Category: Corruption O’ The Day

Why all of a sudden this comes out now? The demoncrap PTB are stabbing SloJoe in the back to so he can be forced to not run for re-election. so Goobernor Newsome can.

Jim Biden admitted he was hired to negotiate with Saudis over a secret $140 million deal ‘because of his position and relationship’ to his VP brother Joe — who would be ‘instrumental to the deal,’ bombshell affidavit claims.

President Biden’s brother was hired to engage in secret negotiations with the Saudi government on behalf of a US construction company because of his relationship with the then vice president, legal documents claim.

Jim Biden was selected because Saudi Arabia ‘would not dare stiff the brother of the Vice-President who would be instrumental to the deal,’  bombshell affidavits obtained by DailyMail.com allege.

Joe’s younger brother Jim, 73, was at the center of a $140 million settlement negotiation between Hill International and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 2012.

According to the documents, Jim told a former senior US Treasury official working as a private investigator that he was hired to negotiate with the Saudis ‘because of his position and relationship’ to VP Joe Biden – who led delegations to Saudi Arabia at the time.

Continue reading “”

Sen. Hawley’s Insider Trading Bill Returns To Congress Under New Title ‘PELOSI Act.’

U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) reintroduced his 2022 insider trading bill Tuesday that would ban lawmakers and their spouses from holding and trading individual stocks and force political figures to return profits to American citizens under a new title dubbed the “PELOSI Act.”

The Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments (PELOSI) Act comes just over a year after Hawley introduced the original bill, in which he accuses politicians of somehow outperforming the stock market every year they hold office.

This time around, the senator’s updated version takes a jab at California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who many Republican lawmakers had slammed after her husband, Paul Pelosi, sold up to $5 million worth of shares in Nvidia, a California company that produces semiconductors, just before the House voted on a bill surrounding the domestic chip manufacturing industry.

“For too long, politicians in Washington have taken advantage of the economic system they write the rules for, turning profits for themselves at the expense of the American people,” Hawley said in a news release.

In addition to prohibiting members of Congress from taking advantage of the market and wielding their power and privilege over American citizens, The PELOSI Act would also ban said politicians from holding diversified mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, or exempt U.S. Treasury bonds.

Six months upon assuming office, the bill would require new congressional members to divest or place prohibited holdings in a blind trust — to remain there while they are serving the American people.

Spouses of American politicians in Congress would also have to forfeit any investment profits back to the American people through the U.S. Treasury.

Violation of the Act could result in losing the ability to deduct the losses of those investments on their income taxes and other additional fines.

Earlier this month, Business Insider reported at least 78 congressional members, Democrats and Republicans alike, had violated a 2012 law known as the STOCK Act — Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act — which lawmakers designed to combat insider trading among lawmakers and force public servants to disclose their personal financial dealings, including any stock trade made by themselves, a spouse, or a dependent child.

Still, according to the report, lawmakers allegedly broke the law, citing ignorance, clerical issues, and accounting mistakes.

“As members of Congress, both Senators and Representatives are tasked with providing oversight of the same companies they invest in, yet they continually buy and sell stocks, outperforming the market time and again,” Hawley said. “While Wall Street and Big Tech work hand-in-hand with elected officials to enrich each other, hardworking Americans pay the price.”

Nah…SanFranNan would never do something like that, would she?

Just a coinkidink I’m sure………

Twitter Files Expose Dangerous Deep State-Big Tech Revolving Door

It’s not just the Forrest Gump of Russiagate — ex-FBI General Counsel James Baker — who is core to the conspiracy to crush the First Amendment

Image

This weekend I was pleased to appear in print in the New York Post to discuss the cozy and corrupting ties between the U.S. government — particularly the security state — and Big Tech revealed in the Twitter Files.

I connect the dots in the Post — dots that I believe collectively depict a key piece of the overall War on Wrongthink picture: A Ruling Class conspiracy to crush the First Amendment in pursuit of total ideological and therefore cultural and political power.

Read the whole thing here.

The Twitter Files were also one subject of our latest “NatCon Squad,” which you can check out below or wherever you get your podcasts.

BLUF
By every measure – economic, national security, militarily, culturally and electoral integrity – the Biden administration has been a disaster of incalculable proportions.   All of this has occurred in just two years.  Ben Franklin was right when he noted that the Founders created “a republic, if you can keep it,” and Reagan’s warning that  “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”  

One of the most important things Trump accomplished was that the left, so deranged by hatred of the man, revealed who they really are: Ideological totalitarians who actually embrace communism of the Chinese variety.

