U.S. Senator Josh Hawley delivered a speech on the floor of the senate that deserves some attention. The larger issue outlined by Senator Halwey surrounds the recent Supreme Court Bowstock decision authored by Justice Gorsuch. However, in overlaying the judicial outcome, Hawley hits on the central issue he calls the “conservative bargain.”
The entire speech is worth listening to, as the senator encapsulates many of the frustrations within the recent decision; but the segment at 07:15 cuts to the heart of the distinction between MAGA-Trump republicanism and the pathetic GOPe wing of the Mitch McConnell UniParty. We have previously called this “The Decepticon” WATCH:
According to the New York Police, three police officers were “intentionally poisoned by one or more workers at the Shake Shack at 200 Broadway in Manhattan. After tasting the milk shakes they purchased they became ill, making it necessary for them to go to an area hospital. Fortunately, our fellow officers were not seriously harmed.” (LINK)
The Shake Shack corporation previously aligned themselves with the Black Lives Matter movement. Specifically the corporation said they were we’re taking action “to become better allies, not only for our Black colleagues, but for the entire Black community.”
Thus current Shake Shack employees can argue their attacks against police was their collective expression of social justice in carrying out the interests of the organization.
SHAKE SHACK
✔@shakeshack
Black Lives Matter. We recognize our responsibility to stand up in the fight against systemic racism and know that words must be accompanied by action.
Last week, we shared the immediate actions we’re taking to become better allies, not only for our Black colleagues, but for the entire Black community. That included a $100K donation to @eji_org. We stand behind the important work Equal Justice Initiative does every day.
According to people on the Twitter this young black woman is Beverly Beatty, and the conversation is in/around the occupied territory known as CHAZ. That said, Ms. Beatty delivers a remarkably effective two minute elevator speech; to an urban white liberal.
What the video shows is an empowered delivery of Red Pill truth. WATCH:
.
There are many more people like Ms. Beverly Beatty than Democrats would ever admit. These empowered, articulate voices for conservative freedom -regardless of race- are antithetical to the political interests of the DNC. Strong in the truth is this young lady. Well done.
There is considerable conversation, on all sides of the issue, surrounding a 6-3 supreme court decision today recognizing “gay” and/or “transgender” persons as being protected by the 1964 civil rights act under the definition of “sex”. Factually, the decision authored by Judge Gorsuch writes those terms into the legislative definition; that’s a problem.
However, that said, for all practical purposes and intents, sexual orientation has been a protected employment category -as viewed by the Dept. of Labor and EEOC- since the mid-90’s. So some of the over-the-top exclamations, in both directions, are moot amid the world of practical application.
As to the issue of SCOTUS usurping the legislative responsibility for the practical wording of law, yes, this ruling is an issue, and Judge Alito is absolutely correct in all corners of his dissent. Justice Gorsuch has opened a can of worms for downstream consequences unrelated to employment eligibility; and a myriad of potential future cases based on gender orientation are likely to flow to the court; so the big picture is problematic.
All arguments surrounding the issue of SCOTUS writing legislation through the delivery of opinion are merited and worthy. However, on the specific application of ‘gender’ to employment eligibility, today’s ruling was already in place. Amy Howe has a good encapsulation at SCOTUS Blog:
“Today the Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-3, ruled that even if Congress may not have had discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status in mind when it enacted the landmark law over a half century ago, Title VII’s ban on discrimination protects gay, lesbian and transgender employees. Because fewer than half of the 50 states currently ban employment discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation, today’s decision is a major victory for LGBT employees.”
[…] Gorsuch framed the question before the court as a straightforward one: “Today,” he wrote, “we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender.” The answer to that question, he continued, “is clear.” When an employer fires an employee “for being homosexual or transgender,” that employer “fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”
[…] Justice Samuel Alito filed a sharp dissent that was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. While conceding that the result that the majority reached “no doubt arises from humane and generous impulses,” Alito stressed that there “is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation.” He compared the majority’s opinion to a “pirate ship,” writing that although it sails “under a textualist flag” – that is, it purports to adhere to the text of Title VII – “what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated—the theory that court should ‘update’ old statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society.” “If the Court finds it appropriate to adopt this theory,” Alito complained, “it should own up to what it is doing.” (read more)
In the bigger picture, because Title VII as drafted does not protect gay and lesbian employees, nor does any honest review of the 1964 statute imply such a definition, the responsibility to amend Title VII belonged to congress and the president in the legislative process, not to the Supreme Court. That’s the bigger problem with the SCOTUS decision.
Congress should be, and is, responsible for defining the term “because of sex” as it applies in the original legislation; as it was written to eliminate employment discrimination. What the supreme court did today was textually, and arguably constitutionally, outside the parameters of their role.
