting abortion immediately insisted that it is, in fact, a "right." but they offered nothing to suggest, legally, that it meets that standard. of a right.

It DOES, however, meet the standard of a "want".

1. Desire unfulfilled. 2. Detrimental lack of a life necessity. See need.

Neither "wants" or "needs" are defined in the Constitution. Since for abortion supporters generally, abortion is "wanted." It is not frequently needed, (medical needs, as rare as they are, notwithstanding)

This is a generalized statement of the case. Books have been written addressing this subject, but in sum, this pretty much covers the highlights.

Much has been said and made of polling that shows R v. W should be allowed to stand. And I get that.

My thoughts here are based entirely on the legal/Constitutional aspects of this decision as I understand them.

The Supreme Court has lifetime appointments to avoid that very issue, the issue of politicization. Their job is mainly to interpret the Constitution vis the issues of laws which confront it. They are not supposed to concern themselves with the politics of a given issue or, for that matter, the polling of an issue. If, for a ludicrous example, polling indicated that slavery should be reinstated, should the Supreme Court allow it or enable it because of a set of numbers?

Their job does not include ferreting out conflicting moralities. They take a law, they scrutinize it and they determine, through that scrutiny, whether or not that law, or rule, or policy, or regulation, or whatever other restriction is typically placed on the citizenry by government meets Constitutional criteria.

It must always be remembered that the entire purpose of our Constitution is to restrict government and the actions of government. It does not involve “inferred” rights. Our founders wrote it to be clearly and easily understood, without hidden rights that are only brought forth under certain extraneous circumstances.

Had they wanted a “right” to privacy, they would have included it. Had they, specifically, wanted a right to abortion, they would have included it. No one would have had to seek it out, or look for it with some sort of legal magnifying glass.

As a result, we have in place a series of enumerated rights that make us the envy of most of the world.

All other factors aside, the question boils down to one of substance. Does Roe V. Wade meet the criteria as a “Constitutional” right?

I’ve read the Constitution, repeatedly. It was a substantial part of my college education and also my 6 years as a legislative staffer. And try as I may, I simply could not find it.

The Supreme Court makes mistakes. The 1857 decision concerning Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393 (1857) where all 9 justices ruled, in one form or another, that slavery was still legal. (the actual decision was 7-2, but the dissenter’s position, essentially, was a formality in that they never should have considered the case in the first place due to Scott’s lack of what was then considered citizenship, i.e., blacks were not accorded citizenship status and therefore, had no standing.)

In Scott, Justice McLean stated the “majority’s ruling was ‘more a matter of taste than of law.’”

So was Roe.

Legally, the arguments persist to this day that the decision made by the Court in Roe was based in large part by the same mentality of Scott v. Sandford… although the Roe majority’s case was geometrically weaker.

In Scott, the Court used, among other elements, the 5th Amendment prohibition against taking of property, the reality that blacks were not accorded citizenship (a neat bit of legerdemain: if blacks WERE citizens, then they could not be slaves) and that, as a result, the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional as, therefore, the idea that transporting a slave to, or through, conferred freedom on them by the act of transport.

In Roe, the Court found things in the 14th Amendment that simply are not there. In its entirety, the 14th Amendment says this:

Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

---------

There is precisely nothing in the 14th Amendment that addresses any of the elements listed as justification for Roe. Nothing about abortion. Nothing about “privacy.” The claim that it’s “implicit” is fatuous at best and fantasy at worst, an effort to twist a Constitutional Amendment to fit a desired outcome… a classic “…matter of taste and not law.”

The irony that Roe (Norma McCorvey) did not get an abortion may have played a small roll in this outcome.

But the Constitution does not infer “rights” which can stand the test of strict scrutiny and black letter law.

I have not and will not address the issue of morality in this matter. It is not germane to this issue or its outcome from a legal perspective. Both sides will claim the moral high ground and as I have said, the issue rests with Constitutionality and not morality.

