Here we go again, get out your secret decoder ring to try to figure out where this likely ‘new American’ came from and how he got here, but good luck with that!
Every time I am sent a story like this the question I am asked is—is this guy a refugee? And, every time I give an answer like this:
Unless someone slips up in either law enforcement, or some family member steps forward to proclaim the innocence of one of these creeps, you will rarely be told from which country the perp came and which of the MANY legal or illegal pathways the “man” used to get here.
LOL! That information would of course be “perpetuating stereotypes!”
For the refugee question, sometimes if you find out that the person being charged in a crime was from a country that has sent us tens of thousands of their people, you can make an educated guess. For example, if the perp is Somali, Ethiopian, Congolese, Burmese, Iraqi or from Afghanistan, you could guess, and guess correctly, that the “man” in the news is a refugee.
Sometimes you can make an educated guess based on the location of the incident. For instance a “man” with a Somali name committing a crime in Minnesota is likely a refugee. Duh!
So, just as Illegal Alien Crime Reportdoes, call him an “African Migrant.”
African ‘Migrant’ Charged With Sexually Assaulting Convenience Store Clerk
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK – On the morning of July 4, police arrested Hakeem Sanusi, 34, after her reportedly sexually assaulted a woman working alone in a convenience store in northwest Oklahoma City. In order to protect the victim’s privacy, the police have not released the store’s exact location.
The crime reporter website then sends us to booking information, but of course no information on whether he is legally or illegally in the country.
Man arrested for alleged sexual assault of Oklahoma City convenience store clerk
OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) – A northwest Oklahoma City convenience store clerk says she was sexually assaulted by a customer while on the job.
The suspect, 34-year-old Hakeem Sanusi is now facing charges in the alleged attack.
“It was over the weekend that police were made aware of a sexual assault at a convenience store in Northwest Oklahoma City,” said MSgt. Gary Knight with the Oklahoma City Police Department (OKCPD).
“No one was in the store except for an employee,” Knight said.
Police say Sanusi made inappropriate comments to the alleged victim.
The woman telling officers Hakeem is a regular at the store during the overnight hours, and frequently makes inappropriate statements, making her feel uncomfortable.
The woman claims Sanusi told her, quote, “nothing better come of this.”
Not long after – she was able to call the police.
“Officers at the scene were able to look at surveillance video of the man and get him identified very quickly,” Knight said.
Police say Sanusi was located at a nearby neighborhood – and arrested.
By: The Right Scoop, Jul. 13, 2021:
A new report is out today detailing massive voter fraud in Fulton County, which is outlined below by Liz Harrington:
“The error reporting rate in Fulton’s hand count audit is a whopping 60%”
"at least 36 batches of mail-in ballots with 4,255 total extra votes were redundantly added into Fulton Co. audit results for the November election. These illicit votes include 3,390 extra votes for Joe Biden, 865 extra votes for Donald Trump and 43 extra votes for Jo Jorgenson."
The full report from VoterGA, which is just one page, is below: CLICK HERE FOR FULL REPORT
It’s pretty incredible the outright, intentional fraud they found from the AUDIT process. And yet Biden today claimed the 2020 election was the best election ever or something.
Is it any wonder why the state of Georgia is taking over Fulton County elections?
A MURAL OF THE LATE BLACK LIVES MATTER ICON GEORGE FLOYD HAS BEEN STRUCK BY LIGHTNING AND HAS COLLAPSED. EYEWITNESSES CONFIRMED THAT NOBODY WAS NEAR THE MURAL WHEN IT WAS STRUCK NOR WHEN ITS PIECES FELL TO THE GROUND.
The Toledo mural, completed in June 2020, was struck by lightning in the middle of the day on Tuesday, leaving a charred wall where Floyd’s face was before. It was a direct hit; artwork to the left and right of the mural appeared unblemished.
WTVG reported their Doppler Radar did show a lightning strike on the same block as the George Floyd mural at 4:30 the same afternoon.
The lightning strike, which hit directly on George Floyd’s face, reduced the mural to a pile of bricks.
Toledo police were seen outside the building, which used to house the Mugshots Bar, setting up tape around the pile of bricks that once formed the artwork.
The mural was painted almost one year to the date of its collapse last July.
Here’s what the George Floyd shrine looked like last summer before God sent a bolt down and reduced it to rubble (notice it directly hit Floyd’s face):
Community outreach with @Guttadave working on a mural in north Toledo Ohio in memories of George Floyd and all the people who died from Police brutality! ! pic.twitter.com/cpG1LoSg5f
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00Pamela Gellerhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngPamela Geller2021-07-15 04:43:432021-07-16 18:53:00THE BIG GUY HAS SPOKEN: George Floyd Mural Struck by Lightning, Crumbles to the Ground
by Dan Claxton, KRCG, July 12, 2021:
NEW BLOOMFIELD — A Versailles man is in custody in the Morgan County jail charged with Making a Terroristic Threat by allegedly telling two co-workers on July 8 that he was going to blow up their workplace.
According to court documents, 33-year-old Yassine Bouyassine told a co-worker “when I come back I’ll blow it up.” Asked what he meant, he replied “Gates,” meaning Gates Corporation in Versailles, where Bouyassine works. He made a few more comments about “blowing up” and “shooting up” the facility, at one point asking co-workers how fast they thought he could do it.
The two employees who heard the comments then told their supervisor, who reported the incident to police.
Morgan County Prosecutor Dustin Dunklee charged Bouyassine with one count of Making a Terroristic Threat in the Second Degree. Missouri law defines that crime in part as communicating “an express or implied threat to cause an incident or condition involving danger to life.”…
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00Robert Spencerhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngRobert Spencer2021-07-14 05:52:462021-07-16 18:53:01MISSOURI: Muslim Threatens to Blow Up and Shoot Up Factory Where He Works
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is a signal moment in America’s constitutional history.
For the first time in a generation and a half — nearly 30 years — there is a realistic chance that the Supreme Court might overrule Roe v. Wade, the Court’s 1973 decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion. The Court has agreed to hear a case next fall that presents a direct challenge to the foundations and validity of Roe.
This is a signal moment in America’s constitutional history. One of the most notorious decisions in the Court’s history is likely either to be repudiated and overruled — discarded, finally and definitively — or else reaffirmed and entrenched, perhaps permanently. The case is Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. And the stakes could not possibly be higher.
My discussion of Dobbs proceeds in two parts. In this article, I explain why Dobbs is the most important abortion case to reach the Court in nearly thirty years — since Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the case in which a splintered Court, by the narrowest of 5-4 margins, reaffirmed Roe, not because a majority of the justices thought Roe was right, but on the basis of the judicial doctrine of “stare decisis.” Dobbs is important because it frames a direct challenge to Roe and Casey, forcing the Court to confront the legal indefensibility and radicalism of the Court’s pro-abortion jurisprudence. Dobbs poses the enormously important question whether Roe and Casey, two of the worst constitutional decisions of all time, were wrongly decided and should now, finally, be overruled. On the merits, I submit, the answer must be yes.
Later on, I will take up the somewhat peculiar-sounding question whether the judicial doctrine of “stare decisis” — the (inconsistent) judicial practice of generally adhering to precedents — can properly require the Court deliberately to reaffirm precedents that it is persuaded are egregiously and atrociously wrong. That, I maintain today, is the only true question remaining at issue in Dobbs. And the answer is emphatically no.
Start with Roe v. Wade. Roe is regarded, rightly, as one of the most consequential and controversial — and one of the very worst — constitutional decisions of the Supreme Court in its history.