The only modicum of upside optimism stems from reminding ourselves that practically speaking the ruling today was already, technically, in place. The executive branch already viewed sex-based employment discrimination as against EEOC rules. However, the severe downside is further movement toward legislation being created by the courts.
I think Justice Alito is correct… The Supreme Court has just opened themselves up to a lot more work coming on their calendar.
There is a civil war inside the New York Times as is the case in just about every major newspaper. This war is emerging between the young journalists and the 40+ old-wing liberals who have lost their way and surrendered all ethics of what was once journalism. What has changed is that the classically liberal process has transformed from investigative objectivity to always criticizing in public any opposition which in itself requires that one holds certain opposite convictions which means any objectivity has been surrendered. The capacity of reason to determine right from wrong has become biased to one’s own side to prevail and what has been rejected is debate. The substance is never addressed, simply they attack the messenger. There is no evolution of thought or advancement for society through the historical give and take of argument.
Journalism has lost any degree of modesty about the likelihood of any comprehensive moral and political view triumphing so decisively that competing views vanish or shrink to the furthest margins of a free society. Indeed, journalism has become just personal propaganda. Once upon a time, journalism was a noble cause for it was about a practical and functional form of truth that may not be even absolute or philosophical, but it was the pursuit of the truths that impacted our society. It was once perhaps a lofty goal that began with the professional discipline of assembling and verifying facts as was the case with the legal and political professions.
But journalists, have succumbed to bias and no longer try to convey a fair and reliable account of their events. FAKE NEWS has simply become a platform for personal bias warranting no further investigation. Journalism has digressed to nothing more than standing on a soap-box at Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park, London. Journalists are no longer transparent about sources or methods so audiences can make their own assessment of the information.
Journalism’s first loyalty was to citizens not to Governments nor to their Editors
The larger truth, over time, will always emerge which only exposes the sad state of journalism when we so desperately need a trusted voice. As citizens have been turning more and more to news sources on the internet rather than TV or newspapers which seem to be the mainstay of the older generations. Back in 2008, 31% were relying on the internet. By 2013, 55% of Americans relied on TV news.
The Washington Post still displays its motto – Democracy Dies in Darkness. The refusal to simply report the news objectively is killing our Democracy as well as our freedom. This COVID nonsense is all about control. The fact that 100,000 people have died as a percent of the population is 0.0003%. The worst flu season in recent years was 2017-2018 where there were over 48.8 million illnesses, more than 22.7 million medical visits, 959,000 hospitalizations, and 79,400 deaths. We did not have social distancing, shut down all sports, plays, theme parks, and art theatre, nor did we destroy the economy. None of the mainstream press has even dared to question if what has taken place was an over-reaction.
As the generations shift, this election Joe Biden looks like he will not even last for a second term assuming he remembers his own name. This is the last hoorah for this generation of the ’60s. This is the same in the media. We are at a generational crossroads and what lies ahead is something far different than what the older generation expect.
Hypocritical Facebook weasel Mark Zuckerberg went after competitor Twitter today—and was handed the prime opportunity by no less than Fox News.
Imagine the CEO of the social media that bans conservative voices on Facebook having the gall to say that “private companies shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth”.
That’s exactly what Facebook has been doing all along out in the cyberspace world.
Facebook deserves the same treatment President Trump’s executive order on media bias will enforce on Twitter
On the same day that Zuck got himself on Fox News, Facebook just arrogantly announced that they have identified PragerUniversity as a fake news media outlet. (Prager Newsletter)
“And they will, therefore, restrict our reach to our own audience. Even people who have chosen to follow our page will be deliberately prevented from seeing our posts.”
Facebook deserves the same treatment President Trump’s executive order on media bias will enforce onTwitter.
Activist Social Media, coached by desperado Democrats and now providing digital personalities to progressives, is well on its way to make Election 2020 a total mail-in event.
The mail-in vote, headed up by Michelle Obama, is the only means left for the Impeachment-failed Democrats to take down a duly elected president who bypassed Barack Obama candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016.
“Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has called out Twitter for attaching a fact check to a tweet from President Trump, telling Fox News’ Dana Perino that privately-owned digital platforms should not act as the “arbiter of truth.” (Fox News, May 27, 2020)
This is the propaganda push Fox gave to the slippery-as-an-eel Facebook owner
“We have a different policy than, I think, Twitter on this,” Zuckerberg told “The Daily Briefing” in an interview scheduled to air in full on Thursday.”
The many thrown off Facebook for posting Conservative messages don’t just think—but know—otherwise, Zuck!
