“Porter Wright is a mid-sized law firm with offices in eight cities across the country. But apparently it lacked the courage to stand up against the Twitter mob. The ‘Lincoln Project’ doxxed the two Porter Wright lawyers who signed the Pennsylvania complaint, tweeting their pictures, addresses and telephone numbers, and encouraging leftists to harass them.”
Remember, the alleged goal of the “Lincoln Project” is to return America to its pre-Trump decency. They should instead call themselves the McCarthy Project.
Plus, from John Hinderaker: “We can imagine a future, someday, when law firms will be able to represent Republicans without having to explain or apologize for it. Just like the law firms that represent Islamic terrorists.” I believe he means, “just like the law firms that represent Islamic terrorists for free.”
The thing is, like most institutions in America, big law firms are run by people who care more about the opinions of their social peer group than about their institutional or civic responsibilities. Unfortunately, not only are the people who run most of our institutions garbage, but so are the peer groups they let guide them.
Okay, this is where I step off of the anti-trump train for a Moment of clarity. You may dislike Trump in a big way as do I. However, when you go around doxing people who are simply doing their jobs, you have a serious problem and it’s not with Trump.
The last time I checked in this country every United States citizen and that includes the President of the United States has a right to bring grievances to a court to get a decision made that they feel will bring them Justice.
Not to mention the fact that, the last time I checked in this country revealing someone’s personal information with the intent of causing them harm; whether that be physical violence or otherwise, is basically a federal crime and is a felony. There are many people that have gone to jail in this country for doing just such a thing.
Again I am no fan of Donald J. Trump I think he was the worst president that we’ve ever had since possibly Bush. But the doxxing of people who are simply doing their jobs, by an organization who simply does not like Trump and wants to engage in Internet terrorism to get their job done; is no better than Al Qaeda, Isis and the mafia.
Needless to say the election of 2020 has been a historical one and continues to be a historical one.
I will just say it, Joe Biden won this election. However the absolute lunacy and conspiratorial idiocy that has taken route in the MAGA Crowd is absolutely mind-numbing. it is gotten to the point where now attorney general Barr is actually authorizing Prosecutors to look for election fraud.
Not to mention the fact that Trump is now saying that he will not peacefully concede the election and has multiple lawsuits looking for fraud where quite frankly there is none. Also, in the most mind-numbing nonsense I ever seen in my life, the Donald J Trump Administration is absolutely refusing to work with the Joe Biden transition team. This so that Joe Biden can hit the ground running on his first day in office.
This action alone smacks of pettiness and also an egotistical narcissist who refuses to believe that he actually lost an election.
Before I begin here, I just wanted to inform my readers that I did vote Libertarian this time around and it was, I felt for a good reason. I was not about to vote for Trump this time around. When I voted for him in 2016; I thought he would do a much better job than Obama and I was wrong and I apologize to everyone for even remotely thinking he was going to a decent, honorable and a statesman type of President. This was my error and I own it.
I am truly sorry that Trump caught COVID-19. I hope that he fully recovers and serves out his term. I have seen the posts wishing that Trump dies; and I find that to be reprehensible. The worst was here, I will not comment on it, just go read. It is truly awful.
Former President Bill Clinton made a significant change to federal land management nearly 30 years ago that created the conditions necessary for massive wildfires to consume portions of the West Coast, according to one fire expert who predicted the problem years ago.
Shortly before leaving office in 2001, Clinton limited the ability of the United States Forest Service to thin out a dense thicket of foliage and downed trees on federal land to bring the West into a pristine state, Bob Zybach, an experienced forester with a PhD in environmental science, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. The former president’s decision created a ticking time bomb, Zybach argues.
“If you don’t start managing these forests, then they are going to start burning up. Thirty years later, they are still ignoring it,” said Zybach, who spent more than 20 years as a reforestation contractor. He was referring to warnings he made years ago, telling officials that warding off prescribed burns in Oregon and California creates kindling fuelling fires.
Such rules make it more difficult to deploy prescribed burns, which are controlled burns designed to cull all of the underbrush in forests to lessen the chance of massive fires, Zybach noted. Years of keeping these areas in their natural state result in dead trees and dried organic material settling on the forest floor, turning such material into matchsticks soaked in jet fuel during dry seasons, he said.