My take: the decision was the right decision based on the legal principles involved. Those who oppose this outcome make a stand on stare decisis but have only a crumbling legal foundation from which to rely upon: if that perspective was set in concrete, then several now unthinkable laws and policies would still be in effect. The Supreme Court has reversed itself well over 300 times in our nation’s history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/.../List_of_overruled_United...

This is but one of them.

For those who see “abortion” as a right; for those who have no problem with assigning children adult responsibilities such as a 12-year-old getting an abortion without parental permission while at the same time, for example STILL requiring parental permission forgetting her ears pierced... without their permission or knowledge but with their total responsibility for the outcomes... for those who see partial-birth abortion as one of the aspects of that right, the solution is simple: Have Congress pass an amendment to that effect and get 38 state's legislatures to agree with you and spell it out.

Words have meaning. But those who advocate for that sort of thing hide behind catch-all, non-descriptive phrases such as “women’s reproductive health.”

Why?

I’m reminded of other verbal word tricks: calling illegal aliens (which is, after all, the legal terminology used in federal law) “undocumented immigrants” or some other phrase that avoids the reality of what those here illegally are called by law. How is it so bad to call them what they actually are?

The issue here is abortion. Yet, those opposed to Dobbs seem to do their best to avoid that word like it’s the plague. Why? Call it what it is. Be honest. Stand up for what you believe.

You won’t be cancelled for it. No one will make any effort to assassinate you because of it, or burn down your Planned Parenthood shop or anything of the kind.

Disagree. You have that freedom. But you also have the tools available to you to once again make abortion; or for that matter, any act of any kind the law of the land, an actual “right” if that is the desire of the people of this country as almost everyone to the political left, including the President, wants us to believe.

But it’s as if that option doesn’t really exist. I’ve read a great deal about a great many options, all unconstitutional, to attempt to overturn this Supreme Court decision. But what I HAVEN’T heard is ANYONE suggest that a Constitutional amendment would resolve this issue once and for all. Instead, now, I fear, the leftists in Congress will drop a variety of bills from impeaching those justices to expanding the Court to dissolving it altogether.

Riots will likely be the order of the day: leftists don’t typically need a reason to loot, burn, assault and murder. Attacks on churches, crisis pregnancy centers and, likely, the homes of the justices… if not the justices themselves… will likely become the standard.

The question now is what will the cities impacted by those rioters do? Are they ready? Will they respond?

Probably not. It’ll likely be another free rioter holiday. And the left… as we head into the presidential election… wouldn’t have it any other way.

If supporters of abortion practices want that to actually BE the law, then make it the law through Amending the Constitution. Simple, really.

But don't violate the law or the sanctity of the Constitution merely because you didn't get your way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

Late thoughts on the Durham Report.

 As the Durham Report verifies, the allegations Trump has leveled against the Letter Agencies of the Federal Government were largely correct.

Allegations repeatedly condemned by democrats and their media arm in the most vicious abuse of the First Amendment in American history, it does call into question other allegations by Trump and other condemnations by democrats.

Politically, democrats lie.

At roughly every level down to the local, leftists view words roughly the same way Muslim militants view them as means to an end. (For further info, look up the words "Taqiya" and "Kitmān.")

They lie, because of course, they get away with it.

Yesterday, when I posted the direct link to the Report, I wrote "DOJ Special Counsel John Durham's report is out and while damning, it simply won't make any difference IMHO."

(https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf)

In everything from the MSM burying this story (while so many of the fake, completely contrived allegations against Trump got the front-page-above-the-fold treatment, I haven't seen much mention or discussion of it by the leftist-controlled media organs) to the lack of listing those who caused these outrageous weaponizations against political enemies for indictment, I somehow knew as bad as this report was going to be, it wasn't going to make any difference.

Leftists, of course, completely dismiss any allegations regarding the theft of the last (and perhaps other?) elections.

But then, they have frequently dismissed every allegation, later proven factual, that Trump et al, have made.