In simplest terms, Roe created a constitutional right to abortion of the life of a living human fetus. That result, and Roe’s reasoning in support of it, are indefensible from a legal standpoint. No plausible argument from the constitutional text, no rule or principle fairly derived from its structure or internal logic or deducible from other propositions contained therein, and no credible argument from historical understanding or intention remotely supports the abortion right created in Roe. Roe v. Wade is simply a lawless decision. I know of no serious constitutional scholar who defends Roe’s result as a faithful interpretation of the Constitution’s language, understood according to its natural and original meaning, as understood at the time of its adoption, or as consistent with the original intent of its adopters in 1868.
To be sure, a small cottage industry of legal academics has grown up around the enterprise of attempting to concoct “alternative” legal theories to support the result in Roe. These theories range from the merely strained and historically insupportable — the claim that abortion restrictions constitute sex discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is the most common — to the comically absurd and outlandish.
The latter include wild assertions that abortion laws violate the Constitution’s prohibition of slavery or interfere with the guarantee to women of the right to vote. (I address and refute these theories in a book chapter of a volume collecting many of the most “creative” such contrivances, and also in an academic article.)
The Court has never adopted any of these alternative theories for abortion as a constitutional right. Nor has it come anywhere close to doing so. Instead, it has left the right to abortion where Roe purported to find it, in the guarantee that government not deprive persons of life, liberty, or property “without due process of law.”
That’s the same bogus legal reasoning on which the Supreme Court had rested its infamous Dred Scott decision in 1857, holding unconstitutional Congress’s law prohibiting the introduction of slavery into federal territories. This reasoning, if one can call it that, goes by the oxymoronic label “substantive due process.” It is gibberish, as most sensible people recognize.
In Casey, the Court, while nominally reaffirming Roe’s substantive due process holding, could not bring itself actually to embrace Roe’s reasoning as correct. Indeed, a majority of justices seemed to indicate they believed that the case was wrongly decided. Casey left Roe in place almost purely on the basis of the doctrine of stare decisis. In other words, the justices concluded the Court should stick to Roe “whether or not mistaken,” simply because it was a precedent on which the Court had staked its authority, and it might look bad if it were to reverse itself.
In tomorrow’s essay, I will attack this craven, unprincipled reasoning. For now, my point is simpler: Roe is a relic of abandoned reasoning that almost no one — including the Court itself — any longer thinks correct on its own terms. If Roe retains any legitimacy at all, it is only because it is a precedent and for no reason moored to the text of the Constitution.
It is important to grasp this. Roe v. Wade’s rule no longer rests on any provision of the Constitution. It rests on Roe’s rule being Roe’s rule. The constitutional right to abortion has been cut loose from any tether to the Constitution’s text. It now depends, essentially entirely, on the force of Roe’s status as a precedent and the doctrine of stare decisis. Roe’s indefensibility as a matter of faithful constitutional interpretation is, frankly, almost no longer a matter of serious dispute. The incorrectness of Roe as a matter of first principles is practically a point of common ground, certainly so for the principled constitutional conservatives that now compose the majority of the justices on the Court. Bluntly put: Roe is as wrong as wrong can be, and everybody knows it.
Roe’s extremism and its human consequences
Roe’s formulation of the abortion right is also quite extreme. In a nutshell, Roe established a constitutional right to abortion of a living human fetus for essentially any reason that a pregnant woman chooses. Under the Court’s decisions, the right to abort exists throughout all nine months of pregnancy, albeit in slightly varying forms depending on the stage of pregnancy.
Prior to fetal “viability” — that is, the point when the child could live outside his or her mother’s womb, now around twenty-four weeks — the right to abort is explicitly plenary. There is no ground on which states may prohibit an abortion from being obtained. This includes, as I have recently written, eugenic reasons — aborting an unborn child because of his or her race or sex, or on account of disability.
After viability, an abortion may be had for any “health” reason, but “health” is defined broadly (and misleadingly) to embrace emotional, psychological, age, or “familial” considerations. This loophole is big enough to make the right to abortion functionally absolute, even when the child could live outside the womb.
The Court’s opinions concerning “partial-birth” abortion, in 2000 and 2007, bear this out. They uphold a right to kill a fetus capable of living independently of the mother, under the rubric of the need to permit late abortions on “health” grounds. Thus, partial-birth abortion — the gruesome technique of inducing labour, delivering all of the body except the head, puncturing the skull and vacuuming out the child’s brain, collapsing the head, and then completing removal of the dead child — can be prohibited as an abortion method, even after viability, only if there is available some equally safe (to the pregnant woman) alternative method for killing the fetus.
The right to abortion is thus essentially absolute. This is especially clear for pre-viability abortions. State governments may adopt certain informed consent and waiting-period requirements, and they may enforce some (but not many) regulations of abortion clinics. But they may not prohibit abortion itself, for any reason, prior to viability. Planned Parenthood v. Casey tinkered slightly with Roe’s framework but did not alter its essentials. It retained the absolute right to pre-viability abortion and it retained the “health” right to abortion of even viable unborn babies.
It is worth pausing briefly to reflect on just how radical the Roe–Casey abortion-rights legal construct is. It is no cautious “balance” of interests. It is almost unreservedly pro-abortion. It adopts one of the most extremely lenient pro-abortion legal regimes anywhere in the world. It fails to recognise any legal rights of the unborn human fetal children, in any respect, at any stage of pregnancy.
It does not recognise them as legal persons in their own right, entitled to the equal protection of the laws from private violence (a debatable but infinitely more plausible legal understanding of the common law and of the Constitution’s guarantees than is Roe’s creation of a constitutional right to abortion). Nor, short of that, does it recognise the unborn as members of the human species meriting protection by the state, whether or not they possess a constitutionally recognised legal “right to life” of their own. The living human fetus is treated, absurdly, as “potential life.”
In short, if Roe were an act of legislation, a bill passed by a legislature, it would be extremist pro-abortion legislation. And, not to put too fine a point on it, Roeis an act of legislation. (As is Casey — a modest, friendly amendment to Roe.) That Roe and Casey are acts of extremist legislation, adopted by a runaway judiciary, only makes matters worse.
The most important point about Roe’s extremism is, of course, its human toll. Roe’s practical and moral consequences have been truly stunning. Roe sanctioned, and Casey perpetuated, in the name of our fundamental law, the killing of over sixty million human beings.
This is not rhetorical overstatement but simple description. That abortion kills should not be a controversial proposition. There is no doubt that abortion results in the death of a distinct living being — an organism that was alive before is now dead. And there is no doubt that the living being killed by abortion is a human living being, distinct from the mother.
Abortion thus ends a human life. To be sure, it is a human life at an early and vulnerable stage in its development. But it is the same human life it will be at all stages of its life cycle, as an embryo, fetus, infant, child, and adult. Roe created a right of some human beings to kill other human beings. It is important to be clear about that. Since Roe, the running human death toll from abortion in America has exceeded that of the Nazi Holocaust, Stalin’s purges, and the Rwandan genocide combined. Our familiarity with Roe has led to a strange acceptance of, or numbness to, its shocking, murderous radicalism and the scale of its havoc. Roe is both a constitutional monstrosity and a moral atrocity. As I wrote in these pages nearly a decade ago, Roe is simply unbearably wrong. It is time — long past time — to overrule Roe v. Wade.
