WV Charter School Company Robs Kids of Education, Puts Taxpayer$ Money in CEO’s Wallet

In an entry entitled “Denis Smith Warns West Virginians About Charter Schools” published today (Sunday, January 9, 2022, 9:00AM), in the introductory portion of that entry, Research Professor of Education and historian Dr. Diane Ravitch, PhD, wrote that,

“Denis Smith was a teacher and an administrator in West Virginia. He moved to Ohio where he worked in the State Education Department. His last position before retiring was in the office of charter schools (misleadingly called “community schools” in Ohio, even when they operate for profit).”

Dr. Diane Ravitch, PhD

Dr. Ravitch also wrote that “the link works but doesn’t permit me to copy any print.”

She was referring to a guest Opinion-Editorial authored by Denis Smith which was published January 3, 2022 in the Charleston Gazette-Mail, which is WV’s largest newspaper, about a recent state judicial ruling, that attempts by K12 Inc., a Wall $treet-traded, private, for-profit charter school management company, to create a publicly-unaccountable school district inside a school district that only they could control, was illegal under state law. He further opined about the miasmatic mess that the state’s legislators had created with their charter school law.

Nationally, there is an almost overwhelming abundance of complaints from coast-to-coast about the total costs and losses, not all of which are monetary, that have come directly from the charter school “movement,” which is, at its core, a private profiteering effort funded by public tax dollars, regardless whether the charter school is for-profit, or not-for-profit. No more, no less. It is, in essence, an unaccountable system which owes fealty to corporate owners, not to the taxpayers who fund them. For additional information, see:
https://NetworkForPublicEducation.org/chartered-for-profit/

As a courtesy to her, to her readers, and to others, the Op-Ed to which she referred is

The Elderly: Things we throw away?

The REAL question is, “Do we care for ourselves… or not?”

If so, it’s time to put our money where out mouth is.

A society can be easily, and readily judged by how they care, or not, for their elderly.

---

prospect.org

The Care Crisis Isn’t What You Think

By Dr. Laura Mauldin, PhD
January 3, 2022

---

On a recent visit with research participants for my book on spousal caregiving, I sat with a man who had a stroke three years ago, at age 59. He can only use one side of his body, rendering him unable to work; his wife serves as his caregiver. He told me about how much he hated himself. “All I do is take resources. I don’t contribute anything.” Tears streamed down his cheeks.

President Biden’s signature Build Back Better bill, which includes funding for long-neglected social programs like Medicaid’s home and community-based services (HCBS), is facing an uncertain future. An upgraded HCBS program would allow millions of people currently stuck on wait lists to receive care at home, rather than in congregant settings. But facing questions from the likes of Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) about cost, the new investments in HCBS may not become law.

Read more about Health & Social Policy

What my research participant made clear to me that day is that the lack of robust and accessible social programs for long-term care is merely a symptom of a deeper, more poisonous problem: Disability is a part of life, and we hate it. Literally.

Here’s what we don’t talk about when we talk about the care crisis. When it comes to disability, we devalue care (both caregiving and paid care work) because we devalue the people who need it. It’s why we position care as a response to a horrible disaster. It’s why we refuse to adequately fund home care and fairly pay care workers. It’s why we rely on the 53 million (and climbing) unpaid family caregivers across the U.S. to provide care for free. It’s why disabled people internalize the idea that they are worthless “takers.” We tell people we don’t care about them when we refuse to provide the means for them and those who care for them to live well.

Euphemisms like “silver tsunami” let the idea of disaster stand in for disability.

In the lead-up to the BBB bill, there have been

Should You Panic? You’re Being Stalked Online… Legally.

Polly want a cracker?

How about a cookie, instead?

And to make it even better, we’ll make it a STALKING COOKIE!