When the allegations concerning the theft of the 2020 election were made, I repeatedly stated the obvious: every effort to investigate any aspect of that election was fought by the left. They'd scream, they'd go to court. They'd vilify, they'd attack. They'd harass. And they'd do those things mainly because they didn't care if the election WAS stolen, they got the outcome they wanted and they were not about to risk that outcome due to investigations into the not-explained-to-this-day irregularities of that election.

Imagine how different things on our political landscape would be today if they had said something to the effect of, "you know what? There WERE some strange things going on in this election... so let's join with you to examine these allegations and see where the evidence takes us..." or words to that effect.

Faith in our electoral system is part of the fabric of our Nation. Without it, we're just another 3rd World dictatorship. And that fabric is frayed when it doesn't have to be. And it's not the allegations of electoral fraud that fray it. It's the failure of government to actively investigate these allegations and put them to bed, or, in the alterative, confirm them.

Many of the allegations made by Trump concerning FBI and FISA and other agencies have been shown to have been accurate. Much of the weaponization of the FBI is confirmed in the Durham Report.

But those responsible will never be held accountable any more than Hillary was held accountable for shattering federal law and setting up her bathroom server so foreign interests could check out her email before she did.

And while Durham knows full well those directly and actively involved in a rank weaponization that continues to this day in the FBI – Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Joe Biden White House, none of them will ever be prosecuted or held accountable in any way. It's a free pass like those on the Epstein flight list have received, or those 217 or so members of Congress who used taxpayer dollars to pay off their victims of sexual assault/harassment.

And why will it continue?

Because from their perspective, there's no reason it shouldn't.

I say it here first: the predicted and overwhelming Red Wave that failed to materialize in 2022 is the precursor to the 2024 presidential election: Once again, the Republicans will lose.

Ask yourself why Biden has announced his reelection bid? Because his handlers believe it's already in the bag. And they will have had 4 years to refine their shtick, to make it much less obvious and much more subtle. And the same leftist deniers that were out in full force since November of '20 will be out there with their hypocrisy: the same people who claimed Trump's presidency was illegitimate and then vociferously defended the 2020 election will be out there doing it again.

The Durham Report portrays federal agencies as extensions of the Democrat National Committee. It's a portrait of direct federal government interference and a four-year long coup attempt that violated the rights of Trump and dozens of others.

There will be no outrage by the left. There will be no media calls for justice. There will be no demonstrations.

I can't even begin to imagine what would be happening now if, in fact, Trump was president and this report came out concerning FBI efforts against Biden.

Instead... so far... we don't even get a media yawn. And we likely won't in the future.

Is this the end for Putin? What happens if PMC Wagner (Prigozhin) takes out Vlad, then what? Is this the end of the war in Ukraine?

The question for planning purposes is "Now What?" (deliberate capital W, BTW)

I would submit these things don't happen in a vacuum. The early bet is that this has been that this has been coordinated with SOME of the major oligarchs. They're only going to put up with losing their yachts and taking business hits for so long.

It will be difficult to impossible for the only hope for Putin, which is his military support (if any), is in no position to disengage in the west and recover by moving to the west, even IF Russian ground forces were loyal... which indications they are anything but.

It would seem that the "how" of it, as in, how did a convicted felon, hot dog vendor/cook put this program together, is secondary to "what happens if he pulls it off?"

I would go on to suggest that characterizations of this effort as equating it to two mafia families fighting it out for control of New York, so to speak, is overly simplistic.

1. Prigozhin is after the cash. Apparently, Vlad has a couple of hundred billion lying around and he wants it. What self-respecting, budding dictator doesn't want the cash?

2. He likely recognizes that Ukraine isn't going anywhere. He can withdraw all of the Russian forces out of the occupied territories (including Crimea), which Zelenskyy will likely allow under certain circumstances. He can rebuild his military over the next few years and then take another shot at it.

So to speak.

3.  He can blame the entirety of this debacle On Putin and their/his leadership. He can easily sell this. In fact, it's easier to sell than Girl Scout Cookies.

4. On one hand, Prigozhin doesn't come across as the most stable fellow.  But he's willing to deal and someone around him is perhaps selling him on the idea that he can be hailed as sort-of-a-hero.