The Dobbs case
That brings us to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The Dobbs case poses a direct, head-on challenge to Roe’s framework and, by necessary implication, its legitimacy. Here’s how: As noted, Roe and Casey hold that abortion cannot be banned for any reason before the point of fetal viability, when the child would be capable of living outside his or her mother’s womb, currently at about twenty-four weeks of pregnancy. Dobbs involves a legal challenge to a Mississippi law forbidding abortions after fifteen weeks of pregnancy. This is more than two months before the point of viability. Simply put, if Roe is right, Mississippi’s law is “unconstitutional” (to accede, for purposes of argument, to an inaccurate characterisation). And conversely, for Mississippi’s law to be upheld, Roe and Casey must be rejected.
The Dobbs case thus squarely presents the issue of whether Roe v. Wade is wrong and should be overruled. Given what Roe and subsequent abortion decisions hold, and what the Mississippi law in question provides, the issue is practically unavoidable. And the Court’s order granting review shows no desire to avoid it. The legal question on which the justices granted review was stated as follows: “Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.” That’s another way of asking whether Roe v. Wade is rightly or wrongly decided and should remain the operative legal rule.
What will the Court do? A solid majority of justices now on the Supreme Court clearly believes that Roe is unequivocally wrongly decided, as flagrant a departure from constitutional text, structure, and history as any precedent in the Court’s history.
There is no doubt in my mind that six of the nine sitting justices firmly believe Roe is wrong. They are, in rough order of certainty: Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Chief Justice John Roberts.
In truth, I believe Justice Elena Kagan in her heart of hearts is unpersuaded of Roe’s legal correctness, too. But she and fellow liberals Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor can be counted on to vote for unrestricted abortion rights no matter what.
The stakes and snare of “stare decisis”
Everything — everything — thus depends on the Court’s treatment of the legal doctrine of “stare decisis.” “Stare decisis” is a fragment of the Latin phrase taken to stand for the general rule of practice and judicial policy, drawn from the common law, that courts tend to follow their own precedents unless they have a good and sufficient legal justification for departing from them.
Significantly, the doctrine has never been thought to be constitutionally required. It is a rule of judicial policy and usual practice only. Nor has the doctrine ever been thought absolute. There are literally hundreds of examples of cases that have been overruled. Even at common law, courts could overrule prior decisions demonstrated to be unsound.
Moreover, the doctrine’s roots in common-law adjudication — where the law actually consists of general principles discerned from the overall course of judicial decisions — mean that it does not transpose neatly (if at all) to constitutional interpretation, where the relevant law consists of an authoritative, written legal text.
Simply put, if the text is the touchstone, judicial precedents contrary to the text are simply not faithful understandings of the relevant law. The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in constitutional cases has consistently affirmed that core principle, leading the Court repeatedly to emphasise that adherence to precedent is “not an inexorable command.”
Nonetheless, the doctrine retains some intuitive appeal, especially for “conservatives,” as it purports to advance conservative-sounding values of stability, predictability, consistency, humility, and restraint. And it does advance these values, at least to some extent. But the doctrine is slippery, deceptive, and readily manipulated.
In practice, the doctrine often disserves the very policies it claims to serve, undermining predictability and stability and disguising judicial discretion. There is a strong claim that it is not “conservative” at all — that faithful adherence to the Constitution requires just that: faithful adherence to the Constitution, not to faithless departures from its text, structure, history, and original meaning.
Ironically, the staunchest defenders of stare decisis today are liberal, activist judges, who invoke it selectively and perhaps a bit cynically, as a tool for entrenching liberal decisions that are not defensible under the Constitution. That is, they invoke stare decisis precisely to preserve such faithless departures from the text itself.
Like the apple in the Garden, then, the doctrine of stare decisis can be deceptively enticing. Dangled by the devil for evil purposes, the doctrine has an enormous capacity to mislead and deceive. Some nominally “conservative” members of the Court have succumbed to its appeal in the past, including in abortion cases, substituting a corrupted version of the doctrine for constitutional principle.
That is what happened in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision in which a 5-4 majority of the Court voted to reaffirm Roe v. Wade on the supposed basis of the doctrine of stare decisis — even while changing Roe’s standards and framework and overruling two cases.
Is there a risk that something like this could happen again in Dobbs? Is there a risk of another Casey? Might the Court hold, in the name of stare decisis, that Roe and Casey should be upheld, no matter how wrong they were, how extreme they are, and how atrocious their consequences, simply because they were decided before?
I take up that question next: Does the doctrine of stare decisis require adherence to an egregiously wrong, legally indefensible precedent, in conflict with a proper understanding of the Constitution, simply because it is a precedent?
Republished with permission from The Public Discourse. COLUMN BY
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00MercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexitieshttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngMercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexities2021-07-14 05:19:512021-07-16 18:53:02Repudiating Roe: The Most Important Abortion Case in 30 Years
Watch organizer Matt Braynard on with Steve Bannon last week:
A couple of friends sent me this news about a rally on Saturday in Washington, DC to protest the incarceration of many arrested on January 6th, some of whom are in solitary confinement and many without even having charges filed against them. It is such a relief to see that some patriots are taking action to protest this shameful act of political persecution.
I have no time to go into the details because I want to get over to RRW before I run out of steam today. (Been out early slaving in the north 40, so to speak.)
Learn more about it hereand see that there are satellite ralliesbeing held elsewhere in the country as well. Note that the Arizona rally is tomorrow. RELATED VIDEO:See the video of the first #FreePolitical Prisoners rally, held on June 19th.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDr. Rich Swier2021-07-13 10:47:572021-07-16 18:53:02VIDEO: Group Organizing Another Demonstration for January 6th Political Prisoners
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00Robert Spencerhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngRobert Spencer2021-07-13 05:33:582021-07-16 18:53:03U.S. Islamic Scholar Blames the Jews for the Left’s War on America – Including Attacks on Jews
By: Chloe Enloe, The Blaze, July 11, 2021: Talk about narrative-busting.
Just weeks after Oakland lawmakers voted to slash funding from the Oakland police department, a reporter witnessed what he called a “surreal” moment in Oakland on Saturday — black families rallying to support police while “mostly white” Antifa protesters demonstrated against police. What are the details?
Led by Oakland police chief LeRonne Armstrong and other community leaders, city residents angry over violent crime gathered Saturday for the “Stand Up for a Safe Oakland” rally.
Journalist Lee Fang of The Intercept reported on the “surreal” scene of the rally.
“Surreal moment in Oakland. About 200 mostly black families rally with police to call for an end to the epidemic of gun violence. Mothers at the stage mourning recently murdered children. In the back, less than a dozen mostly white antifa protesters assembled to jeer them,” Fang reported.
Surreal moment in Oakland. About 200 mostly black families rally with police to call for an end to the epidemic of gun violence. Mothers at the stage mourning recently murdered children. In the back, less than a dozen mostly white antifa protesters assembled to jeer them. pic.twitter.com/uuE9Sohhkm
One video from the rally captured older black residents confront the protesters. When the Antifa protesters claimed police are responsible for the deaths in Oakland, the black rally-goers erupted.
“No!!!” one woman screamed.
“That’s a lie, that’s a lie,” a nearby black man said. (Content Warning:Strong language):
In #Oakland today there was a "Stand up for a Safe Oakland" rally against gun violence
Several #Antifa, who appear to be all white, showed up to "protest" by drowning out mostly black speakers who were naming and remembering homicide victimspic.twitter.com/rYleOwDCWd
“Dramatic confrontation before I got there,” Fang explained of the confrontation. “A lot of the anti-violence activists from East Oakland said they were disappointed in the white anti-police antifa protesters, said they seemed close minded and disconnected from the actual violence in the city.”