They have to be stopped.

The terrible, horrible, no-good consequences of stolen elections and government corruption

Elon Musk was true to his word, as far as we know, with regard to his promise to release Twitter documents, first by Matt Taibbi and then by Bari Weiss.

Thus far, he has exposed that social media site’s calculated censorship of any and all information that might silence conservative voices, including President Trump’s, as well as information that reflects badly on the Biden family, Dr. Anthony Fauci, lockdowns, and vaccines.

He has done exactly that, probably not to the fullest extent, but he’s released enough to prove how much Twitter, the mainstream media, and all the other social media sites interfered with the 2020 election.

Their interference amounts to both fraud and treason.  The Democrats engineered the Biden victory and subsequently bragged about it.

Twitter’s big part of the game has finally been revealed for all to see.  Twitter, on their own or often due to orders from the Biden White House and/or the FBI, de-platformed anyone who posted anything remotely critical of the Biden regime and/or its horrific policies, especially those related to COVID lockdowns and vaccines.

The left cheats; they can’t win if they don’t cheat, so they regularly cheat.  Nothing makes that clearer than the 2022 midterm elections in Arizona, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

Polls show that about sixty percent of the American people believe the 2020 election was stolen; those people are not all Republicans.

Chances are that in their heart of hearts, ninety percent of Americans know it was stolen.

Continue reading “”

Cue the shocked meme…..

BREAKING: New Twitter Files Dump Exposes Blacklists, Secret Cabal Censoring High-Profile Conservatives.

Independent journalist Bari Weiss took to Twitter on Thursday night to unload a second trove of internal memos and documents exposing how Twitter officials silenced the voices of prominent conservatives on the platform. Radio host Dan Bongino, Stanford professor Jay Bhattacharya, and activist Charlie Kirk were among those Twitter censored or blacklisted, along with the popular “Libs of TikTok” account.

“A new #TwitterFiles investigation reveals that teams of Twitter employees build blacklists, prevent disfavored tweets from trending, and actively limit the visibility of entire accounts or even trending topics—all in secret, without informing users,” Weiss, a former New York Times reporter, wrote. “The authors [of the Twitter Files] have broad and expanding access to Twitter’s files. The only condition we agreed to was that the material would first be published on Twitter.”

Continue reading “”

 

We Now Have the Full Transcript of Fauci’s Deposition in Social-Media Collusion Case

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Louisiana AG Jeff Landry deposed Anthony Fauci last month in the states’ case accusing the Biden administration of “colluding with social media companies to censor speech” related to the Covid-19 pandemic. Today, they released the full transcript of that interview (you can read the entire document below).“Today, Louisiana and Missouri are releasing the full transcript for the deposition of Dr. Anthony Fauci, which was taken on November 23rd, 2022. The deposition was taken as part of Louisiana and Missouri’s landmark lawsuit against the federal government and the Biden Administration for colluding with social media companies to censor speech,” said Landry in a press release. “Fauci’s recent deposition only confirmed what we already knew: federal bureaucrats in collusion with social media companies want to control not only what you think, but especially what you say. During no time in human history was this more obvious than during the COVID-19 crisis where social engineering tactics were used against the American public, not to limit your exposure to a virus, but to limit your exposure to information that did not fit within a government sanctioned narrative.”“Missouri and Louisiana are leading the way in exposing how the federal government and the Biden Administration worked with social media to censor speech. In our deposition with Dr. Fauci, it became clear that when Dr. Fauci speaks, social media censors,” added Schmitt in his own press release. “I invite everyone to read the deposition transcript and see exactly how Dr. Fauci operates, and exactly how the COVID tyranny that ruined lives and destroyed businesses was born.”

In a Twitter thread, Schmitt noted that know-nothing Fauci blurted out, “I don’t recall,” 174 times during the deposition, “including when asked about emails that he sent, interviews that he gave, and other important information.”

Fauci did, however, “vaguely recall” telling former HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell in early 2020 not to wear a mask when traveling. “Just a couple months later, he was advocating for universal mask mandates,” Schmitt noted.

Also from Schmitt: “One of Fauci’s deputies joined a WHO delegation to China in February of 2020, and in talking to Fauci afterwards, was impressed with how the Chinese ‘were handling the isolation, the contact tracing, the building of facilities to take care of people.’”