BUT, if he takes over... orders the withdrawal from Ukraine... Rounds up Russian military leadership and, well, eliminates them... While also rounding up the troops... including Putin... who are accused of war crimes and hands them over for war crimes trials... Enters into negotiations for reparations to repair the damage inflicted on Ukraine... he can actively begin the appearance of rehabilitation of Russia. 

However, while I was born on a Saturday, it wasn't LAST Saturday. That's the best-case scenario.

But I also don't believe Prigozhin has a death wish. 

Taking Moscow and then not changing anything simply isn't possible.

This seems to be not unlike a cook on an aircraft carrier taking control of the 7th Fleet. Is Prigozhin the dog, or merely the tail?

If Prigozhin take control of Moscow?  How would he not wreak revenge/political pay back if for no other reason than to consolidate that control?

Stalin provided what, for Stalin, was a reasonably successful play book.  What's changed? Why not follow it now?

Justice Dpeartment's Hunter Biden sell out.

For now, anyway, DOJ has again sold out on another Biden. GOPers suggest it's a "slap on the wrist." 

It's not even a tap.

Hunter Biden gets the expected hand shake, since it's really who you know. And OF COURSE Biden has to "stand by" him. Hunter can bury him and he knows it.

Leftists lose their minds over background checks and this scumbag you committed perjury on his gun form doesn't even get a parking ticket out of it. 

Will leftists demand that Hunter be perp-walked and get his mug-shots?

Evidence exists that would find him guilty of multiple federal felonies; the kind of thing he'd be facing if his last name WASN'T Biden, but in our Nation's dual tier system of justice, one for leftists and a completely different and much harsher version for anyone to the right of Mao, any sentient being already knew that in a Biden Justice Department, even these traffic tickets are close to astonishing.

But both Hunter and the Big Guy are guilty of far, far, worse. And Gorsuch damned well knows it.|

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/hunter-biden-reaches-deal-to-plead-guilty-in-tax-gun-case/ar-AA1cNre5

https://apnews.com/article/hunter-biden-charges-income-tax-weapon-ea6b78d4bac037da24b485985b99bc1c

https://www.mediaite.com/news/breaking-hunter-biden-pleads-guilty-to-three-federal-charges/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/hunter-biden-plea-deal-income-tax-case-gun-charges-rcna90144

Obama's epiphany: he's suddenly concerned about the truth, wants "digital fingerprints."

Looks like Obama is beginning to show signs of dementia:

Obama suggests 'digital fingerprints' to counter misinformation 'so we know what's true and what's not true'

Stupidity isn't a great trait for an ex-president. Like everything else on the internet. "Digital fingerprints" could be faked as much as Obama's understanding of the Constitution.

Further, since Obama was arguably THE biggest liar to set foot into the White House until Joe Biden stumbled along, how would that impact him, Mr. "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan; if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?" Or Mr. "This will make healthcare more affordable for all?"

Additionally, Obama doesn't seem to explain how "fingerprints" of any kind determine anything.

I, for example, can put my fingerprints on a Ferrari door handle and then claim that I own it.

I can put my fingerprints on my house doorknob and then claim that I own the house.

How do those "fingerprints" prove one but disprove the other?

How do "fingerprints" per se', prove anything about the ownership of these items? How does my claim of ownership get proven or disproven by their presence?

We already know in the most well-known example, that the entirety of Obamacare was a "deep fake." So, how would such a rule have impacted him?

You better be careful, Barack. You just might get what you ask for, for all the good it would do you... or us.

Even, it would seem, when the leftist journalists lie their collective asses off. 

Criminal murder is criminal... except in Washington State.

A few days ago, a 32-weeks pregnant woman and her baby were slaughtered in a random shooting in Seattle, a city desperately competing with Portland to become the Chicago of the PNW.

I did a more extensive write up here yesterday that talked about the victims, the shooter and the complete lack of anyone actually giving a damn. No riots. No looting. No police assaults. No roads blocked... focusing on the woman, the baby and her husband, who was also shot but will survive.