Why would Fox News give the Facebook CEO an interview the same day of the president’s social media executive order?
Mighty Fox NEVER gets Facebook-banned.
Meanwhile, this is the propaganda push Fox gave to the slippery-as-an-eel Facebook owner who pontificated:
“I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online,” he added. “Private companies probably shouldn’t be, especially these platform companies, shouldn’t be in the position of doing that.” (Fox News)
“I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online.”
“Zuckerberg made the comment after President Trump warned social media giants that the federal government could “strongly regulate” or “close them down” if they continue to “silence conservative voices.”
“I have to understand what they actually would intend to do,” Zuckerberg said in response to the president’s warning. “But in general, I think a government choosing to to censor a platform because they’re worried about censorship doesn’t exactly strike me as the the right reflex there.”
“Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey responded late Wednesday, saying: “We’ll continue to point out incorrect or disputed information about elections globally. And we will admit to and own any mistakes we make.
“This does not make us an ‘arbiter of truth’,” Dorsey continued. “Our intention is to connect the dots of conflicting statements and show the information in dispute so people can judge for themselves. More transparency from us is critical so folks can clearly see the why behind our actions.”
“On Tuesday, Twitter slapped a fact check notification on one of Trump’s tweets for the first time, cautioning users that despite the president’s claims about mail-in voting, “fact checkers” say there is “no evidence” that mail-in voting would increase fraud risks and that “experts say mail-in ballots are very rarely linked to voter fraud.
“Facebook has faced criticism in the past for failing to address controversial content on the platform, but it appears Zuckerberg has no plans to change company policy. Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg expressed a similar sentiment during a 2017 CNBC interview, asserting that the tech giant does not intend “to be the publisher and we definitely don’t want to be the arbiter of the truth.”
“We don’t think that’s appropriate for us,” Sandberg said at the time.
“Facebook, and Google have been censoring and editorializing for years under the absurd pretext that they were just enforcing their own “community guidelines,” not weighing in on the merits of what their users were saying or embedding their own biases into the site’s rules. Who writes and enforces these community guidelines? People like Yoel Roth, Twitter’s Head of Site Integrity, whose anti-Trump tweets from 2016 and 2017 resurfaced recently. Roth called Trump and his officials “ACTUAL NAZIS,” compared Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to a “bag of farts,” and implied that Trump supporters are racists. (Federalist, May 28, 2020)
“Twitter hasn’t just waded into politics in an overt way, it has exposed the fiction at the heart of what social media companies are: they’re not neutral platforms, they’re biased, and like their peer organizations in the mainstream media, they’re overwhelmingly biased against conservatives and in favor of progressives.
“If Twitter wants to start fact-checking everything that gets posted by influential people, fine. But there’s no way it can do so in an even-handed or fair manner, and no way it can continue to insist on Section 230 protection.
Meanwhile, as for President Trump’s executive order on social media bias, “Go get ‘em, Mr. President!”
This afternoon President Trump held a press availability in the oval office answering questions from the media as he signed an executive order [Available Here] directing the prevention of on-line censorship in social media platforms.
The president was joined by Attorney General Bill Barr, and both leaders delivered remarks and answered questions from the media. [Video Below, Transcript to Follow]
.
[Read Executive Order Here] – In the periphery of this executive action there are indications, and a widespread expectation, the DOJ is close to filing an antitrust lawsuit against Google Inc and their affiliated companies. There is a strong possibility the controlling ideology of ‘big tech’ is about to merge with legal action by the DOJ.
The DOJ action has not yet happened, but there are signals it is very close. There have been visible signals, subtle but visible, that the DOJ was/is about to move on a massive (the biggest in history) antitrust lawsuit against Google and all affiliates.
The issue will not necessarily surface as most would think; via a bias based on conservative -vs- leftist ideology in content manipulation; though those underlying aspects are a part of the larger underpinning we will soon see surface.
Antitrust lawsuits, writ large, are based on “prices”, “costs”, and net “financial” distortions caused by corporations not competing based on open commerce. “Antitrust” in it’s structural form is based on costs and the manipulation of prices. Essentially, controlled commerce.
In the digital sphere the targeted firms have not opened themselves to liability based on ideology; but rather Google, all subsidiaries and alliances, have opened themselves to antitrust violations through the manipulation and control of financial benefit.
Demonitization of digital platform content providers, in combination with Google’s control of almost all ad revenue in the digital space, is what has opened the door for DOJ intervention based on antitrust laws.
This happens because the content being generated on these controlled platforms is being arbitrarily valued by the media company, not the free market. Devaluing certain content they are ideologically opposed to creates consumer distortions.
