Re-posted from the Canada Free Press By Judi McLeod —— Bio and Archives—August 28, 2020

Beware all worried citizens in Democrat-controlled Blue Cities, pillaged by Black Lives Matter and Antifa anarchists: “They’re not going to stop”.

That is the pre-election promise of Senator Kamala Harris, the new Hillary Clinton, with whom defiant Democrats plan to replace Joe Biden, if elected—but only when they have to admit that Biden’s failing health prevents him from serving as president.

The harum-scarum of the street mobs won’t stop “because this is a movement”, according to Harum-Scarum Harris.

Citizens whose small businesses will be burned down will be frightened out their wits by Harum-Scarum ways.

Senator Kama Harris is not just the voice of Democrat wind-up doll, cognitive-challenged Joe Biden, worse, she’s the coming voice of Black Lives Matter—INSIDE the White House.

“They’re not going to stop,” she said of the protests. “This is a movement.” (Hollywood Reporter, June 18, 2020)

“They’re not going to stop before Election Day in November, and they’re not going to stop after Election Day,” Harris continued.

“Everyone should take note of that on both levels, that they’re not going to let up and they should not and we should not.”

“Harris said that the protests must continue in order to make a difference and shared that she made a “conscious decision” to become a prosecutor because she doesn’t know one Black man that has never been racially profiled.

“The only way we’re going to truly achieve change is when there are people in the system who are willing or pushing to do it, and when there are those folks who are outside of the system demanding it,” she said.”

Shockingly, Harris openly admits that it is the destructive street mob movements getting the Democrats where they need to be:

“Some of the success that we’ve been able to achieve around criminal justice reform would not have happened in recent years were it not for Black Lives Matter,” Harris added. “These movements provide a counterforce to get us to where we need to be.” (Hollywood Reporter)

The legend in her own mind thinking she spins is that she became a protester while still a baby in a stroller:

“The first protest I ever attended was in a stroller when my parents were marching in the ‘60s,” she said. “It’s kind of something I’ve done my entire life.” (Hollywood Reporter)

“Noting that her parents were politically active, Harris said that she learned that the greatest movements in the country “have been born out of protests” and “understanding the power of the people to take to the streets and force their government to address what is wrong, the inequities, the inequalities, the unfairness.”

“Almost every one of those marches has been about one fundamental ideal in our country, which is equal justice under law,” she said. “And fighting to make sure that we have a government and a country that, at least every few steps, gets closer to achieving that ideal.” While the United States has not yet reached equality for all, Harris said that protests “are the catalyst to getting there.”

“The senator added that attending recent protests in Washington, D.C., gave her hope, saying that she saw “people who seemingly have nothing in common, who know they have everything in common, people of every race, age, gender together and seeing the commonality.”

“Harris also spoke about her relationship with presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden in another segment.

“When asked if she would consider becoming his vice president, Harris, who’s been widely reported to be on Biden’s shortlist for the role, said that she’s “honored to be part of the conversation” and will do “everything in my power” to help Biden win the election.

“Despite her recent support, Harris had previously criticized Biden during the Democratic debates.

“It was a debate,” she said of her harsh words to Biden while she was still in the running to become the Democratic nominee. “Literally it was a debate. It was called a debate. Everyone traveled to the debate. There were journalists covering the debate where there would be a debate of differences of opinions and issues.”

“I am 1,000 percent supportive of Joe Biden and I will, again, do everything I can do make sure he is elected,” Harris added.

“I’ve known Joe a long time and I care about him deeply,” she continued. “As you know, we all have family members or friends with whom we have disagreements. That doesn’t overcome or overshadow the commonality between us and the connections between us.”

Claiming activism since her days in a baby stroller, Harum-Scarum Harris must have known when she celebrated having to get out of the Democrat primaries with only 2 percent popularity among what some called “the busload of crazies”, that she would be pegged as Sleepy Joe’s running mate back on December 3, 2019.

American citizens now know, one and all, that Kamala Harris Harum-Scarum days won’t be gone until she is.