Yeah… “stalking” as in “we’re watching EVERYTHING YOU DO ONLINE — where you came from, how long you stay, when you arrive, when you leave, what you click on, hover over, move around upon, your age, sex, where you live, your income, your education level,

• your employer, how long you’ve been there, your kids, their ages, the schools they attend, where you worship if you do, what car you drive, how far you drive,

• what size clothing you wear, your political identity, voting proclivities, what you eat, where you shop for groceries,

• who your doctor is, what conditions you’re being treated for, with what medications, how regularly you take your meds, what your allergies are,

• what teevee shows you watch, who your ISP is, how long you’ve been with them, your cell phone number & provider,

• how much your utility bill was last month, what you read, what you subscribe to, what type computer you use, where you use it, what your email address is, how much email you get,

• how many phone calls you get, how long your conversations are, how many and to whom you send/receive text messages, how many pets you have, their ages, sexes, and breeds, what and how often you feed them, who their veterinarian is,

• how much money is in your bank accounts, how much your mortgage is, and for how long, how many cars you’ve ever owned, how much you travel and where,

• your hair and eye color, your parents’ names, their addresses, birthdates, ages, when and where they and you were born, how many moving citations and/or parking tickets you and they have ever had, who your neighbors are, their and your skin color,

• when and if you menstruate, how often and with whom you have sex, if you use a condom, use any other form of birth control… you get the idea.

Frankly, NONE of that should be public knowledge, but, it is. And, it ALL can be bought for a price.

And YOU ARE THE COMMODITY bought, sold, and traded.

And so, would it surprise you to know that ALL that information cited above — AND MORE — is ALL available to be purchased?

In the EU, their citizens have PRIVACY LAWS that protect them from being stalked by online companies.

But not in the USA.

Again, whyzat?

Congress.

In the USA, NO ONE has any “right” to their own intellectual property, specifically, that means ANY, EVERY, and ALL information about you: YOU, as a human being, what your habits are, your daily routine, your purchases, your income, your medical diagnoses, your doctors, medicines, who you have sex with, when, how, if you use birth control, or not, what animals you own, how much you make & pay taxes, how often you drive, if you do, where you go, how far on average you drive on a daily basis, what size clothes you wear, who your friends & family are, what your genetic information is, and the list just goes on, and on, and on, and on from there.

Yes… YOU are a commodity – an intellectual SLAVE – to be bought, sold, and traded. And what’s worse, ANYONE can obtain that information. ANYONE. All they have to do is… PURCHASE IT.

That’s NOT a joke.

Just think of it this way:

STALKING.

It’s happening, you just don’t know it.

And THAT’s the whole point.

You are, in essence, an electronic slave, the intellectual property of others, not your self. For if you were your own property, you would

A Common Sense Approach To Lowering Medical Bills

Common sense approaches work well.

Unfortunately, common sense isn’t so common, anymore.

---

Why Medical Bills Can Be Lower in Maryland

Dr. Elisabeth Rosenthal, MD

October 24, 2021

Guest Essay

Dr. Rosenthal is the Editor in Chief of Kaiser Health News. She was an Emergency Room physician before becoming a journalist.

---

A $1,775 Doctor’s Visit Cost About $350 in Maryland. Here’s Why.

Illustration by Alvaro Dominguez

For the past 18 months, while I was undergoing intensive physical therapy and many neurological tests after a complicated head injury, my friends would point to a silver lining: “Now you’ll be able to write about your own bills.” After all, I’d spent the past decade as a journalist covering the often-bankrupting cost of U.S. medical care.

But my bills were, in fact, mostly totally reasonable.

That’s largely because I live in Washington, D.C., and received the majority of my care in next-door Maryland, the one state in the nation that controls what hospitals can charge for services and has a cap on spending growth.

Players in the health care world — from hospitals to pharmaceutical manufacturers to doctors’ groups — act as if the sky would fall if health care prices were regulated or spending capped. Instead, health care prices are determined by a dysfunctional market in which providers charge whatever they want and insurers or middlemen like pharmacy benefit managers negotiate them down to slightly less stratospheric levels.

