Connect with us

Published

on

Prince Philip died in April at age 99

Queen Elizabeth has spoken about the late Prince Philip for the first time since his death in April at age 99.

The monarch, 95, recalled the love she and her late husband shared for Scotland in her address at the opening ceremony for the sixth session of the Scottish Parliament on Saturday. Prince Charles and his wife Camilla, known as the Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland, also attended the event.

“I have spoken before of my deep and abiding affection for this wonderful country, and of the many happy memories Prince Philip and I always held of our time here,” the Queen said in her speech. “It is often said that it is the people that make a place, and there are few places where this is truer than in Scotland, as we have seen in recent times.”

For the event, Queen Elizabeth donned an alpine green herringbone wool A-line coat and a gold vibrant floral printed dress, both by Stewart Parvin, with a hat to match by Rachel Trevor Morgan. Her Majesty also wore the Queen Mary diamond thistle brooch.

Advertisement

The Duchess of Rothesay wore a green coat dress trimmed with Rothesay tartan by Mr. Roy, along with a green beret by Philip Treacy and a diamond thistle brooch of her own.

In July, the monarch made her first solo trip following Prince Philip’s death to Balmoral Castle in Scotland, where the couple would traditionally retreat from August until the fall. Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip vacationed together on the property in the Scottish Highlands for the final time in August 2020.

Balmoral Castle and the surrounding 7,000-acre estate have been in the royal family since Queen Victoria’s husband, Prince Albert, purchased the castle in 1845.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

ICYMI: Director Says He Will Not Shoot Upcoming Series in Texas Over Near-Total Abortion Ban

Published

on

By

Recently, film director and producer David Simon said he will not film his upcoming HBO series in Texas, according to plan, because of the state’s newly-enacted law banning abortions after fetal heartbeat detection. 

Simon, who wrote and produced “The Wire” had intended to film an upcoming HBO series in the Dallas/Fort Worth area before the law, S.B. 8, was enacted. Now, he claims he can’t ask his female staff and crew to “forgo civil liberties to film there.”

In a slew of angry tweets, Simon slammed S.B. 8 and fired off users who pointed out that his work should have nothing to do with abortion rights. The Dallas Film and Creative Industries Office even chimed in, stating that those who boycott the state over the law are serving to “further disenfranchise those who live there.”

If an employer, this is beyond politics. I’m turning in scripts next month on an HBO non-fiction miniseries based on events in Texas, but I can’t and won’t ask female cast/crew to forgo civil liberties to film there. What else looks like Dallas/Ft. Worth? https://t.co/q6Py6XikYh— David Simon (@AoDespair)

September 20, 2021

.@AoDespair -Laws of a state are not reflective of its entire population. Not bringing a production to Dallas (a big “D”) only serves to further disenfranchise those that live here. We need talent/crew/creatives to stay & vote, not get driven out by inability to make a living. https://t.co/DxD46z0nNu— Dallas Film & Creative Industries Office (@DallasCommish)

September 20, 2021

You misunderstand completely. My response is NOT rooted in any debate about political efficacy or the utility of any boycott. My singular responsibility is to securing and maintaining the civil liberties of all those we employ during the course of a production. https://t.co/cSKZu08uOO

Advertisement
— David Simon (@AoDespair)

September 20, 2021

Simon went back-and-forth with several Twitter users over his stance.

“Kill their children.”
“Hollywood sex predators”
The forced-birth movement really brings out the intelligence, honesty and dispassion in people, no? https://t.co/eN9Oyj8ymS— David Simon (@AoDespair)

September 27, 2021

“Unborn children”
Ungrown oaks. Or acorns.
Fuck off to the farthest point visible, Selby, then continue fucking off until you are in transit to the next horizon thereafter. https://t.co/fCrX9q9KW1— David Simon (@AoDespair)

September 26, 2021

Backwards as fuck, your mind. I already employ 1) women with rights who will travel to jurisdictions where those rights will be retained so that personal decisions are their own and where 2) women to be hired will also retain those choices and civil liberties. https://t.co/Y11tU2o9Ch— David Simon (@AoDespair)

September 26, 2021

In 2019, Simon was one of many Hollywood figures who vowed not to film in Georgia following the enaction of an abortion-restrictive law in the state. As we reported, Simon wrote via Twitter that he will not consider filming in the Peach State “until we can be assured the health options and civil liberties of our female colleagues are unimpaired.”

