She wants to add 4 justices. Democrats strategy for the coming midterms is “say anything.” The more extreme the better. We’ll see if that is an effective strategy.

Elizabeth Warren Recommends Destroying the Supreme Court

The Democrat crime wave will be an important issue in the 2022 and 2024 elections

Crime fear grips US, 68% say it’s getting worse

“…Nearly 9 in 10 voters are worried about the crime surge across the nation, and almost 70% fear that there is no end in sight.

In the latest problem facing Democrats and President Joe Biden, 89% of likely voters told Rasmussen Reports that they are concerned about the crime wave. That is 10 points higher than in July.

Headlines have highlighted random shootings, retail smash-and-grabs, and brief jail stays for violent criminals. Meanwhile, some Democrats have pushed plans to defund police departments.

Rasmussen said that a sky-high 64% of voters are “very concerned” about crime…”

Question everything the government and media tell you about Covid and the vaccines

Vaccines are not all they are cracked up to be. Neither is the Covid response from our ruling elites.

Cornell and Princeton shut down campus… With 98% Vaccination rate

Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine produced virtually no antibody protection against Omicron

J&J Shot Loses Antibody Protection Against Omicron in Study

“…Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine produced virtually no antibody protection against the omicron coronavirus variant in a laboratory experiment, underlining the new strain’s ability to get around one pillar of the body’s defenses. The vaccine appears to provide some defense against omicron, perhaps via other means such as stimulation of immune cells, according to Penny Moore, a South African virologist…”

Dershowitz on the House Democrats holding Mark Meadows in contempt

Can an Ex-President Claim Privilege for Communications While He Was President?

Alan M. Dershowitz:

“…The Constitution provides no clear answer to whether a former president can claim executive privilege over communications that occurred while he was president. Both policy and analogy to other privileges would suggest an affirmative answer. A former spouse, a lawyer’s former client, and a penitent’s former priest can claim privilege — and so could a former member of Congress and a former judge. The relevant issue is whether the communication was privileged at the time it was made. If so, it should be an enduring privilege that encourages confidential communications during their incumbency.

The lawyer for the January 6th Congressional Committee, Douglas Letter, however, has argued that former President Donald J. Trump can no longer claim executive privilege, including over communications with his former chief of staff when they were both in office. According to The New York Times, this is what he said: “The Constitution does draw a clear line between a president and an ex-president. An ex-president is somebody who rejoins the great unwashed” — by which he apparently means you and me, who never had any executive privilege.

Where in the Constitution he or the committee find the “clear line” that supports his cramped interpretation of privilege is unclear. The issue is an open one that will likely be decided by the Supreme Court. I doubt that justices who are now retired or intend someday to retire — and join the “unwashed” — would be thrilled if Congress were to subpoena their former law clerks to disclose their confidential discussions about decisions they wrote while they were still among the washed.

In the absence of a definitive judicial decision to the contrary, former chief of staff Mark Meadows would seem to be required to accept former President Trump’s claim of executive privilege. Were he now to divulge communications that the courts ultimately held were privileged, the damage would be irremediable. The cat could not be returned to the constitutional bag. On the other hand, if he does not now disclose and the courts ruled that he must, the only harm would be some delay. The balance of harms clearly favors non-disclosure at this time.

That is precisely why it is so outrageous for the committee now to be seeking the criminal indictment of Meadows for refusing to disclose material that may well be constitutionally privileged. They should seek to have the courts rule first on the constitutional issue, and if Meadows then refuses to comply with a judicial order, they can seek criminal penalties. This chronology is especially required because Meadows has said that he would comply with court orders.

Seeking a court order first is also required by the constitutionally mandated separation of powers. Congress cannot simply compel the executive to bow to its will when there is a conflict between the two elected branches, the third branch — the judiciary — decide who is correct under the constitution.

Finally, criminal indictments should never be used to determine what the law is. It should only be used against individuals who know that they are violating existing law that is already clear.

The Justice Department should therefore refuse any congressional demand to indict Meadows. If the Justice Department improperly secures an indictment from a grand jury — which they can easily do because, as one judge put it, grand juries would “indict a ham sandwich” if asked to do so — the courts should immediately dismiss it and demand that the Justice Department first get a judicial ruling on the constitutional issue.

The precedent that would be established by allowing an indictment of a former chief of staff to the president for the “crime” of seeking a judicial ruling before irretrievably disclosing information that may well be constitutionally privileged would do great harm to our constitutional structure. Its victims would not only be the president and its former incumbent, but all of us “unwashed” who depend on the courts to guarantee our constitutional rights…”

DeSantis introduces the Stop Woke Act…

A once great organization that I supported has descended into a CRT hell hole.

Salvation Army’s Internal Survey Suggests Only Whites Are Racist

I reject this nonsense totally. I reject the Salvation Army and will no longer support the organization.

We live in the age of woke stupidity.

Image

Al Gore in December 2008 predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would disappear within 5 years. Wrong in 2008. Wrong in 2021.

If you fall for this climate nonsense it’s on you. This is a cult.

I have mixed views on this…

Trump Republicans eager to dethrone McConnell as GOP leader

McConnell is as old as dirt. For that reason alone I am inclined to agree that he should be replaced. On the other hand, he is a wise and crafty old hand and I would rather see Trump Republicans work with the old guy. The differences are very small and mostly relate to McConnell’s turn against Trump after the election. He made a mistake. He recognizes Trump still is the most powerful politician in the United States. You can work with him.

This will work…

California schools phase out D and F grades for high school students

Our schools, our teachers, our politicians have failed miserably on education. They have let our children down. This is stupidity.

We live in the age of stupid.