Wait, because there is more:
Shortly before leaving office, Clinton introduced the Roadless Rule that restricted the use of existing roads and construction of new roads on 49 million acres of National Forest, making it difficult for officials to scan the land for the kind of kindling that fuels massive conflagrations.
The move was part of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), a resolution adopted by Clinton in 1994 to protect forests from being over-logged.
Ten years before Clinton’s rule, the Fish and Wildlife Service placed the northern spotted owl on the Endangered Species Act, forcing the Forest Service to adopt a new policy that resulted in a greater reduction in timber harvests. The amount of timber removed from federal lands plummeted, according to data accumulated in 2015 by the Reason Foundation.
An average of 10 million feet of timber was removed each year from Forest Service land between 1960 and 1990, the data show. Those numbers dropped between 1991 and 2000 and continued dropping — an average of only 2.1 billion feet of timber was removed from the land between 2000 and 2013, according to the data. That’s an 80% decline.
“They’ve gone and left hundreds of thousands of acres of burnt timber, a fire bomb waiting to happen, standing in place because the black back woodpecker prefers that habitat,” Zybach said. “It’s great for lawyers, but it’s bad for people who breathe air or work in the woods.”
“The prescribed burns are an ancient form of management for keeping the fuels down so these events don’t happen,” Zybach added, referring to Native American Indians who used controlled burns to ward away pests and prevent wildfires from licking their homes.
The Clinton administration’s plan to turn forests in the West into pristine land free of human interference risked fueling “wildfires reminiscent of the Tillamook burn, the 1910 fires and the Yellowstone fire,” Zybach, who is based in Oregon, told Evergreen magazine in 1994, when the NWFP came into effect.
Western Oregon had one major fire above 10,000 acres between 1952 and 1987, reports show. The Silver Complex Fire of 1987 snapped that streak after torching more than 100,000 acres in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness area, killing rare plants and trees the federal government sought to protect from human activities.
As always, the Democrats and blaming the wrong thing.:
Former President Barack Obama suggested in a tweet Thursday that California’s wildfires are a result of climate change.
“The fires across the West Coast are just the latest examples of the very real ways our changing climate is changing our communities,” Obama wrote in a tweet that included pictures showing how soot and ash from the wildfires are turning San Francisco’s sky bright orange.
Obama isn’t the only prominent Democrat tying the fires to global warming.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, published a tweet Saturday that read: “The proof of the urgency of the climate crisis is literally in the air around us.” Schumer included a link to a Sept. 10 article from CBS blaming climate change for the fires.
Thankfully, the REALexpert is not buying into the Climate Change lie:
Zybach is not convinced. “The lack of active land management is almost 100 percent the cause,” he told the DCNF, noting that climate change has almost nothing to do with fire kindling gathering across the forest floors. Other researchers share his skepticism.
“Global warming may contribute slightly, but the key factors are mismanaged forests, years of fire suppression, increased population, people living where they should not, invasive flammable species, and the fact that California has always had fire,” University of Washington climate scientist Cliff Mass told TheDCNF in 2018.
Mass’s critique came as Mendocino Complex Fire was spreading across California on its way to becoming the largest wildfire in the state, engulfing more than 283,000 acres.
So, while the Democrats in California and in Washington D.C. play the Climate Change fiddle, California burns.
Tucker Carlson’s audience is booming — and so is chatter that the popular Fox News host will parlay his TV perch into a run for president in 2024.
Republican strategists, conservative commentators, and former Trump campaign and administration officials are buzzing about Carlson as the next-generation leader of Donald Trump’s movement — with many believing he would be an immediate frontrunner in a Republican primary.
“He’s a talented communicator with a massive platform. I think if he runs he’d be formidable,” said Luke Thompson, a Republican strategist who worked for Jeb Bush’s super PAC in 2016.