Continue Reading

Crime

Dems’ Attack On Smart Kids

Published

on

By

Parents whose kids excel in school need to be on guard. Leftist school administrators across the country — not just in New York City — are banning gifted programs in elementary and middle school and Advanced Placement courses in high school.

Typically, without any notice to parents, an eight grader’s accelerated science class or a fifth grader’s fast-track math class is merged into the regular classroom. Top students lose out. They need accelerated programs every bit as much as children with learning challenges need special education. It’s discrimination.

The left is seizing on a newly published study of Ohio students from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute to call for banning gifted programs. The study, “Ohio’s Lost Einsteins,” looks at what became of second and third grade students who were identified as high performers. By eighth grade, only 30% of Black students, 39% of Hispanic students and 34% of economically disadvantaged students in the group were still outstanding performers. Most had floundered.

Washington Post education columnist Jay Mathews misreads the findings to argue that gifted programs are unproven and probably a waste of money. But many of the Ohio students labelled as high achievers were never placed in a “gifted” program. Fordham’s experts actually recommend more students be tracked into gifted programs.

The study also underscores the importance of helping gifted children early on overcome barriers to success. They may lack a place to study and, most importantly, an involved parent. Some parents don’t insist their children do their homework, concentrate in class and aim for AP classes. These parents need guidance on buying into the educational achievement culture.

Instead, school administrators are scapegoating gifted kids for the sake of equity. Boston suspended enrollment in its Advanced Work Classes program for fourth, fifth and six graders, citing the fact that the school district is 80% Black and Hispanic, but AWC enrollment is 70% white and Asian.

The rhetoric attacking gifted programs is vicious and divisive. The Hechinger Report, based at Columbia University’s Teachers College, claims “gifted education has racism in its roots,” arguing that the scientist who popularized IQ measurement was a eugenicist.

Advertisement

California proposes eliminating accelerated math before eleventh grade and requiring all students to study math together. “We reject ideas of natural gifts and talents,” the state’s math plan declares. That’s like declaring that all students can play on the varsity football team. Ridiculous.

Educators are peddling a false claim that students of mixed abilities learn better together. A website addressed to school administrators deplores tracking as “segregation” and announces, “It’s good for students to be in classrooms where there’s a robust exchange of perspectives; perspectives that are shaped by racial, ethnic and economic identities.” Maybe in homeroom or social studies, but not physics. Gifted children in slow classes grow bored and even drop out.

Leftist educators are also targeting AP high school classes. But a study by the left-leaning Center for American Progress shows that students who succeed in AP classes have higher grades in college and are more likely to graduate. Eliminating them would be a mistake.

Fewer Black students enroll in AP, and those who do are less likely to pass the AP exams. Approximately 69% of Asians, 65% of whites and 46% of Hispanics who take AP tests pass, but only 28% of Blacks pass. The country should be deeply concerned, but the solution is to better prepare disadvantaged kids.

The equity warriors are also attacking the nation’s 165 competitive public high schools. From Boston to Alexandria, Virginia, and San Francisco, they’re eliminating entrance exams and allocating seats by lottery or zip code. Georgetown University’s Anthony Carnevale calls it “a direct populist rebellion.” Don’t buy it. The real populism is parents rising up to resist dumbing down their children’s education. These parents, including Asian American immigrants, know their best shot at the American dream is to have their children succeed in a highly competitive public school. No one should take that away.

Continue Reading

News

4,676,300 Unborn American Babies Murdered In Pelosi’s First Speakership

Published

on

By

During the first four years that Nancy Pelosi served as speaker of the House (2007 through 2010), approximately 4,676,300 unborn babies were aborted in the United States, according to estimates published by the Guttmacher Institute.