Indeed, Fauci admitted that this American official told him the U.S. “may have to go to as extreme a degree of social distancing to help bring our outbreak under control.” But then Fauci clammed up and said he “didn’t recall” the individual discussing this with him when he returned home.”

This is a breaking story. We’ll have more details to report in an upcoming article. 

Full Redacted Fauci Transcript by PJ Media on Scribd

 

Matt Taibbi

1. Thread: THE TWITTER FILES

2. What you’re about to read is the first installment in a series, based upon thousands of internal documents obtained by sources at Twitter. 
3. The “Twitter Files” tell an incredible story from inside one of the world’s largest and most influential social media platforms. It is a Frankensteinian tale of a human-built mechanism grown out the control of its designer. 
4. Twitter in its conception was a brilliant tool for enabling instant mass communication, making a true real-time global conversation possible for the first time. 
5. In an early conception, Twitter more than lived up to its mission statement, giving people “the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers.” 
6. As time progressed, however, the company was slowly forced to add those barriers. Some of the first tools for controlling speech were designed to combat the likes of spam and financial fraudsters.
7. Slowly, over time, Twitter staff and executives began to find more and more uses for these tools. Outsiders began petitioning the company to manipulate speech as well: first a little, then more often, then constantly. 
8. By 2020, requests from connected actors to delete tweets were routine. One executive would write to another: “More to review from the Biden team.” The reply would come back: “Handled.”Image

Continue reading “”

Portland’s Antifa ‘Justice’ Strikes Again

A Portland “anti-fascist” activist has been found not guilty of being a fascist by roughing up a journalist and stealing his phone because he didn’t like what the reporter said about his Antifa friends. After the Portland judge let off the notorious Portland Antifa attacker, he delivered a lecture to the victim, reporter Andy Ngo.

There’s your justice, Portland.

Ngo sought justice in court for three-and-a-half years against John Hacker, one of a mob of activists that has made a point to follow, chase, hassle, and attack Ngo multiple times.

 

The Post Millennial reported that Hacker confronted Ngo in a Portland area 24 Hour Fitness where he assaulted the reporter, poured water on him, and stole his phone. Ngo captured part of John Hacker’s attack on video.

“The shaky video is less than 30 seconds long, but prosecutors say it’s a key piece of evidence showing Hacker approaching Ngo, grabbing the device, and yelling, “I will break your f*cking phone,” the news website reported.

The Deputy District Attorney argued before the judge that Hacker had conducted a “harassment campaign targeting Ngo for years.”

Indeed, Hacker was part of a mob that chased Ngo in downtown Portland, forcing the journalist to seek a hiding place at a posh hotel.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
Democrats,  Demoncraps, who have spent years delegitimizing the Supreme Court and rule of law, undermining legislative norms, cheering on unprecedented and blatant executive abuses, and using the DOJ to target their political enemies, among other “democracy”-destroying behaviors, do not occupy any high moral ground. And while “democracy” was once just a transparently silly euphemism for “stuff we want,” it has since evolved into a rhetorical device that denotes a decisively illiberal mindset.

DEMOCRATS Demoncraps: The Only Way To Save Democracy Is One-Party Rule.
‘Save Our Democracy’ is the new ‘Russia Collusion.’

At this point, it would save everyone time if Democrats could simply point to a policy agenda item that isn’t going to save democracy — if such a thing exists.

If Republicans vote, they are killing democracy. If they don’t vote, they are killing democracy. The only way to “save democracy,” writes The Washington Post’s Max Boot, is to empower one-party rule — a position that probably sounds counterintuitive to anyone with a middle-school education. “Now you need to vote to literally save democracy again,” contends President Joe Biden, or we will lose our “fundamental rights and freedoms like the right to choose, the right to privacy, the right to vote — our very democracy.”

Chilling stuff. But it doesn’t end there. You will remember that by failing to “reform” the filibuster, which would entail authorizing the thinnest of fleeting majorities to shove through massive generational “reforms” without any national consensus or debate, we are also killing democracy. This has been the position not only of left-wing pundits and the New York Times editorial board, but also senators tasked with defending their institution. I wonder if they will support this democracy-saving fix next session, as well?