Armstrong also addressed the Antifa protesters in his remarks at the rally.
“You can shout from wherever you come from,” he said, KPIX-TV reported. “It don’t matter to me because I’ve lost people as a result of gun violence. So you can’t tell me what this day is about.”
“The fact of the matter is, far too many people are afraid to come outside,” Armstrong said. “Our seniors can’t walk to the store. Young people are dying at an alarming rate. If you can’t stand up for safe Oakland, what do you stand up for?” Why did city leaders they slash funding?
Oakland — which is run by a Democratic mayor and an all-Democratic city council — voted to “strip $17.4 million in funding from the Oakland Police Department and direct the money toward other programs,” according to KPIX.
Councilmember Dan Kalb said that, despite increased violent crime, the city should “focus on our violence prevention, affordable housing, our homeless populations and that’s what this budget helps us move forward and do.”
Surprisingly, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf opposed the budget cuts.
“I believe that until we have proven alternatives, we cannot destroy Oakland’s current public safety system at a time when we are losing so many to gun violence,” she said.
Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00Pamela Gellerhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngPamela Geller2021-07-12 04:39:252021-07-16 18:53:04CALIFORNIA: Reporter witnesses ‘surreal’ moment when ‘mostly black families’ rally to support police while Antifa protests
I saw this news yesterday at The Blaze and was pretty impressed that a senior couple was ready and willing to blast a home invader as he attempted to break down their door while they ate breakfast.
And, I fully expected by today to have a name and photo of the invader who the homeowners shot dead especially because we are told he was on parole from a previous home invasion arrest.
I sure couldn’t find a name or a photo! The story is nevertheless worth posting as a cautionary tale. Many of us would be ready for an invasion after dark, but heck in the a.m. the doors are open, at least in my house, and weapons aren’t just laying around at the breakfast table.
Of course you could be one of those families I heard about recently who has a 9mm home defense handgun in most every room (presumably with no kiddos living there).
Check it out, really nice neighborhood ….
Armed man on parole kicks down door, enters home while couple in their 60s eats breakfast. But homeowner also has a gun — and fatally shoots intruder.
A California couple in their 60s were having breakfast Tuesday morning when they heard a knock at their door, followed by an attempt to kick down the door after they didn’t respond to the knock, Fairfield police said.
What happened next?
A Facebook post from Councilwoman Catherine Moy indicated the homeowner saw the suspect on his Ring surveillance camera.
The husband, fearing for his life and his wife’s safety, grabbed his legally owned gun to defend them, police said. Moy’s post said it was a .357 Magnum.
The intruder then broke down the door completely and entered the residence, police said.
With that, the husband fired at the intruder, who fled from the home, police said. Moy’s post said the homeowner shot twice at the intruder and hit him in the chest area.
Authorities said the intruder [who was found with a semi-automatic handgun.—ed] was a 27-year-old male from nearby Suisun City who was on parole for a violent crime in Alameda County. KTVU reported that the crime for which he was on parole was a home invasion.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00Ann Corcoranhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngAnn Corcoran2021-07-11 11:13:382021-07-16 18:53:05VIDEO: How Fast Could You Get Your Gun in a Home Invasion?
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00Royal A. Brown IIIhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngRoyal A. Brown III2021-07-09 14:36:082021-07-16 18:53:06VIDEO: When the Biden Administration Knocks on Your Door
After the Biden administration failed to meet its target of vaccinating 70 percent of Americans by July 4, the president suggested he may turn to drastic measures to boost vaccination rates, including sending people “door-to-door — literally knocking on doors.” The remark earned swift criticism. Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas) tweeted, “BIG red flags anytime the federal government is ‘going door to door.'” His colleague, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) agreed that federal door-to-door visits are “only really contemplated in Constitution for the census.” Despite the criticism, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki reiterated the White House’s focus on “targeted community door-to-door outreach” as one strategy for combating the coronavirus. The White House has a tin ear for the concerns of private citizens.
One concern regards the right to privacy, specifically “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches,” per the Fourth Amendment. Federal law strictly protects access to medical history — like vaccinations — a fact abortion activists exploit by claiming that the decision to abort should be kept between a woman and her doctor (the difference is that abortion is not healthcare). But abortion activist Xavier Becerra, Biden’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, insisted today that knowing whether a person has been vaccinated for COVID is “absolutely the government’s business.” Why the double standard?
Related to privacy, Americans could face retaliation if the government forced them to disclose their vaccination status, and it was leaked. The Supreme Court just struck down a California law (formerly championed by Xavier Becerra), in part due to concerns over retaliation from leaked confidential information. “The Left is now politicizing this issue of the COVID-19 vaccine,” said Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), so a door-to-door campaign could lead to intimidation or worse. Norman warned “there appears to be [studies] targeting of Republican males” for their lower vaccination rates. The mafia, too, was known for its “targeted community door-to-door outreach” — and baseball bats.
To date, Psaki and Biden have insisted that the door-to-door outreach is purely to spread information. In mellow tones, they laugh off conservative warnings about mandatory vaccine targeting, just like the Left laughed off conservative warnings of CRT in schools and of transgender ideology following gay marriage, following legalization of homosexual behavior. See the pattern?
President Biden’s latest policy flub demonstrates his misunderstanding of Americans’ relationship to their government that led to the vaccination shortfall in the first place. As Norman said, Biden believes “the government is our keeper.” He believes vaccination rates are low because people don’t know they should get vaccinated. He expects people to get the vaccine simply because the government tells them to. Biden does not expect Americans to act rationally and make their own decisions, so he feels no need to persuade them with reasoned arguments. There’s no other way to explain Biden’s pathetic rhetoric like, “It sounds corny, but it’s a patriotic thing to do.”
But this is America, where people are free to make their own decisions for themselves and their families. Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) explained, “The burden is on [Biden and Harris] to make sure people understand these vaccines are safe.” Ever since his vaccine skepticism in September 2020, Biden has failed to fulfill the burden of moral suasion Americans expect from a president. For instance, the president could end the public transportation mask mandate for vaccinated people. What won’t persuade Americans — particularly conservatives — to get the vaccine is federal intimidation tactics. When Biden’s persuasion campaign without persuasion fails, what more draconian tactics will he turn to? COLUMN BY
EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00Family Research Councilhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngFamily Research Council2021-07-09 06:48:242021-07-16 18:53:06Knock, Knock, It’s Big Brother Joe
by Mark Moore, New York Post, July 8, 2021:
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, original member of the progressive “Squad,” is calling for defunding immigration agencies like Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and even the Department of Homeland Security, because they “terrorize” migrant communities.
Tlaib (D-Mich) in comments released Wednesday from an interview with Just Futures Law was reacting to a question about her thoughts on President Biden wanting to increase technology at the border for CBP, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security in response to the ongoing crisis of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants arriving in the US.
“Look, the simple answer to that question is we must eliminate funding for CBP, ICE and their parent organization, DHS,” Tlaib told the legal group that opposes deportation.
“Time after time we have seen it as advocates on the ground, as human services agencies on the ground continue to see over and over again, that these agencies are inept to humanely guiding migrants through our immigration system and instead they further continue to terrorize migrant communities located within our communities,” she said in the interview recorded last month.…
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00Robert Spencerhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngRobert Spencer2021-07-09 06:01:352021-07-16 18:53:07Tlaib Calls for Defunding Border Protection, Immigration Enforcement and Department of Homeland Security
She signed a prenuptial agreement agreeing to abide by Sharia, but says she was tricked into doing so. This ought to have been taken into account.