To put that in more precise language, adopting the accurate wording to describe abortion that Pope Francis recently used, 4,676,300 unborn American babies were murdered in those four years.

“It’s more than a problem, it’s homicide,” Pope Francis said about abortion on Sept. 15 as he flew from Slovakia to Rome.

“Whoever has an abortion, kills. No mincing words,” said the pope.

“It is a human life. This human life must be respected. This principle is so clear!” he said.

“To those who cannot understand, I would ask this question: Is it right to kill a human life to solve a problem? Is it right to hire a hitman to kill a human life?” he said. “Scientifically, it is a human life. Is it right to take it out to solve a problem? That is why the church is so harsh on this issue, because if it accepts this, it is as if it accepts daily murder.”

In making this point, Pope Francis was echoing what his predecessor, St. John Paul II, had said in his encyclical letter, Evangelium Vitae.

“The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder and, in particular, when we consider the specific elements involved,” wrote John Paul. “The one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life. No one more absolutely innocent could be imagined.”

“In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia,” said this saint, “it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it.'”

So, how does Pelosi, who describes herself as a “devout Catholic,” and who is one of the top lawmakers in the United States, deal with this form of murder?

She is for it.

When she first became speaker in 2007, Pelosi put out a statement celebrating the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that declared the killing of an unborn child a “right.”

“Roe v. Wade is based on a woman’s fundamental right to privacy, a value that all Americans cherish,” Pelosi said then. “It established that decisions about whether to have a child do not and should not rest with the government.”

“As I have throughout my time in Congress, I will continue to work to ensure a woman’s right to choose,” she said.

That same year, in Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court upheld a federal statute prohibiting late-term abortion. In that opinion, the court quoted the testimony of a nurse who had witnessed one of these procedures.

The doctor, this nurse testified, “went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal.”

“Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms — everything but the head,” she said.

Advertisement

“The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking,” the nurse testified. “Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall.”

“The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out,” she said.

“He threw the baby in a pan,” she said, “along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.”

The day the court ruled that Congress could outlaw late-term abortion — and quoted this nurse’s description of it — Pelosi condemned the court’s action.

“The court’s decision is a significant step backwards,” she said.

In her view, the court should have declared it a constitutional right to rip a baby feet-first from his mother’s womb and suck out his brains.

The court is now scheduled to hear arguments on Dec. 1 over a Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks. Last month, the court voted 5 to 4 not to issue an injunction to stop enforcement of a Texas law that bans abortions when an unborn baby has a heartbeat, which occurs at about six weeks.

Pelosi went to the House floor on Sept. 24 to advocate enactment of the euphemistically entitled Women’s Health Protection Act, which would nullify these laws.

“For the first time ever by congressional statute, this legislation would legally enable the violent death of unborn baby girls and boys by dismemberment, decapitation, forced expulsion from the womb, and deadly poisons for any reason until birth,” Republican Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey explained in a floor speech opposing the legislation.

“This bill,” he said, “will nullify every modest pro-life restriction ever enacted by the States.”

Pelosi, in supporting the bill, which passed the House on a 218 to 211 vote, wanted the world to know she approached this issue “as a Catholic.”

“I come to this as a Catholic and a mother of five, in 6 years and 1 week, and with the joy that all of that meant to us but with the recognition that it was my husband and I — it was our decision,” Pelosi said. “And we should not, in this body or in that Court, be making decisions for the women in America.”

In other words, she voted “as a Catholic” for what the church correctly calls the murder of “absolutely innocent” human beings.

Given that abortions killed approximately 4,676,300 unborn American babies during Pelosi’s first four-year stint as speaker, and that she now supports legislation to legalize abortion on demand nationwide, she not only supports the murder of innocent human beings but is their mass murder.

Continue Reading

News

January 6 Select Committee Subpoena Comes for Trump DOJ Employee As Key Figures Are Determined to Defy

Published

on

By

The select committee for investigating January 6 on Wednesday revealed another subpoena, this time for Jeffrey Clark who worked for the Department of Justice (DOJ) during the Trump administration, from 2018-2021. 