Without a family.

I was stunned today to find out that the baby, who was delivered at a local hospital but did not survive, does not have the status of "human being" in this state.

I say that because the alleged shooter, who was black and who slaughtered this mother and her baby, who was Korean, will not, apparently, be charged in the baby's death.

That's right.

This child is dead because of a criminal act perpetrated deliberately by a racist convicted felon who destroyed these people because they were Asian.

This is what the leftist scum in the legislature of this state have done to us.

This.

The perpetrator will likely spend the rest of his life in jail (If there's ANY justice left in this shithole state) but he will not spend a minute behind bars for the murder of that child. I sincerely hope that the leftists who made this happen and allowed it to continue are proud of what they've done.

That's you, Jay Inslee.

That's you, Washington State Senate Democrats.

That's you, Washington State House Democrats.

That child's blood, his life, his father's lifelong anguish?

That's all on you.

Belltown shooting suspect charged in murder of pregnant woman, but no charges in death of baby

Still picture of story from KIRO news

Slow news day: leftists want to blacklash history and cherry pick removal of certain statues. Why stop there?

There's a tiny problem with this.

It's well-known that the democrats were big supporters of slavery and many violently opposed civil rights. A Civil War that cost around 360,000 Union lives to end slavery.  Lynchings, Jim Crow, racial discrimination, "White's Only" signage, back of the bus, school segregation were all democrat tenets.

Even today, they require minorities to remain on the plantation or they attack them savagely... perhaps not physically, but verbally.

Anyone to the right of Lenin who doesn't toe their line is fair game.

For example, democrat state senator Tim Sheldon (WA-D35) has been the recipient of hundreds of thousands spent on other democrats who primaried him. At the national level, Sen. Time Scott (R-SC) and Former Congressman Allen West (FL R-22) were equally savaged by leftist racists and frequently are to this day.

So, I'd amend this woke insanity bill and expand it to eliminate any mention of any democrat who ever held office at the federal level.

Who, for example, could ever forget those hallowed words from President Lyndon Baines Johnson?

“These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again. [Said to Senator Richard Russell, Jr. (D-GA) regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1957]”

Or:

--In 1947, after President Harry S Truman sent Congress proposals against lynching and segregation in interstate transportation, Johnson called the proposed civil rights program a "farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty."

--In his 1948 speech in Austin kicking off his Senate campaign, Johnson declared he was against Truman’s attempt to end the poll tax because, Johnson said, "it is the province of the state to run its own elections." Johnson also was against proposals against lynching "because the federal government," Johnson said, "has no more business enacting a law against one form of murder than against another."

If you're going to blacklash history, then go all the way. Don't stop at a few simple statues, get rid of the biggest cancer in America today.

The democrat party.

Facebook engaging in continued Hunter Biden-like censorship.

I read a story this morning from a website known as "resistthemainstream.com" on the issue of impeachment articles against Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

This is what happened when I attempted to link to their story:

Facebook censorship, raw and uncut.

I was well aware that articles of impeachment had, in fact, been filed against the Nondynamic Duo of the worst leadership in the White House that this country has ever known.

So, to get the story out, I googled it and instead, posted a story, substantially the same, from the Western Journal:

I'm confused. As the upper picture shows, Facebook refused to allow this story to be linked, laughingly calling it "spam." They go on to claim that "spam" violates their "terms of Service."

Yet, in a given month, Facebook spams our timelines with literally hundreds of ads.

So, one man's "spam" is another man's revenue, eh?

Count on Mark Zuckerberg to be ever the hypocrite.

A few words on homelessness and government waste addressing it.

This was the response to a comment made as a result of a meme I posted yesterday:

The commenter indicated that a major reason for homelessness today is mental health and our failure to adequately address that as an issue. Her words are heartfelt and actually does describe a large part of the issues confronting society today.

My response:

It's (the homeless situation) a dual edged sword, and you accurately present one edge of that sword.