Non-Muslims in several states a few years ago tried to outlaw the elements of Sharia that interfere with Constitutionally protected freedoms, not Islam as an individual religious practice. These anti-Sharia measures were aimed at political Islam, an authoritarian ideology at variance with the Constitution in numerous particulars: Sharia denies the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law. That is what people wanted to restrict, and the elements of Sharia that contradict Constitutional freedoms were all they want to restrict. But of course these efforts met furious opposition and were denounced as “Islamophobic.”
Meanwhile, Sharia really does deny equality of rights to women. But to oppose that is “racist.” So Mariam Ayad just has to suffer, you see, for diversity.
by Phil Shiver, TheBlaze, July 7, 2021:
A judge in Texas earlier this year effectively denied a U.S. citizen her constitutionally protected due process rights, choosing instead to order her to appear before an Islamic tribunal where her testimony is considered inferior. And when her lawyers sounded the alarm — the judge doubled down.
What are the details?
In March, Collin County District Judge Andrea Thompson ordered a Muslim woman seeking a divorce from her husband to undergo arbitration not through regular channels but through an Islamic court, also known as a Fiqh Panel — a move that the woman’s lawyers argue is an obvious and unconscionable affront to her constitutional rights.
The woman, Mariam Ayad, was attempting to exercise her legal right to a divorce last year when her husband, Ayad Hashim Latif, revealed that on the day of their wedding in 2008, she had signed an Islamic prenuptial agreement to have all matters regarding the marriage and divorce be decided according to Sharia law.
According to court documents, Mariam claims that she was essentially hoodwinked and defrauded into signing the document. At the time, she believed she was signing two copies of a marriage acknowledgment form, which is customary in Muslim cultures.
Notwithstanding, Mariam’s lawyers argue the agreement — which outlines that a three-man panel of Muslim imams are to decide all issues relating to the marriage, including alimony, division of property, child support, and even custody of the couple’s 6-year-old son — ought to be voided in lieu of U.S. law. A copy of the agreement was provided to TheBlaze.
The Texas district judge — in complete disregard of both federal and state law — ruled that the prenuptial agreement is binding, without taking testimony from the wife.
In absence of relief, Mariam will now be required to settle her divorce matters with the Islamic Association of North Texas in front of the Muslim clerics who view her testimony and evidence as carrying half the weight as a man’s.
Mariam has filed a writ of mandamus with the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas to restrict the lower court from enforcing the arbitration order. She is being represented by Michelle O’Neil and Michael Wysocki of the O’Neil Wysocki law firm in Dallas.
What changes did the judge make?
Moreover, court documents obtained by TheBlaze show that Thompson vacated the original March order after Mariam’s lawyers challenged it. But instead of changing the order’s effect, the judge seemed to have merely changed some of the wording to make it appear less controversial.
“It is therefore ordered that Respondent’s Motion to Enforce Islamic Prenuptial Agreement and Refer Case to Muslim Court or Fiqh Panel is granted and the Court refers the case to a Muslim Court or Fiqh Panel for [Alternative Dispute Resolution],” the court order dated March 24, which was viewed by TheBlaze, said.
An updated order, dated June 14, removed words such as “Islamic,” “Muslim,” and “Fiqh,” but reiterated the court’s decision.
“The Court has no discretion but to enforce the agreement of the parties in their Prenuptial Agreement signed on December 26, 2008, and refer the parties to arbitration per the terms of their agreement,” the June order states….
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00Robert Spencerhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngRobert Spencer2021-07-09 05:45:292021-07-16 18:53:07Texas judge denies U.S. citizen due process rights, sends her to Sharia tribunal
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00Robert Spencerhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngRobert Spencer2021-07-08 05:38:032021-07-16 18:53:07Group in Armed Standoff with Police in Massachusetts Claims to Be Moroccan and Muslim — They’re Neither
Why I am initiating a forensic investigation of the 2020 General Election and 2021 Primary
By: Senator Doug Mastriano, n Jul 07, 2021
A forensic investigation of our election results and processes for the 2020 General Election and the 2021 Primary will go a long way to restore trust in our system. Voting is the fundamental right of all citizens. We should continually look for ways to improve the voting process to ensure every voice is heard.
Today, as Chair of the Intergovernmental Operations Committee, I issued letters to several counties requesting information and materials needed to conduct a forensic investigation of the 2020 General Election and the 2021 Primary.
We have asked these counties to respond by July 31st with a plan to comply. The counties represent different geographical regions of Pennsylvania and differing political makeups. Some are Republican while others are Democrat, which means that this will be a balanced investigation.
The Intergovernmental Operations Committee is a standing committee of the Pennsylvania State Senate with oversight and investigatory responsibilities regarding activities relating to or conducted between two or more governments or levels of government, including the administration of elections across the Commonwealth. As set forth in Pennsylvania Senate Rule 14 (d), each standing committee is empowered with the authority to inspect and investigate the books, records, papers, documents, data, operation, and physical plant of any public agency in this Commonwealth, including county boards of elections.
This is necessary as millions of Pennsylvanians have serious doubts about the accuracy of the 2020 General Election. A January poll from Muhlenberg University showed that 40% of Pennsylvania voters are not confident that the results of the 2020 Election accurately reflected how Pennsylvanians voted. Discounting or mocking their concerns is neither an answer nor proper in this constitutional republic.
During debate on election reform a couple weeks ago, some of my colleagues regrettably dismissed these poll numbers as an inconvenient truth and went on to assert that the only reason there is distrust in our election process was because of the “conspiracy theories and lies” from those they disagree with politically. This sort of ad hominen attack does nothing to address the concerns of millions of voters.
The case for a forensic investigation of the 2020 general election is evident to any unbiased observer.
This was the first election in Pennsylvania with “mass” mail-in voting. In 2020, there were 2.7 million ballots cast by mail and absentee compared to about 263,000 absentee ballots cast in 2016. Many of these ballots were counted at offsite locations with little outside observation or oversight. Furthermore, mail ballots without signature verification were permitted to be counted across the Commonwealth. And, of course, all of this transpired in the midst of Covid-19 where uncertainty and fear impacted the conduct of the election.
Additionally, in the weeks leading up to the election, the Department of State repeatedly altered the manner in which Pennsylvania’s election was conducted. Those who voted in person were held to a higher standard than those who mailed in their ballots. Signatures required for mail-in ballots were rendered meaningless as the PA Supreme Court ruled that ballots could not be rejected based on an analysis of the voter’s signature.
On September 17th, the PA Supreme Court ruled that counties had to count ballots received up to three days after Election Day. A week before the election, the Department of State told the U.S. Supreme Court that ballots received after 8 p.m. on November 3rd would be segregated. But the department changed the rules two days before the election and directed counties to canvass those ballots upon receipt. The U.S. Supreme Court had to step in and order the counties to segregate the ballots.
Just hours before the polls opened on November 3, the department changed the rules again by providing late guidance on how to help voters whose mail-in or absentee ballots were incorrectly completed. The “guidance” resulted in inconsistent application across the Commonwealth. Some counties contacted voters as directed while others did not. There was no basis for that guidance in current or case law.
It would defy logic to assume that an election with the kinds of drastic changes we saw in 2020 was run perfectly with zero errors or fraud.