Clark has expressed concerns about voter fraud taking place in the 2020 election. According to a press release from the committee:

According to a report released last week by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, there is credible evidence that, while serving as an official at the Department of Justice, Mr. Clark was involved in efforts to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power. Mr. Clark proposed delivery of a letter to state legislators in Georgia and others encouraging to delay certification of election results.  Moreover, he recommended holding a press conference announcing that the Department was investigating allegations of voter fraud despite the lack of evidence that such fraud was present. Both proposals were rejected by Department senior leadership for lacking a factual basis and being inconsistent with the Department’s institutional role.

The report further details that Mr. Clark failed to follow Departmental policy in his communications with the White House and that the former President considered installing Mr. Clark as Acting Attorney General.

“The Select Committee expects Mr. Clark to cooperate fully with our investigation,” a statement from Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) read in part.

Clark is required to produce records and testify at a deposition on October 29.  

The committee has been announcing individuals and organizations that it has subpoenaed for three weeks now. To be sure, it expects all those subpoenaed to cooperate. It doesn’t look like it will be that easy, though.

As I reported last week, former President Donald Trump’s lawyer sent a letter obtained by POLITICO directing those who have been subpoenaed to defy it, citing executive and other privileges. 

Brett Samuels reported for The Hill on Wednesday, though, that “White House formally rejects Trump claim of executive privilege over Jan. 6 docs,” citing a letter from White House counsel Dana Remus. 

One such figure who has been subpoenaed, Steve Bannon has refused to comply, citing that Trump letter, as CNN reported last week. 

The subpoenas and what fate awaits those who say they will defy them has been the focus of extensive reporting from The Washington Post on Wednesday. 

In discussing “What can happen to the Trump advisers who are ignoring the Jan. 6 subpoenas?,” Amber Phillips wrote:

So what can the lawmakers do to enforce the subpoenas or punish the holdouts? Congress has a few options. The toughest one is potentially jailing the holdouts, something they are actually talking about. 

“I think we are completely of one mind that if people refuse to respond to questions without justification that we will hold them in criminal contempt,” Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), who sits on the committee, told The Washington Post.

She went on to list some options to take, including:

  • “First, they vote to hold someone who doesn’t comply in contempt of Congress”
  • “Congress often stops there, but they don’t have to,” which would involve taking that to the DOJ and charging the person with a crime.
  • “Congress can sue the person and demand they comply”
  • Advertisement
  • “Or they could jail them in the halls of Congress.”

When it comes to what Trump can do, she noted that “Trump can try to stop that by going to court, where he has a good chance to at least delay the records requests.”

She also cited a congressional ethics expert to explain there are few options to truly defy:

People on the receiving end of these subpoenas — including any members of Congress that the committee might try to talk to — could try to fight them, arguing that the subpoenas are politically motivated. 

But “no court has recognized that as a reason in itself,” said Stanley Brand, a congressional ethics expert. And Repub licans as well as Democrats have signed off on these subpoenas. Plus, a majority of Republican lawmakers opposed an investigation into the attack on the U.S. Capitol, but two Republicans — Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois — agreed to serve on it. 

So while Congress’s enforcement power of subpoenas has its weak spots, if it wants to really ramp up the pressure, there aren’t a lot of ways around avoiding a subpoena, other than going to jail.

While Reps. Cheney and Kinzinger, cited above, are Republicans, many would consider them to be RINOs. 

The two are the only Republicans serving on the committee, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) rejected House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) picking Reps. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Jim Banks (R-IN) to serve. Leader McCarthy then pulled all of his picks as a result.

Later on Wednesday, several of Phillips’ colleagues at The Washington Post wrote that “Jan. 6 committee preparing to aggressively enforce subpoenas, targets former Trump DOJ official.” 

About enforcing the subpoenas, the report mentioned:

Lawmakers who sit on the panel said they are prepared to pursue criminal charges against witnesses like Bannon who have balked at cooperating. 