But for decades, an independent state commission of health care experts in Maryland, appointed by the governor, has effectively told hospitals what each of them may charge, with a bit of leeway, requiring every insurer to reimburse a hospital at the same rate for a medical intervention in a system called “all-payer rate setting.” In 2014, Maryland also instituted a global cap and budget for each hospital in the state. Rather than being paid per test and procedure, hospitals would get a set amount of money for the entire year for patient care. The per capita hospital cost could rise only a small amount annually, forcing price increases to be circumspect.

If the care in the Baltimore-based Johns Hopkins Medicine system ensured my recovery, Maryland’s financial guardrails for hospitals effectively protected my wallet.

During my months of treatment, I got a second opinion at a similarly prestigious hospital in New York, giving me the opportunity to see how medical centers without such financial constraints bill for similar kinds of services.

Visits at Johns Hopkins with a top neurologist were billed at $350 to $400, which was reasonable, and arguably a bargain. In New York, the same type of appointment was $1,775. My first spinal tap, at Johns Hopkins, was done in an exam room by a neurology fellow and billed as an office visit. The second hospital had spinal taps done in a procedure suite under ultrasound guidance by neuroradiologists. It was billed as “surgery,” for a price of $6,244.38. The physician charge was $3,782.

I got terrific care at both hospitals, and the doctors who provided my care did not set these prices. All of the charges were reduced after insurance negotiations, and I generally owed very little. But since the price charged is often the starting point, hospitals that charge a lot get a lot, adding to America’s sky-high health care costs and our rising insurance premiums to cover them.

It wasn’t easy for Maryland to enact its unique health care system. The state imposed rate setting in the mid-1970s because hospital charges per patient were rising fast, and the system was in financial trouble. Hospitals supported the deal — which required a federal waiver to experiment with the new system — because even though the hospitals could no longer bill high rates for patients with commercial insurance, the state guaranteed they would get a reasonable, consistent rate for all their services, regardless of insurer.

The rate was more generous than Medicare’s usual payment, which (in theory at least) is calculated to allow hospitals to deliver high-quality care. The hospitals also got funds for teaching doctors in training and taking care of the uninsured — services that could previously go uncompensated.

In subsequent decades,

Let’s Talk About… Critical Race Theory

Before we enter into a discussion about Critical Race Theory, let’s ask a question, or two.

First, is discrimination based upon skin color, ethnicity, national origin, or any other factor, something that can be eliminated by law?

Or, is it a flaw, a character defect permanently present in humanity?

At its root, racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and other ‘isms and phobias are based upon an inherent dislike, even to the point of hatred, of others who are dissimilar in some aspect, and because of that dissimilarity thereby become the object, and target of scorn and hatred from and by a perpetrator. Any discriminatory behavior by the perpetrator is justified by the same upon the alleged differences in the object (the one(s) being discriminated against), i.e., the victim(s), and subject, i.e., the perpetrator – the “hater” and “hatee,” if you will.

Various laws, including liberal laws regardless of their age, have thus far failed to eliminate such innately discriminatory practices, and damages, from law, or from business. The myriad laws in our nation touching upon the slave trade, slavery, and discrimination stand as ongoing evidence of that fact.

Everything Old Is New Again

In Abraham Lincoln’s day, a segment of the Republican party then called “Radical Republicans” — a faction within the Republican party comprised primarily of Northern altruists, industrialists, former Whigs, practical politicians, etc., led by Thaddeus Stevens in the House of Representatives, and Charles Sumner in the Senate, from about 1854 until the end of Reconstruction in 1877 — were renown for their goal of immediate, total, and completely permanent eradication of slavery, without compromise. They were opposed even by members of their own party, as well as by Democrats.

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

Today, within the Democratic party, the Progressive faction is opposed by “moderates,” and they’re all opposed by Republicans.

And even within the Republican party today, there are also splinters and divisions. The “Trumpers” aka sycophants of the 45th POTUS, and the more level-headed, even-keeled moderate faction of the party.

There are lessons to be learned from history… if only we’ll learn them. And sadly, it seems as if we’re condemned to repeat them, time, and time, and time again.