While practically every Republican eyeing a 2024 presidential run is professing loyalty to Trump the person, Carlson has become perhaps the highest-profile proponent of “Trumpism” — a blend of anti-immigrant nationalism, economic populism and America First isolationism that he articulates unapologetically and with some snark. At the same time, he’s shown a rare willingness among Republicans to bluntly criticize Trump when he believes the president is straying from that ideology.
In another twist, Carlson has established a friendship with Donald Trump, Jr., according to a source familiar with their relationship. Trump Jr. has drawn his own share of presidential buzz.“Tucker Carlson Tonight” is currently the most watched cable news program in history, according to the second quarter ratings released this week. And on Fox News’ YouTube channel, Carlson’s segments from the past quarter have drawn well over 60 million views and are among the most popular videos in the eight years since the network began posting on the platform.
His popularity with the base would instigate a debate over the future of the party — essentially whether Trump was an aberration or a party-realigning disrupter — a fight that will be all the fiercer if Trump loses in November.
“Let me put it this way: If Biden wins and Tucker decided to run, he’d be the nominee,” said Sam Nunberg, a former top political aide to Trump who knows Carlson. But Nunberg said he doesn’t believe Carlson will run because “he’s so disgusted with politicians.” — Source: Tucker Carlson 2024? The GOP is buzzing – POLITICO
Now here is why this would never work. Tucker is an ideologue and he is quite hardcore with his beliefs. He would never appeal to anyone ever remotely anywhere near the center. I personally find his commentary and speaking style horrifyingly annoying. Personally, I think he sounds like a smart aleck rich kid, who thinks he knows everything. Don Imus summed him up, by calling him a “bow tie wearing faggot.”
In reality, Don Imus was not referring to his sexuality, he was referring to what he was, which was and still is, an entitled white rich kid, who is a bit of a smart aleck. The problem with that perception of him is, that the perception of him is rooted in reality. See here from Wikipedia:
Carlson’s mother was artist Lisa McNear (née Lombardi). He also has a brother, Buckley Peck Carlson (later, Buckley Swanson Peck Carlson), who is nearly two years younger.[7]
In 1976, Carlson’s parents divorced after the nine-year marriage reportedly “turned sour.”[7][8] Carlson’s father was granted custody of him and his brother. Carlson’s mother left the family when he was six, wanting to pursue a “bohemian” lifestyle.[4][9] She eventually split her time between Beaufort County, South Carolina and Cazac, France, where she had little contact with Carlson’s family and later married artist Michael Vaughn.[10][11][12][13]
Dick Carlson was said to be an active father who had a specific outlook in raising his sons:
I want them to be self-disciplined to the degree that I think is necessary to find satisfaction… you measure a person on how far they go, on how far they’ve sprung. My parents, the Carlsons, they instilled a modesty in me that, at times, gets in my way… I know it’s immodest of me to say it, but it’s difficult sometimes when you want to beat your own drum and say what you really think.
In 1979, Carlson’s father married divorcée Patricia Caroline Swanson, an heiress to Swanson Enterprises. Swanson is the daughter of Gilbert Carl Swanson and the niece of SenatorJ. William Fulbright.[4][14] This was the third marriage for Swanson, who legally adopted Carlson and his brother.[12][14]
So, to say that he was typical kid from the city; would be a very bad statement to make. To be absolutely clear, I do not hate Tucker Carlson, I just happen to know that he is simply a product of his environment, as am I. We could have some very different outlooks on life, the World as a whole and so forth.
So, in closing, let me say this; While Trucker Carlson might be good for the Conservative wing of the Republican Party, he would be a disaster in an general election. I just hope that Tucker or some of his people, and someone from the GOP reads this.
The Justice Department has quietly asked Congress for the ability to ask chief judges to detain people indefinitely without trial during emergencies — part of a push for new powers that comes as the coronavirus spreads through the United States.
Documents reviewed by POLITICO detail the department’s requests to lawmakers on a host of topics, including the statute of limitations, asylum and the way court hearings are conducted. POLITICO also reviewed and previously reported on documents seeking the authority to extend deadlines on merger reviews and prosecutions.
A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment on the documents.