Some 25 years or so ago, I was on Legislative staff in Olympia. The mental health system in this state (WA) was fare more extensive and robust back then.

While I was there, the ACLU was busy in court attacking the criteria used to force mental health commitments.

Ultimately, they were successful and in this day and age, the criteria has been reduced to a very simplistic "threat to self and/or others" standard.

The issue is, what does "threat" mean, exactly?

The legal definition of that word, over time, has been watered down so much that it's become increasingly less possible to qualify for forced commitment into a mental health facility.

Fewer commitments=fewer facilities.

Mental health problems are a substantial factor in homelessness.  But the overwhelming issue is illegal drug dependency.

Oregon, with their idiotic passage of I-110 is a case in point.

Since the passage of that initiative, homelessness has exploded in Oregon. SO have overdoses, primarily due to fentanyl/ Tranq is looming on the horizon as a major driver as well. 

Legislatures in both WA and OR and actually, around the country for the most part, have refused to take the decisive action needed to quantitatively address this problem. The disgrace of the last special session in Olympia, which will fail to have any meaningful impact on the numbers of corpses stacking up at the King County Medical Examiner's office, (which he's loudly complained about) is a case in point.

Rehab facilities are at an all-time low in comparison to the numbers addicted. Additionally, commitment to drug treatment is voluntary at this point, so governments are setting up different kinds of warehousing for homeless drug addicts to hide their stashes of stolen property used to pay for these drugs and shoot up/smoke/snort their drugs in private with no accountability for the user vis drug testing as their goal is merely to get them off the street while getting them OFF drugs remains a non-goal in comparison.

Addressing this issue will require multiple approaches. Because the indisputable reality is that nothing we're doing now is making this issue "better." and no amount of money spent under these conditions will result in any meaningful difference.

"Where's the outrage?" Independent journalist in Seattle, Jonathan Choe asks the question that needs to be asked.

Day before yesterday, a woman and her unborn child were slaughtered in cold blood while in downtown Seattle at 4th and Lenore St. Her husband was also hit by gunfire in what appears to be a random attack.

Did you hear anything about it? Not on the news media I didn't. (Disclaimer, I didn't review ALL news media to be sure, but imagine...)

The woman and child? Asian American. The husband? Asian American.

The shooter?

Black.

(Imagine the news coverage had the family shot up by this convicted felon been black and the shooter white?)

The utterly clueless shell of a city mayor, Bruce Harrell, insists there's no known motive.

Does anyone with a functioning synapse remotely believe he'd be saying that had the races been exchanged for Black victims and a whiter perpetrator? 

Imagine the landscape of Seattle last night had the victims been Black and the murderer white. The riots would have started instantaneously.

The better part of two years ago, Asians in America found themselves under assault. Serious injury and death were the all-too-frequent result.

And "white supremacists" bore the blame.

Except for one minor detail: the perpetrators were almost uniformly black.

In this instance, stunningly enough. a 30 year old convicted felon has been arrested for this horrific crime.

For his part, Mayor Harrell, clearly in over his head at least as much as Portland's clueless nimrod, Ted Wheeler, began tap dancing like Fred Astaire.

There is, of course, a vast difference between what he said in the quote, (provided by Chloe and on video) and reality. "What motivated it" was racial hatred. But the alleged perpetrator was inconveniently not white, which would make stating the truth just a tiny bit awkward for the uber-leftist mayor.

"Very sad?" That's an understatement right up there with claiming the Titanic was a rowboat. The slaughter of innocents is beyond sad. The silence as to the true motivation of these outrages in cowardly politics at its worst.

Quick to point fingers as so many on the left in the media do when the perpetrator is a white, straight, male; leftist authorities and leftist media types frequently engage is this variety of muted response in the face of blood spilled by those almost universally portrayed as victims to further the left's meme. The suspect, one Cordell Goosby, who claims to be living somewhere in Seattle, has a felony conviction for "Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Firearm" in Cook County, Il in September of 2017.