It was Spanish-born American philosopher/poet George Santayana (1863-1952) who wrote that…

“Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

–– George Santayana (1863-1952), Spanish philosopher, writing in “The Life of Reason: The Phases of Human Progress“ (1905-1906), Vol. I, “Reason in Common Sense”

So… what about Critical Race Theory?

What is it?

Where’d it come from?

Who invented it?

What does it say, do, or advocate?

The very heart, the “nut,” or crux of the matter is addressed above, and could be stated this way:

Is it possible to eradicate discriminatory practices, and any associated damages, through legislation, and if not, to what extent are such discriminatory practices present, and how can they be rectified, or ameliorated, if at all?

Essentially, Critical Race Theory is a sophisticated, esoteric, high-level legal academic pursuit, which acknowledges that, to this point historically, laws (again, even liberal laws, regardless of their age) have failed to eradicate racism, racist practices, and discrimination, and asks if legal avenues (laws) are able to eradicate it, or if it’s a fixture permanently etched upon the human heart, and thereby inherently present in all laws, and if so, to what extent.

So yes, it’s a broadly-encompassing theoretical legal academic pursuit, and a question which possibly, might never be answered. Yet, there is understanding to be gained by such pursuit, and it is just plain wrong to chastise those who pursue such high-level questions and thinking.

16th Century Thought Police, and The Law of Unintended Consequences

Such chastisement is akin to the Church’s history of punishing or excommunicating scientists “back in the day” who posited that

Working Toward A Change In American Foreign Policy

As you read this OpEd, initially, it seems to move toward the idea of nation building, but then, directs itself toward more direct involvement Congressional management and oversight of foreign policy, the constitutionally-mandated Separation of Powers, encourages a SCOTUS decision on the extent of Presidential War Powers, and curtailing the use Executive action to enact foreign policy by skirting such oversight, asserting that Executive diplomacy is not a formal treaty, and therefore not subject to Congressional oversight.

In short, while illustrating problems in American foreign policy through Executive action, it places the onus of responsibility upon Congress, where it rightfully belongs, and relegates the President’s role to primarily one of public persuasion in such matters.

Ours is a constitutional democratic republic, and we should act like it, rather than falling prey to “the grandiose belief” … of the “irresistible the siren call of personal diplomacy” by Presidents.A

---

What Trump’s Disgraceful Deal With the Taliban Has Wrought

by Dr. Kori Schake, PhD
August 28, 2021

Dr. Schake is Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, and Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Before joining AEI, Dr. Schake was the Deputy Director-General of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. She has had a distinguished career in government, working at the US State Department, the US Department of Defense, and the National Security Council at the White House. She has also taught at Stanford, West Point, Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, National Defense University, and the University of Maryland.

The American Enterprise Institute is an independent, non-profit, public policy think tank dedicated to defending human dignity, expanding human potential, and building a freer and safer world.

The work of their scholars and staff advances ideas rooted in their belief in democracy, free enterprise, American strength and global leadership, solidarity with those at the periphery of our society, and a pluralistic, entrepreneurial culture.

AEI scholars are committed to making the intellectual, moral, and practical case for expanding freedom, increasing individual opportunity, and strengthening the free enterprise system in America and around the world. Their work explores ideas that further those goals, and AEI scholars take part in this pursuit with academic freedom. AEI operates independently of any political party and has no institutional positions. Their scholars’ conclusions are fueled by rigorous, data-driven research and broad-ranging evidence.

---

Believing you’re uniquely capable of bending things to your will is practically a requirement for becoming president of the United States. But too often, in pursuit of such influence over foreign policy, presidents overemphasize the importance of personal diplomacy. Relationships among leaders can build trust — or destroy it — but presidents often overrate their ability to steer both allies and adversaries.

Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev had built such a solid relationship that during the Reykjavik summit most of Reagan’s administration worried he would agree to an unverifiable elimination of nuclear weapons. Bill Clinton believed his personal diplomacy could deliver Palestinian statehood and Russian acceptance of NATO expansion. George W. Bush believed he looked into Vladimir Putin’s eyes and saw his soul, and Barack Obama believed he could persuade Mr. Putin it wasn’t in Russia’s interests to determine the outcome of the war in Syria.

But in both hubris and folly, none come close to matching Donald Trump. For someone who prided himself on his abilities as a dealmaker and displayed an “I alone can fix it” arrogance, the agreement he made with the Taliban is one of the most disgraceful diplomatic bargains on record. Coupled with President Biden’s mistakes in continuing the policy and botching its execution, the deal has now led to tragic consequences for Americans and our allies in Kabul.

Mr. Trump’s handling of Afghanistan is an object lesson for why presidents of both parties need to be

Bacon Dangerous? More Than You Probably Wanted To Know.

NOTE TO THE READER: It’s almost impossible to discuss food and its preparation these days without getting into history, and business ethics practices. But before you go off half-cocked, know for a certainty that in NO WAY am I opposed to the consumption of pork, nor of bacon, neither of the flesh of any animal. Presumably, because you’re now more curious, you must read further to more precisely determine what is meant by the headline — especially, and particularly if you enjoy bacon.

---

Earlier, I had replied to a friend who complained about having eaten “a cheeseburger for lunch and was tired and sleepy for most of the afternoon.”

My initial thought and response was “carbohydrate-induced somnolence,” and I wrote that “the meat patty was the only source of protein in the meal – if all you had was a cheeseburger. If you had fries with them, [that was] more simple carbs.”

Giving a rather simple analogous explanation, I stated that, “the (most likely highly-processed white) bread: Simple carbs – they burn quickly – like a bottle rocket. Up quick, burns out just as quickly.”

And from there, I wrote further about the addition of cheese on the burger, by writing “Cheese: Most likely “American” which is not genuinely cheese.”

From Cheese.com:
“American cheese is processed cheese made from a blend of milk, milk fats and solids, with other fats and whey protein concentrate. At first, it was made from a mixture of cheeses, more often than not Colby and Cheddar. Since blended cheeses are no longer used, it cannot be legally called “cheese” and has to be labelled as “processed cheese,” “cheese product,” etc. Sometimes, instead of the word cheese, it is called “American slices” or “American singles.” Under the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, American cheese is a type of pasteurised processed cheese.”

From TasteOfHome.com:
“… it’s not actually cheese—at least, not legally. The FDA calls it “pasteurized processed American cheese product.” In order for a food product to be a true “cheese,” it has to be more than half cheese, which is technically pressed curds of milk. Each slice of American contains less than 51% curds, which means it doesn’t meet the FDA’s standard.”

And, here’s the Code of Federal Regulations on the matter:
Title 21, Volume 2 — 21CFR133.169 — Revised April 1, 2020.
PART 133 — CHEESES AND RELATED CHEESE PRODUCTS

Subpart B – Requirements for Specific Standardized Cheese and Related Products

Sec. 133.169 Pasteurized process cheese.

Food — it’s production, variety, growing, farming, harvesting, preparation, etc. — is an interest of mine, and like many others, I enjoy not only a good meal, but also have an interest in some understanding about the whys and wherefores of a particular dish’s origins — its history — which also give greater, and a more full understanding to us in numerous ways.

Nitrite-free, dry cured, air dried, pork bellies which will become bacon.
Image by The Elliott Homestead.

For example, the simple, almost ubiquitous dish of beans and rice is a fully complemented dish, meaning that it has a full and complete range of proteins. Beans, by themselves have very little protein, and are primarily carbohydrates, and the same holds true for rice – very little protein, and is primarily a carbohydrate. And the proteins that each separate food has – the rice and the beans – are not “complete” proteins, meaning that individually, they do not contain the 9 essential amino acids which are found in “complete” proteins, and which are necessary in order to build and repair protein tissues (muscles) in the body.