Then again, if we don’t nationalize the economy to avert a climate crisis, we are also killing democracy. “We’ve got to save democracy in order to save our species,” Jamie Raskin explains. And if we don’t empty the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to temporarily keep gas prices low to help Democrats win in 2022, we are killing democracy. “We find ourselves in a situation, where keeping gas prices low is key to preserving and strengthening the future of our democracy,” MSNBC’s Chris Hayes says.

We must allow the president to unilaterally create trillion-dollar spending bills and break existing private sector contracts by fiat. For democracy. We must pack the court to “save democracy.” We must create a Ministry of Truth to help with “strengthening democratic institutions.” We must vote for a Pennsylvania candidate who can’t cobble two consecutive coherent sentences together because the “fate of our democracy” is at stake, says our former president.

Continue reading “”

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: BEYOND DEMOCRATIC DESPOTISM

John Adams Wettergreen (d. 1989), writing in 1988 with a startling prescience of our present time:

In 1970 I believed that Tocqueville’s soft despotism was the aim of the bureaucratizers. However today we cannot be so optimistic as was possible in 1970. Today’s bureaucratizers are not soft despots at all. The political use of criminal law, such as began during the Watergate scandals and has begun to be regularized during the Reagan administration, is characteristic of tyranny-not Tocqueville’s ‘new,’ ‘soft’ one, but a harsh one. . . To the carrot-spending unlimited by law-the legislature has now added the stick-the penalties of the criminal law.

What Wettergreen perceived in the shadows more than 30 years ago is now evident to most everyone with eyes to see.

This is much easier for Congress because that’s much easier than having to exert oneself to get out of that cushy chair on the .gov gravy train and actually do what they’re getting paid for.

The New Bicameralism and Presentment
The executive branch proposes a rule, a district court judge can block it, then one member of the Supreme Court determines if Congress would have approved of that rule.

The Constitution establishes a very precise process by which laws can be enacted. First, a bill must be approved by one house of Congress. Second, the other house of Congress must approve the bill. Third, the President can sign the bill into law. If the bill is vetoed, Congress can override the veto. This process is known as bicameralism and presentment: two houses must pass the bill, which is then presented to the President for his signature.

This process, regrettably, has become rarer and rare. Virtually all major changes to the law occur outside the confines of the traditional form of bicameralism and presentment. Instead, there is a different three-step process.

First, the executive branch proposes a new legal regime. Maybe there is notice-and-comment rulemaking, or maybe it is bypassed. There is always good cause when the need arises. Or an agency issues some sort of non-binding guidance document that regulated entities treat as binding.

Second, after the policy is promulgated, it is challenged in favorable forums. A district court judge then decides if the rule can go into effect, or not.

Third, if the trial court blocks the rule, the case is presented to the Supreme Court. And pursuant to the major question doctrine, the Justices must determine if this is the sort of rule that Congress would have approved of.

In this regard, there is still a familiar three-step process, involving the executive branch, the lower courts, and the Supreme Court. Congress is involved in an imaginative sense, as one Justice gets to decide what Congress would have intended. If all three boxes are checked, federal laws is changed! Call it a new bicameralism and presentment.

BLUF
Pelley’s reluctance to ask tough questions about Hunter is deliberate and straight out of the corporate media handbook.

The corrupt press knew Hunter was sealing deals using his dad’s name and title. They also knew that was compromising for the then-presidential candidate. That’s why when Hunter’s laptop with information indicating Joe was not as clueless about Hunter’s business as he seemed surfaced shortly before the 2020 election, the media claimed it was “Russian disinformation” and refused to cover any of the corruption.

Pelley’s refusal to make Joe answer for the Biden family business in a 2022 “60 Minutes” interview is no different than the media’s deliberate memory holing of Hunter’s depravity and the Bidens’ wheeling and dealings in 2020.

Corporate Media Enable Biden Family Corruption By Refusing To Ask Tough Questions About Hunter.

Joe Biden hasn’t had to answer tough questions about Hunter Biden and the Biden family business because the corporate media doesn’t make him.

Thanks to the complacent, corrupt corporate media, President Joe Biden has once again failed to answer questions about the Biden family business and whether his son Hunter Biden’s foreign entanglements have affected how he chooses to run the country.

The most recent side-stepping happened during a “60 Minutes” interview with CBS news anchor Scott Pelley, who claimed that if Joe seeks re-election, “Republicans are most likely to go after your son Hunter.”

“I wonder what you would like to say about your son and whether any of his troubles have caused conflicts for you or for the United States,” Pelley said.