“We are completely of one mind that if people refuse to respond to questions without justification that we will hold them in criminal contempt and refer them to the Justice Department,” Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), a member of the panel, said in an interview Tuesday. 

To proceed with a criminal contempt charge, the full committee must meet, which is unlikely this week but lawmakers will probably signal their intention to proceed to seek contempt charges, said a person familiar with the process who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive talks.

The report also mentions an eight-hour closed-door testimony then Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen “regarding the final days of the Trump administration, according to two people familiar with the meeting” and about Rosen’s interactions with Clark, who Trump considered replacing Rosen with. 

Continue Reading

Covid-19

Judge allows New York health care workers to seek religious exemptions to COVID-19 vaccine

Published

on

By

The ruling only grants short-term relief as the lawsuit makes it through the court system.

New York health care workers can continue seeking religious exemptions to the state’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, following a federal judge’s ruling Tuesday. 

According to The Hill, Judge David Hurd issued a temporary injunction barring New York from enforcing its vaccine mandate that prohibits religious exemptions for health care workers.

Hurd previously issued a preliminary restraining order against the state after 17 medical professionals sued New York, claiming the mandate violated their constitutional rights.

The recent ruling only grants short-term relief as the lawsuit makes it through the court system.

According to the Associated Press, Hurd’s decision also prevents the state from revoking previously granted religious exemptions.

In the ruling, Hurd alluded to the potential success of the lawsuit, saying the vaccine mandate “conflicts with plaintiffs’ and other individuals’ federally protected right to seek a religious accommodation from their individual employers.”

Advertisement

Despite the court’s ruling, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul plans on challenging the judge’s decision, and remains confident that this type of vaccine mandate is necessary for people working in health care.

“My responsibility as governor is to protect the people of this state, and requiring health care workers to get vaccinated accomplishes that,” Hochul said in a statement. “I stand behind this mandate, and I will fight this decision in court to keep New Yorkers safe.”

Currently, about 64% of the entire state of New York is vaccinated against COVID-19. 

Continue Reading

Donald Trump

Bob Woodward says he’s never seen so much political strength from a former president as Trump has

Published

on

By

“Trump’s popularity, his power in the Republican party has grown since he left office. It has not shrunk,” said Woodward

Famed journalist Bob Woodward says he’s never seen a former president retain as much political strength as Donald Trump.

“What’s going on now really is an iron curtain of obedience to Trump,” told CNN. “It’s not just polite deference, it is obedience. And it really is an iron curtain because it’s so strong.”

Woodward spoke after Trump’s appearance at a rally Saturday night alongside Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, a mainstream Republican running for election at age 88.

“These people, like Senator Grassley, can count,” Woodward said. “They can look at the polls. They go to their home states, they talk to constituents. And there’s tens of millions of people who support Trump.”

During the rally, Trump awarded Grassley his customary “complete and total endorsement.” 

Advertisement

Grassley later commented that it “wouldn’t be too smart” not to accept “the endorsement of a person that’s got 91 percent of the Republican voters in Iowa.”

A recent Iowa poll shows Trump with  a higher approval rating in the state than he ever did as a sitting president. And despite Grassley’s popularity as a senator – 81% of GOP voters in Iowa support him – he is not as popular as the ex-president.

“This is a political strength that we have rarely seen, never seen from a former president … Let’s face it: Trump’s popularity, his power in the Republican Party has grown since he left office. It has not shrunk,” said Woodward.

Continue Reading

Joe Biden

Hannity: Biden planning aid to Taliban as the economy tanks, Americans show disapproval with anti-Joe chants

Published

on

By

The advent of the ‘Let’s go Brandon’ chant at Talladega is the latest way Americans are showing outrage at the White House

‘Hannity’ host highlights the crises the Biden administration faces

President Biden and his administration are planning to send American taxpayer money to Afghanistan as the economy continues to tank back home with record inflation, gas prices rising, and supply-chain chaos, Sean Hannity said Tuesday during his opening monologue – adding that many Americans are beginning to publicly show their frustration with the White House.