Governor Wolf and the Secretary of State refused to conduct any type of thorough investigation despite the concerns of millions of our citizens in the aftermath of the election and hundreds of affidavits alleging firsthand fraud, irregularities, and illegal behavior witnessed at polling places.
The closest thing to an investigation we got was a small so called “risk-limiting” audit which consisted of a sample of only 45,000 randomly selected ballots from the November Election. Not nearly the type of investigation that was needed to determine any fraud, misconduct, or technical anomalies. This audit was conducted by the Department of State and did not include public input or outside observers.
Election process problems were not limited to 2020. During the May Primary, multiple poll locations ran out of their supply of ballots. This occurred even though counties are required to print at least 10% more ballots than the highest number of votes cast in any of the previous three municipal primary elections. In some precincts, voting machines improperly labeled the headers of Republican ballots as Democrat while the GOP races still appeared. In one county, a “printing issue” caused both Democratic and Republican ballots to be rejected. These errors occurred in a lower-turnout election, where mistakes should be least likely to occur.
A full forensic investigation is critically necessary for our Commonwealth for the sake of transparency and accountability. There is nothing to fear if there is nothing to hide. Those who have concerns about the integrity of the 2020 and 2021 election will have those concerns investigated and hopefully addressed. Those who think that there was zero voter fraud, no irregularities, and that the elections were conducted perfectly will have the chance to be vindicated.
This investigation is not about overturning the results of either election. The goals are to restore faith in the integrity of our system, confirm the effectiveness of existing legislation on the governance of elections, and identify areas for legislative reform.
In light of the governor’s recent veto of a comprehensive election reform bill (HB 1300) and the refusal of his administration to seriously address the concerns of millions of our citizens, it is incumbent for the legislature to exercise its oversight responsibility.
The damage to our election process will not be undone with the passing of time. I believe the only way to restore confidence in our Commonwealth’s election process is to undertake a forensic investigation. By doing this, faith in our election system will be restored. The people of our Commonwealth should have confidence that their vote counts. It takes accountability and transparency to ensure that our elections are free and fair.
BY: Conservative Brief, July 7, 2021
Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permanently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Help us fight the great fight.And if you can, please contribute to Geller Report. YOU make the work possible.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00Pamela Gellerhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngPamela Geller2021-07-08 04:58:542021-07-16 18:53:08BREAKING: Pennsylvania Just Initiated A FULL FORENSIC ELECTION AUDIT, Using The Same Practices As Arizona Audit
“The only incriminating thing in my house are the Hunter Biden hard drives, and they wouldn’t take them,” he said. “I mean, I offered them the incriminating evidence here. I’ve got plenty of crimes for you, and the FBI said, ‘No, no, no, we don’t want that.”
The FBI is a irretrievably broken rogue organization whose target is ….. patriotic Americans.
How do you know when a law enforcement agency is corrupt beyond reprieve? When they are unwilling to accept evidence of major crimes like child pornography due to political considerations. That’s what we have today with the Federal Bureau of Investigations, a federal “law enforcement” group that has no interest in solving actual crimes.
During an interview released today by former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani detailed the raid on his premises by the FBI. They took everything they could with a very conspicuous exception. They wanted nothing to do with Hunter Biden’s hard drives which Giuliani claims contained child pornography.
“The only incriminating thing in my house are the Hunter Biden hard drives, and they wouldn’t take them,” he said. “I mean, I offered them the incriminating evidence here. I’ve got plenty of crimes for you, and the FBI said, ‘No, no, no, we don’t want that.”
Huckabee was shocked. “They didn’t take the laptops, right?”
That’s when Giuliani dropped the bombshell. “It contains one crime after another, including child pornography.”
Here’s the interview. The bombshells start at 4:22:
The very premise behind the formation of the Federal Bureau of Investigations was to protect the people against crimes that cross state lines. Hunter Biden’s crimes cross the globe, but the FBI has no interest in protecting children from “connected” predators.
San Francisco ranks as the fifth-worst city in the US when it comes to retail theft. Now, the problem is getting so bad that businesses like Target and Walgreens are being forced to make drastic changes in response.
“For more than a month, we’ve been experiencing a significant and alarming rise in theft and security incidents at our San Francisco stores,” a Target spokesperson said. “With the safety of our guests, team members and communities as our top priority, we’ve temporarily reduced our operating hours in six San Francisco stores.”
Target stores normally stay open to 10:00pm, but many in the San Francisco area will now close their doors at 5:00pm or 6:00pm. Meanwhile, Walgreens stores are faring even worse, with some shutting their doors altogether.
“Representatives from Walgreens said that thefts at its stores in San Francisco were four times the chain’s national average, and that it had closed 17 stores, largely because the scale of thefts had made business untenable,” the New York Timesreported.
This isn’t just a problem at big-box retailers, either. The California Retailers Association has decried the rampant theft, which is hurting Golden State businesses small and large. Theft has gotten so bad in some parts of San Francisco that it is beyond belief.
“I’m new to San Francisco,” Times journalist Thomas Fuller told a grocery store clerk shortly after moving to the city. “Is it optional to pay for things here?” It sounds like an absurd thing to ask, but Fuller explains that he was genuinely forced to wonder what was going on after he witnessed people walk into Walgreens and Safeway, grab stuff, and walk out.
The dysfunction-driven closures and scale-backs at major retailers will hurt everyday Californians. From the workers whose hours are cut to the customers who can’t get the products they need, this undermining of the market will have many victims beyond just those who are directly robbed.
The sad affair is another reminder of the timeless truth described by economist Thomas Sowell when he said that property rights “belong legally to individuals, but their real function is social, to benefit vast numbers of people who do not themselves exercise these rights.”
Protecting property rights is a necessary precursor for basic economic activity to function. As I previously explained on FEE.org:
“When property rights are insecure or routinely violated—widespread looting and arson are prime examples—the very foundation of a community’s economy is undermined. Investors understandably balk at the uncertainty and forgo investing there, while entrepreneurs cannot launch new enterprises or even continue current ones without the knowledge that they will be secure in their property. As a result, job opportunities and income streams dry up.”
This is why millions of our taxpayer dollars are given to police departments and other government agencies tasked with enforcing property and protecting our rights. But in San Francisco, they’ve woefully failed this most basic responsibility.
A 2014 ballot referendum downgraded theft of goods less than $950 in value to just a misdemeanor, a slap on the wrist, and the city’s enforcement against shoplifters has dwindled in the years since.
That’s why Target and Walgreens are being forced to take drastic actions to protect their stores. But if widespread violation of property rights continues unpunished, they won’t be the last businesses in San Francisco to close their doors in response. COLUMN BY
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2021-07-07 07:53:362021-07-16 18:53:08Target and Walgreens Are Making Drastic Changes Amid Skyrocketing Shoplifting in San Francisco
“Birds sing after a storm. Why shouldn’t people feel as free to delight in whatever sunlight remains to them?” – Rose Kennedy “Education happens to be something that all people, all cultures, need to embrace. Math, science, the words of the world. To be able to speak and be able to have clarity and to be able to think. Those are the greatest of gifts.” – Bill Cosby “One of the deep secrets in life is that all that is really worth doing is what we do for others.” – Lewis Carroll “Through humor, you can soften some of the worst blows that life delivers. And once you find laughter, no matter how painful your situation might be, you can survive it.” – Bill Cosby “The childless experts on child raising also bring tears of laughter to my eyes when they say, I love children because they’re so honest. There is not an agent in the CIA or the KGB who knows how to conceal the theft of food, how to fake being asleep, or how to forge a parent’s signature like a child.” – Bill Cosby
The article I was working on was set aside when I read the news of Bill Cosby’s release from prison. I was thrilled to know that a man I spent a few hours with in the late 60s and again in the mid-70s, was freed from prison to be with his wife and family.