First, Pelley’s “question” was not a question but a softball statement designed to save him from criticism for failing to raise Hunter as a topic of conversation at all. Much like the rest of his corporate media colleagues, Pelley seems to have an incessant desire to prop up the declining president instead of making him answer tough questions.

Secondly, Republicans aren’t “going after” Hunter to get to Joe. They are raising legitimate concerns about someone whose foreign business dealings and criminal dabbling, combined with his closeness to POTUS, pose a serious threat to the national security of the United States.

Continue reading “”

Leaked memo states that in NYC anyone carrying a firearm, legally, is now presumed guilty until proven innocent

NEW YORK CITY, NY – Leaked documents from the New York Police Department (NYPD) indicate that anyone carrying a firearm is now presumed guilty until proven innocent.

The new guidance highlighted in the leaked memo proves that almost anywhere in New York City — public or private — is a gun-free zone.

It basically states that unless someone is a police officer or a former cop, no one can bring their legal firearm out of their house for protection, like on public transportation.

The memo, titled New York State Restrictions on Carrying Concealed Firearms, states very clearly in its “key points”:

“Anyone carrying a firearm is presumed to be carrying unlawfully until proven otherwise.”

The other “key points” are listed below:

Possessing a firearm in New York City requires a special license issued by the New York City Police Department;

Carrying a firearm in New York City requires a concealed carry license issued by the New York City Police Department;

License holders are required to carry their license when carrying a firearm and must provide their license to law enforcement upon request; and

Recent changes in law do not impact the way officers conduct investigative encounters. Officers may stop an individual when the officer has reasonable suspicion that an individual is carrying a firearm (Level 3) and may frisk that individual since the officer has reasonable suspicion that the individual is armed and dangerous.

The memo also describes what are to be considered “sensitive” and “restricted” locations throughout the city. According to the memo:

“Even though a person may be licensed to carry a firearm, they may not bring a firearm to a ‘sensitive’ location … All private property (residential and commercial) that is not on the sensitive location list is considered ‘restricted.’ People who are licensed to possess firearms may not bring firearms to a restricted location unless they get permission from the property owner.”

Expect Silicon Valley Censorship To Ramp Up with ‘Civic Integrity Policy’

United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- With the news that Twitter is bringing back its “Civic Integrity Policy,” Second Amendment supporters need to be ready for censorship to ramp up. This is something that has been building up for a long time.

Of course, this is just one possible avenue of attack. There have been other revelations about censorship – at least on Twitter’s part – that Second Amendment supporters should take note of. If anything, these revelations, at a bare minimum, will need some serious oversight by Congress, and some serious corrective actions will be needed.

Those actions will require substantial Congressional majorities and, alongside efforts to halt financial de-platforming, are probably the most important battles for Second Amendment supporters to win – more important than constitutional carry or other legislative fights. Don’t take my word for it – look at what Google did with regard to crisis pregnancy centers after a push from Letitia James.

Yes, the same Letitia James who sought the NRA’s dissolution. Regardless of how you feel about abortion, this is a bad sign.

Silicon Valley’s actions will force many Second Amendment activists to confront a very hard question:

How do we reconcile using the power of government when we ourselves have expressed suspicion – if not opposition – to increasing the size and scope of government? Because at this point, it looks increasingly likely that we will need to use government power to protect our First Amendment rights on at least a short-term basis, and it probably may be for the long haul.

Some of it will be using Congress to check the executive branch – in essence, invoking Constitutional powers – to rein in efforts by various agencies to get social media companies to censor based on such pretexts as “medical misinformation” or even just “misinformation” in general. That is not going to be the big issue.

The big issue will be addressing the fact that these companies also act independently, and their censorship decisions didn’t just come from the government. How much was government influence? That is currently unknown, but perhaps the litigation by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana will change that.

As private entities, they have the same freedom to associate – or not associate – as we do, to a large extent. How much of the censorship is their own doing? We don’t really know. Could the Elon Musk saga change things on Twitter? That is an unknown, as well.

That will require answers. Some will come from the litigation, some from the Congressional hearings. Some, we may not know for sure. How much will the litigation reduce the censorship (we shouldn’t presume it will end all of it)? Again, we don’t – in fact, we can’t – know.

One thing is certain: Second Amendment supporters will have a lot of work to do to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists via the ballot box at the federal, state, and local levels this coming November and the November two years from now. Get out the vote!