The U.S. has agreed to provide humanitarian aid to a Afghanistan, which is on the brink of an economic disaster, while at the same time refusing to give political recognition to the country’s new Taliban government, the Taliban said Sunday. State Department spokesman Ned Price called the discussions with the extremist regime “candid and professional”. The Biden team stated, however that the talks in Qatar over the weekend should not be seen as a signal of a forthcoming formal recognition of the Taliban government in Kabul.

Hannity noted Biden has now gone 40 days without mentioning the American citizens still stranded behind Taliban lines in Afghanistan, despite his planned expenditures of taxpayer funds to that country.

“The Biden administration is planning to send more money to the Taliban. They’re calling it humanitarian aid, but in reality, where I grew up, that looks an awful lot like a massive ransom payment to terrorists.”

Afghanistan, he said, is only one of the long list of things Biden has touched that “becomes an unmitigated disaster.”

Advertisement

The American people are taking notice, he added, pointing to an incident last week following a NASCAR race at Talladega Superspeedway in Lincoln, Ala., where the crowd yelled anti-Biden slogans.

NBC Sports reporter Kelli Stavast was interviewing race winner Brandon Brown amid thundering chants of “F— Joe Biden” from the stands. Stavast stated at one point that the crowd was actually shouting “Let’s go Brandon.”

Since then, “Let’s go Brandon” chants have become an anti-Biden meme and have erupted in several sporting events and large gatherings across the country like in East Rutherford, New Jersey at a New York Jets game.

“Let’s go Brandon is a new favorite among Americans,” he said. “You, the American people, have every reason to be angry at Joe Biden.”

“He is failing this country around every turn and you are paying the price,” the host added. “Inflation is now costing families $175 per month or $2,100 more per year — “compliments of Joe Biden,” Hannity said.

He noted that Biden’s administration also appears more invested in a “green” agenda than the economic impact of their policies on everyday working class Americans.

“At the center of our current economic crisis is a clueless president experiencing steep cognitive decline,” he said, pointing to Biden ending his workday as early as 3 p.m. on Tuesday.

Continue Reading

Conservatives

Mollie Hemingway’s ‘Rigged’: How Dems have outmaneuvered the GOP in elections for years

Published

on

By

“It’s amazing [Republicans] won any elections, given this,” the author and Fox News contributor said.

The Federalist’s Senior Editor Mollie Hemingway released her new book Tuesday called “Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections,” which analyzes the issues with the 2020 election, the Democrats’ history of refusing to accept Republican-won elections, and how Republicans are repeatedly outmaneuvered by the Democratic Party in election litigation.

In her book, Hemingway notes how, until 2020, Democrats had been concerned about absentee ballots and voting machines since 2000, when George W. Bush won the presidency. Since that presidential election, she claims, Democrats have refused to accept any presidential elections won by Republicans.

But in the case of the 2020 election, when the use of those methods significantly increased, those who questioned them were labeled conspiracy theorists by Democrats in political, media, and corporate elites as social media seeks to censor reports of election irregularities. 

Hemingway argues the new voting and election methods implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic make the whole process less private and secure, more like it was in the early years of America, when people’s votes were public and easily manipulated.

These changes are partly due to how the Democratic Party exploits the legal system to its advantage with elections, she explains, starting with Marc Elias, who chaired the political law practice at the party’s law firm Perkins Coie for years.

Elias, who was general counsel for both John Kerry’s and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaigns, hired Fusion GPS in 2016, which created the Steele dossier at the center of the Trump-Russia collusion hoax. 

He also has a long history of using courts to benefit Democrats in elections, as was the case with the overturning of Al Franken’s apparent loss in a Minnesota Senate election, which ultimately gave the Democratic Party a 60-seat supermajority in the Senate to bypass the filibuster and pass Obamacare, according to Hemingway. Franken’s slim, 312-vote victory was brought into question over a year later, when 393 votes in two of Minnesota’s largest counties were found by a conservative group to be illegally cast. 

Elias was also at the center of the 2020 election, when in January of that year he urged counting ballots without matching signatures, expanding no-excuse absentee voting dramatically, having the government pay for postage, counting ballots that arrive after Election Day, and implementing and expanding ballot harvesting. 