As I read through the many humorous Bill Cosby quotes for this article, I laughed and cried. Take time out and read his quotes; they’re fabulous everyday family truisms. Then tell me this was a man who drugged and assaulted women, because I will never believe it. He was never charged or convicted of rape and why would a man of his fame have to drug any woman?
And yes, I spent hours with Bill Cosby, not once, but twice and both times he was a perfect gentleman and a delight to be with. If you’ve ever known anyone who could make you laugh until you cried, that is Bill Cosby. I almost choked on a sip of coffee the second time we met because of his comments. The man is and was a genius in the comedic portrayal of life.
The second time I met Bill Cosby, he was back from entertaining an audience with clean comedy, unlike the vulgarity of other black comedians, Richard Pryor, Dick Gregory, and Redd Foxx. Cosby actually declined the coveted Mark Twain Prize twice, before finally accepting it in 2009, because of the profanity that dominated the first award show in 1998 for recipient Richard Pryor.
And the Cosbys have lived through the tragedies of losing their only son Ennis, when he was shot in the head during a failed robbery attempt while changing a tire on a California highway, and the loss of his daughter, Ensa who at 44 died of renal failure. Yet, he stands true to his faith and his family.
Bill Cosby’s conviction was overturned by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Good. I’m certainly not the only one who believes Cosby was railroaded by the “MeToo” mob. I said this in January of 2015, and I’ll say it again. Bill was never perfect, none of us are, but women threw themselves at him as happens with all stars and sports figures, so why would he need to use Quaaludes to dope any women in order to molest them? It doesn’t hold water. And by the way, I remember Quaaludes being the big drug in the late 60s and 70s, as though everyone had them. Bill is a man who loves his wife and family and they love him and that goes for the people who have worked with him and know him.
Attorney Jonathan Turley explained, “In their 79-page opinion, the judges found that a “non-prosecution agreement” reached with Cosby should have barred the prosecution. In the earlier agreement, the prosecutor, Bruce Castor Jr., agreed not to charge Cosby in return for his civil deposition. Cosby proceeded to purposely incriminate himself in what the Court said was a bait-and-switch. The later prosecutor then just ignored the non-prosecution agreement. The trial was also undermined by the decision of the trial court to allow women to testify as witnesses on uncharged alleged crimes against Cosby.”
“The court called Cosby’s arrest “an affront to fundamental fairness, particularly when it results in a criminal prosecution that was forgone for more than a decade.”
Justice David Wecht, writing for a split court, said Cosby had relied on the former district attorney’s decision not to charge him when the comedian gave his potentially incriminating testimony in Constand’s civil case, done of course to get out from under the rubbish of false attacks, which was the promise of the original DA.
The justices said that overturning the conviction, and barring any further prosecution, “is the only remedy that comports with society’s reasonable expectations of its elected prosecutors and our criminal justice system.”
“Mr. Cosby should never have been prosecuted for these offenses,’ said lawyer Jennifer Bonjean, who argued Cosby’s appeal. “District attorneys can’t change it up simply because of their political motivation.” She said Cosby remains in excellent health, despite being legally blind.
And these alleged crimes were from decades ago, their stories don’t jive, Gloria Allred represented all of them and the question remains, what took the women so long, and why now?
After conviction, Bill spent two and half years in prison. He told his wife and family not to visit him because he didn’t want them to see him in this incarcerated state and he didn’t want them going through it with him. His wife Camille spoke with him every day.
But does America know what Bill was doing in prison? He was lecturing and preaching, he was reaching out and telling young men how to save themselves from lives of desperation and loss. Cosby’s pitch was that the inmate’s lead by example for their kids and stay out of prison in the future. He urged the inmates to re-bond with their kids immediately upon getting out. Cosby was clearly trading on his all-American dad image from “The Cosby Show” and it resonated with the prisoners. And he mixed all these life lessons with humor and they loved it. He told them, “To all men… it’s a time to be Great Fathers, Great American Citizens and Great Husbands. Man Up and Become Men of Valor.”
Bill worked most with a group of inmates set up for parole called “Man Up” talking life lessons, keeping out of trouble and not getting locked up again. He lectured them about finding work post-prison, and gave them tips on interviewing techniques…and yes, he lectured on substance abuse and how to stay clean.
He was asked to speak at least four times a week to crowds of 200 and inmates would ask to sit down and eat meals with him one on one. Bill is legally blind; people would count how many would come to hear him and let him know. No matter the situation, Cosby was doing what he had been doing all his life, reaching out to young men, especially young black men, and telling them that there is more to life than drugs, gangs and fathering out of wedlock children. He wanted them to be good fathers and productive citizens.
In May 2021, Cosby was denied parole after refusing to participate in sex offender programs behind bars. He has long said he would resist the treatment programs and refuse to acknowledge wrongdoing even if it meant serving the full 10-year sentence. A stand which could have cost him death in prison.
Phylicia Rashad who starred with Bill as Claire Huxtable on The Cosby Show for eight years, tweeted, “FINALLY!!!! A terrible wrong is being righted — a miscarriage of justice is corrected!” She never believed Bill was guilty of the “MeToo” charges. Rashad said, “What you’re seeing is the destruction of a legacy. And I think it’s orchestrated. I don’t know why or who’s doing it, but it’s the legacy. And it’s a legacy that is so important to the culture.” Link
Rashad dismisses claims from two outspoken women. “Oh, please,” she said when their names came up. She also is quick to defend Camille Cosby. “This is a tough woman, a smart woman.” “She’s no pushover.” “There is no question,” Rashad said, “that Camille Cosby has not been complicit or looked the other way as her husband terrorized women for the last 50 years.”
She added, “Someone is determined to keep Bill Cosby off TV,” alluding to people other than the women. “And it’s worked. All his contracts have been cancelled.”
Bill’s wife, Camille Olivia Hanks Cosby, holds a PhD in Education and is a direct descendant of Nancy Hanks Lincoln, President Abraham Lincoln‘s mother. Like his wife, Bill earned his Doctor of Education from the University of Massachusetts Amherst in 1976 after completing his Masters of Arts there in 1972.
This is the same man who, in 1971, was one of the lead stars on The Electric Company, a comedy variety show that taught basic phonetic and grammar concepts using live-action sketches, cartoons, songs, and Spider-Man episodes. This is where, then unknown, Morgan Freeman, got his start. Bill and his wife Camille have always been at the forefront of academic education for all of America’s children.
Camille Cosby has previously been outspoken about her belief that the case against her husband was “unethical” and claimed his accusers were lying. She owns a production company, has done television and stage work, and has written books and articles. She was her husband’s manager and kept explicit records as to Bill’s engagements. She has never left his side.
When these charges first erupted, ABC News reported that Camille Cosby came out in defense of her husband and this is what she said, A different man has been portrayed in the media over the last two months. It is the portrait of a man I do not know. It is also a portrait painted by individuals and organizations whom many in the media have given a pass. There appears to be no vetting of my husband’s accusers before stories are published or aired. An accusation is published, and immediately goes viral.
These two women who know Bill well are not the only ones who have stood by him. Others who have worked with Bill through the years are standing by the man they know.