Underpinning that revenue control is the ideological nature of the content provider. However, for the purpose of antitrust lawsuits, that motive is irrelevant.
The methods, practices and purposeful control of value; through collusion of corporate interest specific to a planned and organized effort to control monetary benefit; is the part of their activity that is quantifiable, discoverable, easily provable, and ultimately unlawful.
The financial distortion of internet commerce is the crack in the Big Tech stranglehold that affords the DOJ the opportunity to step in. Google (and all subsidiaries) will lose on the substance of their defense because ultimately their business practice has resulted in, and arguably they have engaged in, price fixing.
It will take time, but eventually they will settle; and there will likely be a massive financial settlement in addition to a negotiated Consent Decree. Within the CD terms, we may even see a break-up.
The antitrust action is only tangentially related to the current POTUS confrontation with Twitter and big tech social media based on ideological lines. However, it is easy to see how the two issues will merge. The monetary distortions are based on ideology.
As soon as the DOJ takes action Silicon Valley will hold an even larger self-interest in the 2020 election outcome; and they will respond accordingly.
Our President has pointed out the fake news at many of his rallies and news conferences. He specifically identifies CNN, MSNBC, The AP, The New York Times and The Washington Post as primary sources for the misinformation and downright lies that pass for news among the low-information voters.
The Democrats who identify as journalists served up a perfect case in point on Friday.
Every freedom loving patriot celebrated the dismissal of the trumped-up charges against General Michael Flynn. After years of news articles calling him everything from a liar to a Russian agent the media begrudgingly had to report that all charges were dropped. Why after ruining this good man’s finances and career did the Justice Department finally release him from their gulag of lies?
The US attorney reviewing the Flynn case, Jeff Jensen, recommended the move to Attorney General William Barr last week and formalized the recommendation in a document this week saying, “Through the course of my review of General Flynn’s case, I concluded the proper and just course was to dismiss the case. I briefed Attorney General Barr on my findings, advised him on these conclusions, and he agreed.” The Justice Department said it had concluded that Flynn’s interview by the FBI was “untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn” and that the interview on January 24, 2017 was “conducted without any legitimate investigative basis.”
This recommendation led to the court action by the Justice Department. U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Timothy Shea said in a court briefing, “The United States of America hereby moves to dismiss with prejudice the criminal information filed against Michael T. Flynn. The government has determined, pursuant to the principles of federal prosecution and based on an extensive review and careful consideration of the circumstances, that continued prosecution of this case would not serve the interests of justice.” Without prejudice means the government cannot refile these charges.
These conclusions, recommendations, and actions were based on the release of previously secret Justice Department documents relating to the Flynn case that included a handwritten note from former FBI counterintelligence director Bill Priestap. After he met with then-FBI Director James Comey and then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Priestap wrote: “What’s our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”
Another document in that release indicates the FBI was planning to close the investigation into Flynn before Trump took office in January 2017. But, then two weeks before Trump’s inauguration, anti-Trump former FBI official Peter Strzok wrote: “Hey, don’t close RAZOR,” using the codeword for a probe into whether Flynn was a Russian agent. Strzok wrote that “7th floor involved.” The 7th Floor is a reference to FBI leadership.
The Flynn part of the coup attempt was summed up by President Trump, “He’s in the process of being exonerated if you looked at those notes. These were dirty, filthy cops at the top of the FBI.”
So here we have an innocent man hounded and railroaded into pleading guilty to a crime he didn’t commit. The wheels of justice slowly roll around and he’s completely exonerated. Here is where the fake news industry gets rolling. Enlisting their biggest spokesman himself fires off the following broadside of bilge.
The next day President Obama emerges from his palatial retirement and does his best to cast the mud of these false accusations back on a man who served this country’s military honorably for more than thirty years saying, “The news over the last 24 hours I think has been somewhat downplayed about the Justice Department dropping charges against Michael Flynn.
And the fact that there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free. That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk. And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly as we’ve seen in other places.”
These opinions were then published, broadcast, and in general swilled out for those locked into the Corporations Once Know as the Mainstream Media.
These outrageous statements didn’t require more than twenty-four hours for even other Progressives to start punching holes in them.
According to Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University Law School, a legal analyst in broadcast and print journalism, who has testified in United States Congressional proceedings about constitutional and statutory issues, who participated in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and the impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump, and who is a self-avowed liberal said, “It is a curious statement. First and foremost, Flynn was not charged with perjury. Second, we now know Obama discussed charging Flynn under the Logan Act which has never been used successfully to convict anyone and is flagrantly unconstitutional. Third, this reaffirms reports that Obama was personally invested in this effort.”