Advertisement

The 2020 presidential election was also the first since 1980 when the Republican National Committee was allowed to participate in Election Day operations. 

For nearly 40 years, “the Republican National Committee had been prohibited by law from helping out with poll watcher efforts or nearly any litigation related to how voting is conducted,” Hemingway writes.

It started with the 1981 New Jersey gubernatorial race, when Democrats accused Republicans of voter intimidation. The two parties settled the case and entered into a court-ordered consent decree, under which Republicans were limited in poll watching operations. 

Judge Dickinson Debevoise, who was appointed by President Jimmy Carter, oversaw the agreement and didn’t let the Republicans out of it, as he kept changing it and following Democrats’ request to strengthen it for them. While he was only a judge for 15 years, he maintained senior status for 21 years, which is like a “semi-retirement that enables judges to keep serving in a limited capacity,” Hemingway writes.

After Debevoise’s death in 2015, his successor, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, took over the case and “let the agreement expire at the end of 2018.”

While the Democratic Party was able to build up its own coordination efforts for decades, the RNC was prohibited from doing so, as GOP candidates and state parties were left to do those things on their own. 

The RNC was also prohibited from any Election Day-related litigation and recounts. 

On “The Federalist Radio Hour” Tuesday, Hemingway said that when she was interviewing Republicans about the consent decree, they told her that it was just the way it was, which prompted her to think, “It’s amazing you people won any elections, given this.”

Continue Reading

Crime

Fed judge calls for Justice Department civil rights probe on Jan 6 detainees’ treatment in DC jail

Published

on

By

Another concern is how long judges will allow prosecutors to continue to ask Jan. 6 defendants to waive rights to a speedy trial

Afederal judge on Wednesday found the director of the D.C. Department of Corrections and the warden of the city jail in contempt of court and called on the Justice Department to investigate whether the facility is violating the civil rights of dozens of Jan. 6 detainees.

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth of Washington made the ruling after finding jail officials failed to turn over information to approve wrist surgery recommended four months ago for a defendant in connection with the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, according to The Washington Post.

The defendant has been identified as Christopher Worrell, a purported member of the Florida Proud Boys charged with four felonies in connection with the incident — including rioting and spraying pepper gel at police.

Lamberth said D.C. officials failing to turn over medical records is “more than just inept and bureaucratic jostling of papers,” the Post reports

Advertisement
.

“I find that the civil rights of the defendant have been abused,” Lamberth said. “I don’t know if it’s because he’s a January 6th defendant or not, but I find this matter should be referred to the attorney general of the United States for a civil rights investigation.”

Lamberth also suggested that the U.S. Marshals Service may have to move inmates from the D.C. jail to other detention facilities if they are receiving improper treatment.

Conditions at the jail have for years been a concern.

Another concern is how long judges will allow prosecutors to continue to ask defendants to waive their rights to a speedy trial nine months after the breach, according to the Post

Continue Reading

Covid-19

‘Playing hardball’: Biden plans massive new fines for businesses violating vax mandate: watchdog

Published

on

By

Under $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill, businesses not complying with Biden OSHA vaccine mandate would be subject to fines ranging from $70,000 to $700,000, according to OpenTheBooks.com.

Tucked inside the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill that passed out of the House Budget Committee are exorbitant new fines — ranging from $70,000 to $700,000 — that would apply to companies defying President Joe Biden’s COVID vaccine mandate, alleges Adam Andrzejewski, CEO/founder of OpenTheBooks.com. 

If the provisions of the bill are implemented, the fines could bankrupt all non-compliant companies, warns the government spending watchdog.

“Buried on page 168 of the House Democrats’ 2,465-page mega bill is a tenfold increase in fines for employers that ‘willfully,’ ‘repeatedly,’ or even seriously violate a section of labor law that deals with hazards, death, or serious physical harm to their employees,” Andrzejewski writes in Forbes.