So far, Goosby has been charged with 2 counts of homicide, 1 count of assault and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm. Choe does his usual thorough job of investigative reporting and I urge the reader to follow him on twitter and Facebook or other social media platforms.

His write-up on this outrage is here:

The "blacklashing" of history continues: Army insanity proceeds as post names are "sterilized."

For those keeping score as the Army wastes $62 million to "cleanse" Fort names (and other facilities, no doubt) that no one ever cared about one way or the other until fringe-leftists started sniveling, here's the list of names changed so far because, you know, changing names changes history.

From the FWIW file, these posts had these names for the entirety of my life. I will refer to them by how I knew them and in many instances, served in them, until I leave this mortal coil.

Besides wasting tens of millions of dollars and making leftists situationally feel better, this blacklashing of history changes nothing. (Hat tip to Van Jones, noted communist and former aid to Barack Obama, who referred to Trump's election as a "whitelash" on election night.)

Renaming posts, particularly after people we've mostly never heard of, accomplishes what, exactly? Solves what, precisely?

Fort A.P. Hill, Virginia renamed Fort Walker for Dr. Mary Walker

Fort Bragg, North Carolina renamed Fort Liberty for the American value of liberty

Fort Benning, Georgia renamed Fort Moore for Lt. Gen. Hal Moore and his wife, Julia

Fort Gordon, Georgia renamed Fort Eisenhower for General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower

Fort Hood Texas reamed Fort Cavazos for Gen. Richard E. Cavazos

Fort Lee, Virginia renamed Fort Gregg-Adams for Lt. Gen. Arthur J. Gregg and Lt. Col. Charity Adams

Fort Pickett, Virginia renamed Fort Barfoot for Tech. Sgt. Van Barfoot

Fort Polk, Louisiana renamed Fort Johnson for Sgt. William Henry Johnson.

Fort Rucker, Alabama renamed Fort Novosel for CW4 Michael J. Novosel Sr.

They're after your kids, Part 2

Like most sentient beings in this country didn't know?

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1669074839301238786?s=20

Why does Cartoon Network believe going after babies is necessary?

 New episode of @cartoonnetwork’s kid’s show “We Baby Bears” introduces non-binary characters who go by they/them pronouns.

They’re after your kids. https://twitter.com/i/status/1668666499974975488

Once again, Biden ignores the laws of the United States: Lets illegals keep their "temporary protected status"

There's nothing humanitarian about this aiding and abetting illegal aliens.

This, instead, is pure, unadulterated politics and leftist contempt for the laws of the United States

Until this country officially ends the illegal alien destination resort we've built here... until we actually begin to enforce the laws that have been on the books to protect this country's borders...

The illegal alien invasion will continue unabated.

As for the WaPo headline, "immigrants," of course, is leftist speak for "illegal aliens."

If they were actual, legal immigrants?

They would not REQUIRE "temporary protect status." They would be here legally requiring no status at all, save for that of "legal resident."

Facebook/Meta's new censorship scheme: a twitter competitor that will be "sanely run."

 If it's as "sanely run" as FB then more corporate censorship and kowtowing to the government will be the order of the day.

"Meta is talking to celebrities like Oprah and the Dalai Lama about being early users. ‘We’ve been hearing from creators and public figures who are interested in having a platform that is sanely run,’ a top exec told employees."

This is what Instagram’s upcoming Twitter competitor looks like

Today, Meta employees were shown these screenshots of Instagram’s upcoming app to compete with Twitter. Image: The Verge

Meta is talking to celebrities like Oprah and the Dalai Lama about being early users. ‘We’ve been hearing from creators and public figures who are interested in having a platform that is sanely run,’ a top exec told employees.

We already know Facebook's history of violating the First Amendment by kowtowing to the FBI in censorship generally and the Hunter Biden laptop scam particularly. Is it remotely realistic to believe that a similar effort will not take place with FB's new twitter rip-off? (We also know Zuckerberg spent $400 million to make sure the vote came out the way he wanted it. Amazing, eh?) Talk about manipulation.