Continuing Turley pointed out there’s precedent for the Justice Department’s sudden decision. And to find it President Obama had to look no further than his own Attorney General, Eric Holder.
To give substance to his statement Turley said, “There is a specific rule allowing for this motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a). There are specific Supreme Court cases like Rinaldi v. United States addressing the standard for such dismissals. The Justice Department has dismissed cases in the past including the Stevens case. That was requested by President Obama’s own Attorney General Eric Holder for the same reason: misconduct by prosecutors. It was done before the same judge, Judge Sullivan. How is that for precedent?”
Lies are propagated and disseminated as truth broadcast 24/7 by the discredited media which is nothing more than a Democrat echo chamber. In this case they’re straining at the bit and trying valiantly to keep the Russia Hoax which was the center piece of their failed coup attempt alive, at least in the minds of the low-information voters.
Joe Biden has been finally forced to go on the record and strongly deny Tara Reade’s allegations that he sexually assaulted her in 1993—but he was given an inexplicably easy ride by interviewer Mika Brzezinski on MSNBC.
Brzezinski’s 20-minute interview followed shortly after a statement released by Biden claiming that the truth of Tara Reade’s allegations could be established by conducting a document search in the National Archives to find any written complaint—as Reade alleged having been made to her superiors.
Concealment of documents and destruction of documents
Concealment of documents and destruction of documents featured prominently in the FBI investigation involving Hillary Clinton and her private server.
Uncovering new documents never produced in response to Freedom of Information applications is par for the course.
Finding a document in an archive before believing Reade’s allegations? Breathtaking.
Amazingly, Biden was not asked one question by Brzezinski about corroborating witnesses the New York Times had interviewed—nor a potentially damning Larry King video that could collaborate Reade’s account.
The New York Times had published a long article on April 12—updated on April 29 Examining Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden,
An enormous amount of investigative resources were undoubtedly deployed in what appeared to be a long and thorough report.
Many people were interviewed. Their statements were published supporting no contemporaneous complaint had been made by Reade.
A small section of the article stated:
A friend said that Ms. Reade told her about the alleged assault at the time, in 1993. A second friend recalled Ms. Reade telling her in 2008 that Mr. Biden had touched her inappropriately and that she’d had a traumatic experience while working in his office. Both friends agreed to speak to The Times on the condition of anonymity to protect the privacy of their families and their self-owned businesses.
Ms. Reade said she also told her brother, who has confirmed parts of her account publicly but who did not speak to The Times, and her mother, who has since died.”
The updated article made no mention of possible additional confirmatory evidence that had emerged on April 27— archival video supposedly of Reade’s mother anonymously calling Larry King’s show on CNN in 1993 and making a reference to what happened to her daughter.
Why the New York Times omitted to disclose this possibly very vital evidence in its updated report is for the NYT to explain.
It is understandable that Biden chose his TV appearance to be on MSNBC—a bitter critic of President Trump for the last four years—rather than FOX News—a supporter of the President—where Biden could have expected to come under more intense and uncomfortable questioning.
The mass media’s attempt to go easy on Biden will rebound badly
Fox’s allegations of Democrat-inspired tactics to defeat Trump in the 2016 elections—and when that failed—to end Trump’s Presidency—are now beginning to hit hard.
Latest revelations that the FBI—still operating under the Obama-Biden administration on January 4, 2017 —did not close off an investigation into Trump senior campaign advisor General Michael Flynn after clearing him of acting as a Russian agent during the 2016 campaign—are particularly disturbing.
The mass media—notably MSNBC and the New York Times—have paid scant attention to investigating what is increasingly being uncovered by Attorney General Bill Barr as the greatest political scandal in America’s history extending over four years or more—leaving the Watergate break-in a very distant second.
When President Trump continually calls the mass media “fake news”—victims such as Flynn and Reade confirm his assessment to be chillingly accurate.
The mass media’s attempt to go easy on Biden will rebound badly.
Neither my sister nor I collect Social Security. Nevertheless, she received a check in the mail made out to my deceased mother, and it says “DECD” for her stimulus check of $1,200. Not exactly sure what to do with this check. How would we cash it? This is really confusing. It will probably cost $1,000 for legal advice to figure out if the check should be cashed or if they would call it fraud because we knew she was deceased, even though it is made out to her as deceased. Sort of a trick question with consequences.
This is why I say the government is just incapable of ever doing anything whatsoever. They would never be able to run even a bubblegum machine. When they sold out of gum, they would need three committees to investigate, and a fourth one to figure out how much to raise taxes to buy more bubblegum. The Justice Department would need to investigate if someone got two pieces of gum with one coin, provided they are not related to a politician.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 