Last month, Biden announced by executive fiat that all private-sector businesses with 100 or more employees must comply with his most recent vaccine mandate, or pay a potential fine of $14,000 per violation. The order would impact more than 80 million Americans.

Open The Books argues violators would be subject to the drastically steeper new fines in the budget reconciliation bill.

According to the bill markup, Section 21004 of the OSHA Act of 1970 would be amended to increase fines in the Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties section. The changes made by the Democrat-controlled committee would increase the maximum penalty to $700,000 for willful and repeat violations; increase the minimum penalty to $50,000 for willful violations; and increase the maximum penalty for both serious and failure-to-abate violations to $70,000.

A senior House Democratic aide denied the stiffened penalties are targeted specifically at vaccine mandate non-compliance. Noting the fines fall under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Education and Labor, the aide argued the provisions are related to labor law enforcement more broadly.

The fines were “marked up in committee and are not explicitly related to vaccines — just generally increase the level of fines that OSHA is able to levy when an employer is in violation,” the Democratic aide told Just The News.

The bill markup also amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to increase penalties and fines. It increases maximum civil penalties to: 

  • $132,270 for child labor violations;
  • $601,150 for child labor violations that cause the death or serious injury of an employee under the age of 18;
  • $20,740 for willful or repeated minimum wage or overtime violations;
  • $11,620 for tip violations. 

It also amends the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act of 1983 to increase the maximum civil penalty for violations of the law to $25,790.

Andrzejewski remains skeptical. “The push to increase the fines up to $700,000 per willful and repeated violation,” he countered, “was the anticipated emergency rule that OSHA will publish in the Federal Register allowing them jurisdiction to enforce Biden’s vax mandate on private companies. Period.”

The House aide “doesn’t deny that the fines would be levied as the enforcement mechanism of the president’s vax mandate,” he added. “That’s because Biden and the Democrats are playing hardball. Comply or face bankruptcy.”

Advertisement

Just The News contacted OSHA to provide clarification on whether enforcement of new fine ceilings will be applied to vax violators, but did not receive a response.

The changes come after Biden issued an ominous warning to the millions of Americans who refuse to get the COVID jabs. “We’ve been patient,” said the president. “But our patience is wearing thin, and your refusal has cost all of us.” 

In June, prior to Biden’s executive order last month, OSHA published an emergency rule in the Federal Register stating it would have jurisdiction over COVID safety enforcement. Invoking the obscure Emergency Temporary Standard provision, the agency claimed the authority to enforce the mandate and impose fines, OpenTheBooks explains. The ETS has been used only 10 times in the agency’s 50-year history, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

Worse, argues the religious liberty legal aid nonprofit Liberty Counsel, the federal government would be imposing draconian fines on companies for not complying with an illegal mandate. 

Technically, Liberty Counsel contends, the COVID shots are available only under Emergency Use Authorization, which under federal law requires that they only be administered on a voluntarily basis. 

“The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has done a bait and switch by announcing it approved its ‘first COVID-19 vaccine’ in order to push the ‘vaccine’ mandates and protect the Pfizer pharmaceutical company from legal liability,” Liberty Counsel said in August. “However, there is currently no fully licensed COVID shot on the United States market.” 

Even if a fully licensed vaccine was available, it still couldn’t be mandatory, argues Liberty Counsel, because Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act allows for religious exceptions.

“Employees and employers have constitutional protections against this lawless Biden mandate,” the organization’s founder and chairman Mat Staver says, adding that Liberty Counsel will “challenge his lawless executive order.”

In response to threats of lawsuits or Republican governors who have challenged the mandate, Biden said: “Have at it. We’re playing for real here. This isn’t a game.”

But 27 governors or attorneys general have vowed to fight it, including Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, who has sparred with Biden over mask mandates and vaccine passports.

“When you have a president like Biden issuing unconstitutional edicts against the American people, we have a responsibility to stand up for the Constitution and to fight back, and we are doing that in the state of Florida,” DeSantis said. “This is a president who has acknowledged in the past he does not have the authority to force this on anybody, and this order would result potentially in millions of Americans losing their jobs.”

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 Trending Lit