Meanwhile, she’s not kidding about being the Black Lives Matter White House Insider if elected.

The proof is in the evil of her smile in video below:

Re-posted from the Canada Free Press By Douglas V. Gibbs —— Bio and Archives—August 27, 2020

During the Republican National Convention the internet exploded with accusations and articles regarding the Hatch Act.  Well known liberal left websites like The Huffington Post, and media outlets like the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and New York Times, jumped on the bandwagon.  The Party of hatred and false accusations was at it again.  The Democrats, however, this time figured they had something on the GOP that could finally stick.

Except, it doesn’t.

The Huffington Post warned, “President Donald Trump’s insistence on using the White House for much of his nominating convention may be pressuring hundreds of staff into violating a federal law prohibiting political activity on government property, ethics experts said. While the president and vice president are exempt from the Hatch Act, employees who work at the White House ― both political appointees and civil servants ― are not exempt, meaning any federal employee who helped stage the various video productions at the Republican National Convention this week or the speeches by Trump and first lady Melania Trump could be exposed to the law’s penalties, which can range from a reprimand to being fired.”

The Los Angeles Times scolded, “Inevitably, White House staffers will have to be involved in the logistics for setting up and delivering the speech, as they were in all likelihood for Melania Trump’s speech on Tuesday and for the videos from the White House that have played at the convention.  Even if the employees voluntarily choose to work on such things, it would still violate the Hatch Act. Federal employees are flatly barred from participating in political activities. And pressuring them to do so is a criminal violation under the law.”

Not so fast.

An article by David Asp for Middle Tennessee State University explains, “The Hatch Act, an attempt to regulate corruption and possible intimidation of federal employees in the civil service by their elected supervisors, was enacted by Congress in 1939. The act banned the use of federal funds for electoral purposes and forbade federal officials from coercing political support with the promise of public jobs or funds. Sen. Carl Hatch, D-N.M., introduced the act after learning that New Deal–era government programs, specifically the Works Progress Administration, were using federal funds overtly to support Democratic Party candidates in the 1938 elections.”

The goal was to ensure the Hatch Act remained true to its original intent without necessarily quelling the First Amendment Rights of federal employees.

If you read the law in its current form, including all of the amendments, you learn that The Hatch Act applies to “federal civilian executive branch employees,” with rare exceptions, as well as to some state, Washington, D.C., and local government employees whose work involves federally funded programs (remember, the 1940 amendment).

The goal based on the current law is to ensure federal programs “are administered in a nonpartisan fashion, to protect federal employees from political coercion in the workplace, and to ensure that federal employees are advanced based on merit and not based on political affiliation.”

The federal employees in question are then divided into “less restricted” and “further restricted” categories.  The less restricted the employees, the more leeway they have when it comes to “taking part in partisan political management or partisan political campaigns.”  If they do so, however, they are not supposed to use their titles or positions “while engaged in political activity,” pressure workers to take part in campaigns or use politics to interfere in business pending “before their employing office.”

The employees with heavier restrictions tend to be those working in intelligence or enforcement agencies such as the FBI or Federal Election Commission. They are not allowed to engage in partisan political management or political campaigns.

To the staff, the event at the White House was like any other event.  They were not engaged in political activity, they were simply doing their job.  They were not promoting their political agenda in a corrupt manner, nor were they being forced to promote a political agenda through political activity.  They were simply doing their job of setting up chairs, editing film, or whatever.

As for the accusation regarding Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivering a video from his federally paid for trip to Israel?  He took a moment of his own free time to make the video, and presented himself as a citizen, family man, and American rather than Secretary of State.  The funds to get him to Israel were not for the purpose of the video, therefore federal funds were not misappropriated.

Could some of the Republican National Convention, considering that much of it was at the White House, if you are a nit-picker, be riding the line between violation and non-violation?  I suppose if you really wanted to pick it apart, you could say that.  But based on original intent of the law, and the evolution of the law through amendments, the reality is that no, the Republican Party did not violate the Hatch Act.