The move has tapped into a broader fear among civil liberties advocates and Donald Trump’s critics — that the president will use a moment of crisis to push for controversial policy changes. Already, he has cited the pandemic as a reason for heightening border restrictions and restricting asylum claims. He has also pushed for further tax cuts as the economy withers, arguing that it would soften the financial blow to Americans. And even without policy changes, Trump has vast emergency powers that he could legally deploy right now to try and slow the coronavirus outbreak.
The DOJ requests — which are unlikely to make it through a Democratic-led House — span several stages of the legal process, from initial arrest to how cases are processed and investigated.
In one of the documents, the department proposed that Congress grant the attorney general power to ask the chief judge of any district court to pause court proceedings “whenever the district court is fully or partially closed by virtue of any natural disaster, civil disobedience, or other emergency situation.”
The proposal would also grant those top judges broad authority to pause court proceedings during emergencies. It would apply to “any statutes or rules of procedure otherwise affecting pre-arrest, post-arrest, pre-trial, trial, and post-trial procedures in criminal and juvenile proceedings and all civil process and proceedings,” according to draft legislative language the department shared with Congress. In making the case for the change, the DOJ document wrote that individual judges can currently pause proceedings during emergencies, but that their proposal would make sure all judges in any particular district could handle emergencies “in a consistent manner.”
The request raised eyebrows because of its potential implications for habeas corpus –– the constitutional right to appear before a judge after arrest and seek release.
“Not only would it be a violation of that, but it says ‘affecting pre-arrest,’” said Norman L. Reimer, the executive director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. “So that means you could be arrested and never brought before a judge until they decide that the emergency or the civil disobedience is over. I find it absolutely terrifying. Especially in a time of emergency, we should be very careful about granting new powers to the government.”
Reimer said the possibility of chief judges suspending all court rules during an emergency without a clear end in sight was deeply disturbing.
“That is something that should not happen in a democracy,” he said.
The department also asked Congress to pause the statute of limitations for criminal investigations and civil proceedings during national emergencies, “and for one year following the end of the national emergency,” according to the draft legislative text.
And….:
Another controversial request: The department is looking to change the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in some cases to expand the use of videoconference hearings, and to let some of those hearings happen without defendants’ consent, according to the draft legislative text.
“Video teleconferencing may be used to conduct an appearance under this rule,” read a draft of potential new language for Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(f), crossing out the phrase “if the defendant consents.”
“Video teleconferencing may be used to arraign a defendant,” read draft text of rule 10(c), again striking out the phrase “if the defendant consents.”
I have always suspected something like this might happen, irregardless of which party is in power. Now, it does say that the Democrats likely will not allow this to happen. But, you never know. I just find it amazing that a Republican lead Justice Dept. would do such a thing.
Regardless, I’ll stick with Ben Franklin: ” They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
But, if she is not, what the hell do you call this?
(WXYZ) — Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer has signed a new Executive Order reducing the number of people allowed at assemblages and events.
The new Executive Order reduces the allowable number to 50. A previous Executive Order had reduced it to 250.
It comes on the heels of new guidance from the CDC and will go into effect Tuesday, March 17 at 9:00 a.m. and will remain in effect until April 5 at 5:00 p.m.
The order provides an exception from its prohibition on assemblages for health care facilities, workplaces not open to the public, the state legislature, mass transit, the purchase of groceries or consumer goods, and the performance of agricultural or construction work.
“My number one priority remains to protect the most people we can from the spread of coronavirus,” said Governor Whitmer in a news release. “We are all better off when all of us are healthy, and that’s especially true for the most vulnerable. These aggressive actions are aimed at saving lives. My administration will continue to do everything we can to mitigate the spread of the disease and ensure our children, families, and businesses have the support they need during these challenging times. We are going to pull through this together, just as Michigan has done in the past.”
Dear Mrs. Stupid Democrat,
You can not call it martial law, but when you issue an order, not allowing people to gather; that’s damned martial law.
First amendment states:
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 grievance
So, call it what you wish, but it is a forcing of the state government to force people to do something. That is martial law.
A day after he was accused of sexual harassment by a journalist, MSNBC decided to keep host Chris Matthews off its airwaves during coverage of the South Carolina primary results.