Cosby Family Philanthropy
The Cosby family, through their foundation, has helped their own race far more than most. They gave multi-millions and helped millions of black young people to succeed and to become successful members of society. I haven’t been able to find a decision by an institution to publicly renounce any of the tens of millions of dollars that he and his wife, Camille have given over the years. Nor have they decided to reject any new donations.
Cosby’s legacy of giving is decades-old and extensive, topped by a $20 million gift to Spelman College in 1988 and including, among many other donations, $3 million to the Morehouse School of Medicine; $1 million in 2004 to the U.S. National Slavery Museum in Fredericksburg, Virginia; and $2 million from Cosby’s wife, Camille, to St. Frances Academy in Baltimore in 2005. According to IRS filings, in 2009, Camille and Bill Cosby gave more than $800,000 in scholarship grants through the William and Camille Cosby Foundation. And that’s only a tiny portion of their philanthropy.
I wonder if the Cosby’s know of Margaret Mitchell’s decades of donations to Morehouse? In 1942, Margaret Mitchell, author of Gone with the Wind, received a letter from Dr. Benjamin Mays, president of the all-black Morehouse College in Atlanta. He asked her to give one scholarship of $80.00 for one student, and Margaret Mitchell wrote back and sent a check, and that was the beginning of a long relationship.
Mays was a mentor to Dr. Martin Luther King. He sensed that Margaret might be open to his ideas on education, and again wrote to her. And Dr. Mays was right. Her checks increased with the needs and a college student was the courier between the two. Mays and Mitchell never met, but her legacy of charity to Morehouse continues and will for the next 100 years. It was Margaret’s deep affection for Hattie McDaniel who played Mammy in the movie, and her caring relationships with people from all walks of life that led to the millions in donations to Morehouse College.
HBO stopped showing the movie and in doing so, cut some of the funds to Morehouse for black medical students.
For decades, Cosby lectured the black community about family values. Leaders who promoted the “victim” mentality of black Americans were not happy.
Bill wanted his people to excel and he knew they’d never do it when fathers were not in the homes, when children dropped out of school, when they wore their pants too low, when they had $500 tennis shoes and carried guns and joined gangs. He spoke against it every chance he had, and especially at the NAACP. Cosby did not want his people to be victims, but to strive to be all they could be…as others in his race had done.
On May 17, 2004, Bill Cosby spoke at an NAACP Legal Defense Fund awards ceremony in Washington, D.C., to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education.
In the speech, which was subsequently widely disseminated and analyzed, Cosby was highly critical of the black community in the United States. He criticized the use of African-American Vernacular English, the prevalence of single-parent families, perceived emphasis on frivolous and conspicuous consumption at the expense of necessities, lack of responsibility, and other behaviors. Here is the transcript of that speech, and it was a mighty one excoriating the black community’s care of their children. He has been both praised and condemned for his statements. Bill Cosby has not repudiated his controversial pronouncements or attempted to distance himself from them. Instead, he has chosen to expand upon his theme on subsequent occasions and to make himself a spokesperson for black self-empowerment through education and better parenting.
What do you believe the so-called black leaders thought of this kind of rhetoric? Of course, some had to support him, because he was a great star in his own right, but I highly doubt they were happy about his words. Here’s a taste of what he said back then. They’re standing on the corner and they can’t speak English. I can’t even talk the way these people talk: Why you ain’t, Where you is, What he drive, Where he stay, Where he work, Who you be… And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk. And then I heard the father talk. Everybody knows it’s important to speak English except these knuckleheads. You can’t be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth. In fact, you will never get any kind of job making a decent living. People marched and were hit in the face with rocks to get an Education, and now we’ve got these knuckleheads walking around. The lower economic people are not holding up their end in this deal. These people are not parenting. They are buying things for kids. $500 sneakers for what? And they won’t spend $200 for Hooked on Phonics. I am talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange suit. Where were you when he was two? Where were you when he was 12? Where were you when he was 18 and how come you didn’t know that he had a pistol? And where is the father? Or who is his father? People putting their clothes on backward: Isn’t that a sign of something gone wrong? People with their hats on backward, pants down around the crack, isn’t that a sign of something? Isn’t it a sign of something when she has her dress all the way up and got all types of needles [piercing] going through her body? What part of Africa did this come from?? We are not Africans. Those people are not Africans; they don’t know a thing about Africa. I say this all of the time. It would be like white people saying they are European-American. That is totally stupid. I was born here, and so were my parents and grandparents and, very likely my great grandparents. I don’t have any connection to Africa, no more than white Americans have to Germany, Scotland, England, Ireland, or the Netherlands. The same applies to 99 percent of all the black Americans as regards to Africa. So stop, already!!! With names like Shaniqua, Taliqua and Mohammed and all of that crap… And all of them are in jail. Brown or black versus the Board of Education is no longer the white person’s problem. We have got to take the neighborhood back. People used to be ashamed. Today a woman has eight children with eight different ‘husbands’ — or men or whatever you call them now. We have millionaire football players who cannot read. We have million-dollar basketball players who can’t write two paragraphs. We, as black folks have to do a better job. Someone working at Wal-Mart with seven kids, you are hurting us. We have to start holding each other to a higher standard. We cannot blame the white people any longer. Dr. William Henry ‘Bill’ Cosby, Jr., Ed. D.
Cosby again came under sharp criticism, and was unapologetic for his stance on the issue, when he made similar remarks during a speech at a July 1st meeting of Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow-Push Coalition commemorating the anniversary of Brown v. Board, where he said, “… you’ve got to stop beating up your women because you can’t find a job, because you didn’t want to get an education and now you’re [earning] minimum wage.”
He had critical remarks for black Christians’ seeming inability to create positive social change for the urban population to which he was referring, “I’m telling you Christians, what’s wrong with you? Why can’t you hit the streets? Why can’t you clean it out yourselves?”
At the end of Cosby’s speech where he encourages listeners to go to their families and improve their parenting so the black community can improve, he said, “Well, I’ve got something to tell you about Jesus. When you go to the church, look at the stained-glass windows of Jesus. Look at them. Is Jesus smiling? Not in one picture. So, tell your friends. Let’s try to do something. Let’s try to make Jesus smile. Let’s start parenting. Thank you, thank you.”
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00Kelleigh Nelsonhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngKelleigh Nelson2021-07-06 08:06:442021-07-16 18:53:09America’s Father Figure, Comedian Bill Cosby, Free At Last
Who killed Ashli Babbit?
This is no longer a Republic by the people for the people. It is an autocracy seized in an election coup in the year 2020. The Democrats know what they did. The Democrats know how many votes they stole and how many votes President Donald J. Trump actually got. Why do you think they turned the Capitol into a militarized zone – even now, even still?
Patriots are in solitary confinement for the crime of freedom of assembly and freedom of expression. Casus belli.
Nearly 500 people have been charged in cases related to the breach of the Capitol on January 6, with more charges expected. Some of dozens detained in federal prison awaiting trail, say they are being subject to Third World treatment, including solitary confinement, lack of required medical care, and restricted access to defense counsel.
By: Epoch Times, July 5, 2021:
We hear from two of their lawyers—John Pierce and Steven Metcalf II—and Ned Lang, the father of a defendant who is receiving particularly harsh treatment.
In America Q&A we ask people across the country if they think it’s possible to have a truly nonpartisan January 6 Commission.
Then switching gears, on this Fourth of July weekend, we turn to why so many people want to make a life in America. We’re joined by Tibi Czentye, a very determined man who risked everything to escape communist Romania to live the American Dream.
And in a special 2-part America Q&A we ask what the American Dream means and what makes America special. CLICK HERE TO WATCH.