Alex Berenson on a new Israeli study that shows natural immunity to Covid is far superior to vaccines

A huge Israeli study shows natural Covid immunity is far superior to the vaccine-generated kind

“…And getting vaccinated if you have natural immunity appears basically useless.

mRNA vaccine protection from Covid is far weaker than natural immunity and declines very fast, according to a new study of almost 6 million people in Israel.

During the summer Covid wave, more than 140,000 Israelis who had been vaccinated but not received a booster shot became infected with Covid. Put another way, in just two months, about 1 out of every 20 vaccinated Israelis became infected with Sars-Cov-2.

Natural immunity – the protection following infection and recovery – lasts much longer, the study shows.

In fact, people who had already had Covid once had better protection from the virus more than a year later than people who had been vaccinated only three months before.

The gap was even larger in cases of severe infection.

Vaccinated people were more than five times as likely to develop severe infections than people with natural immunity. Only 25 out of roughly 300,000 Israelis with natural immunity developed severe Covid infections in the summer wave – compared to almost 1,400 vaccinated Israelis.

The difference did not result from gaps in age between vaccinated and recovered people. People over 60 benefitted even more from natural immunity relative to vaccination than did younger people.

 

The study also showed that giving people who had natural immunity a vaccine dose did little to lower rates of infection for them, raising the question of why they should ever be vaccinated.

Finally, the study offered a disturbing signal that vaccination may ultimately interfere with the development of lasting immunity in people who are infected after being vaccinated.

A booster shot did lower the risk of infection about to the level of peak protection from natural immunity – but because the study ended in September, it is impossible to know how long that protection may last.

All these findings come out of a database of Covid infections among almost 6 million Israelis in August and September, at the peak of the fourth Covid wave in Israel. The database contains information on essentially every Israeli over age 16 who was fully vaccinated or had previously had a Covid infection…”

The paper, “Protection and waning of natural and hybrid COVID-19 immunity,” is currently available as a preprint at:

“Protection and waning of natural and hybrid COVID-19 immunity,”

Pima County Arizona – Democrat whistleblower penned letter to DOJ accusing Democrats of adding 35,000 fake votes for each Democrat candidate. Biden DOJ has not investigated claim.

AZ State Rep Reads Dem Whistleblower’s Letter to the DOJ About 2020 Election Fraud During Election Integrity Hearing

“…In a letter to the Department of Justice last year, an anonymous Democrat whistleblower accused fellow Democrats in Pima County, Arizona of adding approximately 35,000 votes to each of the Democrat candidates in the 2020 election.

This information came out Monday, during an “ad hoc” hearing in Tucson, where Arizona State House and Senate members met to discuss election integrity issues in Pima County.

During the hearing, experts provided evidence and testimony about the voting irregularities that allegedly took place during the election, including ballots from people not living where they voted, and inflated voter rolls across the Democrat-leaning county.

Arizona state Rep. Mark Finchem, who has received Trump’s endorsement for Arizona Secretary of State in 2022, read the letter. It was dated November 10, 2020, and addressed to the Criminal Division of the DOJ.

Please be advised the Pima County Recorder, located at 240 N. Stone Avenue in Tucson, Arizona, 85701 in Pima County, Arizona, and the Democrat Party added fraud votes. In the initial count of the vote by mail (VBM) totals released at 8 pm on November 3, 2020, There are approximately 35,000 fraud votes added to each Democrat candidates’ vote totals. Candidates impacted include County, State, and Federal Election candidates. Through the utilization of the automated ballot count machines in Pima County Elections, My understanding is that 35,000 was embedded into each Democrat candidates’ total votes. Below are the meeting notes.

In a meeting I was invited to by the Democrat party in Pima County, Arizona on September 10, 2020, no phones or recording devices were allowed. A presentation was given including detailed plans to embed 35,000 votes in a spread configured distribution to each Democrat candidate’s vote totals.

When I asked, “How in the world would 35,000 votes be kept hidden, or from being discovered?” It was stated that spread distribution will be embedded across the total registered vote range and will not exceed the registered voter count. And the 35,000 was determined allowable for Pima County based on our county registered voter count.

It was also stated total voter turnout versus total registered voters determined how many votes we can embed. The embedding will also adjust based on voter turnout. Because the embedded votes are distributed sporadically, all embedded votes will not be found if audited because embeds are in groups of approximately 1,000. This is so the County Recorder can declare an oversight issue or error, as a group of 1,000 is a normal and acceptable error.

Maricopa County’s embed totals will be substantially larger than Pima, due to embeds being calculated based on the total number of registered voters. When I asked, “Has this ever been tested, and how do we know it works?” the response was, yes, this has been tested and has shown significant success in Arizona judicial retention elections, since 2014. Even undetectable in post audits because no candidate will spend the kind of funds needed to audit and contact voters to verify votes and the full potential of the total registered voters, which is more than 500,000 registered voters. This year our Secretary of State has removed precinct level detail from election night releases, so candidates can’t see precinct over-votes.

This is what I have from this meeting. Just thought I’d report this. Not sure if you can do anything since I was unable to have a recording device at this meeting. Thank You.’

The whistleblower reportedly said he/she wished to remain anonymous and not be included any investigation.

Finchem said lawmakers were copied on the email, and over the ensuing months, they executed a “very quiet, but fruitful investigation.”

He also said that his team was able to verify that the IP address of the computer that sent the email is in Tucson, Arizona, but unfortunately, they wee not able to verify the identity of the whistleblower. Joe Biden’s DOJ reportedly refuses to investigate the allegations.

During the hearing, election experts described other potential election shenanigans in Pima County.

For instance, in the small town of Sells, Arizona, 1,375 residents were determined to be of “voting age.” However, 2,762 people were registered to vote in the town – more than double the voting age population…”

Doug Santo