Matthews is normally a fixture of election night coverage, which made his absence on Saturday all the more notable. His disappearing act came as MSNBC faced calls from a feminist organization to fire him because of sexism and sexual misconduct allegations—after raised eyebrows over other on-air remarks.
<….>
MSNBC did not immediately return a request for comment.
It’s starting.
—-Original Story Below—-
Honestly, I do not see Chris Matthews surviving this report.
MSNBC host Chris Matthews, whose long history of sexist comments and behavior have somehow not yet gotten him fired, tested the boundaries of his own misogyny again on Wednesday night. After the tenth Democratic presidential debate, the Hardball anchor grilled Elizabeth Warren about one of her lines of attack against Mike Bloomberg during the debate: that a pregnant female employee accused Bloomberg of telling her to “kill it.”
“You believe he’s lying?” Matthews asked Warren of Bloomberg’s denial.
“I believe the woman, which means he’s not telling the truth,” said Warren, who recently had to defend her own credible story of pregnancy discrimination.
“And why would he lie?” Matthews said. “Just to protect himself?”
“Yeah, and why would she lie?” Warren responded pointedly.
“I just wanna make sure you’re clear about this,” Matthews said. Right there on America’s purportedly liberal network, the anchor spoke to a 70-year-old United States senator who is running for president—and a renowned Harvard Law professor, no less—like she couldn’t possibly understand her own words, as if she were a child choosing between a snack now or dessert later.
The allegation that Matthews, a veteran journalist, was trying so hard to undermine was actually corroborated by a third party to The Washington Post earlier this month. There was no reason for him to harp on its veracity, except, perhaps, that he himself has made so many sexist comments over the years that he has a vested interest in Bloomberg being let off the hook.
Some of Matthews’s behavior has already been well-documented. Like Bloomberg, who frequently remarked “nice tits” and “I’d do her” at the office, Matthews has a pattern of making comments about women’s appearances in demeaning ways. The number of on-air incidents is long, exhausting, and creepy, including commenting to Erin Burnett, for example, “You’re a knockout…it’s all right getting bad news from you,” while telling her to move closer to the camera. Behind the scenes, one of Matthews’s former producers told The Daily Caller in 2017 that he allegedly rated his female guests on a numerical scale and would name a “hottest of the week,” like a “teenage boy.” In 1999, an assistant producer accused Matthews of sexual harassment, which CNBC, the show’s network at the time, investigated. They concluded that the comments were “inappropriate,” and Matthews received a “stern reprimand,” according to an MSNBC spokesperson.
This tendency to objectify women in his orbit has bled into his treatment of female politicians and candidates. He has repeatedly lusted over women in politics on air, including remarking in 2011 that there’s “something electric” and “very attractive” about the way former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin walks and moves, and noting in 2017 that acting attorney general Sally Yates is “attractive, obviously.” But he has reserved a particular contempt for the woman who made it closest to ascending the heights of American political power, Hillary Clinton, calling her “witchy,” “anti-male,” and “She-Devil.” The Cut obtained footage of him joking in early 2016, just before a live interview with then candidate Clinton, “where’s that Bill Cosby pill,” referring to the date-rape drug. In 2005, he openly wondered whether the troops would “take the orders” from a female president; after another interview, he pinched Clinton’s cheek; and in another, he suggested that she had only had so much political success because her husband had “messed around.” This evening anchor, in addition to everything else, has repeatedly challenged whether women are legitimate politicians or could be president at all. “I was thinking how hard it is for a woman to take on a job that’s always been held by men,” he said of Clinton in 2006. – Source: Like Warren, I Had My Own Sexist Run-In with Chris Matthews | GQ
There is much more, click the link to read this story. You should look for Matthews to retire very soon.
MSNBC host Chris Matthews, whose long history of sexist comments and behavior have somehow not yet gotten him fired, tested the boundaries of his own misogyny again on Wednesday night. After the tenth Democratic presidential debate, the Hardball anchor grilled Elizabeth Warren about one of her lines of attack against Mike Bloomberg during the debate: that a pregnant female employee accused Bloomberg of telling her to “kill it.”