Without exception, ALL animal-based food — regardless of the origin/source — contain complete proteins, and that includes eggs, as well as muscle and organ tissue, though it does not include fat. Fat, however, is never found outside the presence of protein. Fats and proteins could be thought of as “kissing cousins,” because they’re ALWAYS found in combination with each other. They are NEVER apart. Where there’s fat, there’s protein. As an example, consider natural peanut butter — that is, peanut butter which only added ingredient is salt. Peanuts and salt SHOULD BE the ONLY ingredients in peanut butter, and technically, as well as legally, they are, but so many other products are mistakenly called “peanut butter” when they’re actually “peanut butter spread” or something else entirely different.

A simple, even cursory, examination of the labels of Jif®, Skippy®, Peter Pan®,  and other brands – including their websites – demonstrates that in the exceeding majority of cases, their most well-known, and most widely-sold products are NOT authentically genuine peanut butter. Each of those, and others’, products labels and websites state that their products are “peanut butter spreads,” rather than being “peanut butter.”

Peter Pan® brand is manufactured and distributed by Conagra Brands, while Jif® is owned by The J.M. Smucker Company, and Skippy® is owned by Hormel Foods, LLC.

The previous citations were necessary in order to understand what follows, to demonstrate that just because people call a thing by some name, the name by which they call it is not necessarily the proper term. A four-legged animal with hooves and horns could be a bull, a boar, a ram, or a buck, and are all males of the species of cattle, hogs, sheep, goats, and deer. But they’re not females.

And while we’re continuing on the topic of food…

I have come to loathe most commercially-available “bacon.”

Why?

Not only does it taste retched, but also because in the classic, traditional sense, it is NOT bacon.

Yes, it comes from a hog – and not always pork bellies – but the method in which it’s made (“processed,” would be a much more accurate term) bears little resemblance to traditional bacon. Modern “bacon” is flash-smoked, pressure-processed with nitrites, salt-cured, and hustled out the factory door just as quickly as possible in order to continue reaping corporate profits for their Wall$treet masters.

See: USDA Food Safety Inspection Service circular, “How is bacon made?” –and– “What are the methods of curing bacon?” –and– “What are nitrosamines and what cooking methods minimize their formation?” –and– “Can bacon be made without the use of nitrite?”:
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/meat/bacon-and-food-safety

Traditional, original “Old Skool” bacon was/is often smoked in a smokehouse, which not only imparts unique flavor and aroma, but is an important part the preservative curing process – the main intent of which was/is to retard the spoiling process – or turned rancid, the term applied to fats and oils which have spoiled – “spoilage” being oxidation, including discouraging growth of

Conservative Oklahoma Shows States How To Run Medical Marijuana Program

Oklahoma State Representative Scott Fetgatter (R-16)

“Anybody who wants to use marijuana is already using marijuana.
You’re not stopping that.
The goal is to eliminate the black market.”

– Oklahoma State Representative Scott Fetgatter (R-16)

Legislators there (in OK) understand at least one thing: A truly “free market” is regulated at a minimum. Of course, some regulation is necessary, and as I’ve often said, regulation makes things operate more effectively and efficiently, much like a fine-tuned automobile engine, or any sports competition. But there is a point of diminishing returns at which increased effort will not increase output.

Another benefit of minimal regulation, is reduced criminal activity.

Many have made the argument that, in a manner similar to America’s Prohibition Era, in which organized crime was born, Nixon’s 50-year failed social experiment known as the “War on Drugs” has created global narcotrafficking cartels.

And indeed, it may, or may not, surprise you know that the Drug Enforcement Administration has offices and agents worldwide. And yet, for all that effort, and money spent, drug abuse has flourished, rather than diminished, and our nation’s prisons, and jails have proliferated populations, which are much more than a mere tax burden upon society, but rob the market economy of labor, and steal husbands and fathers from families. And then, once they’ve fully “paid their debt to society,” they’re further penalized – in essence, given a life sentence – through the legally enforced social stigma of possessing an arrest record, or having served time. Just think about it: When was the last time you saw, heard, or read, of a job advertisement that specifically stated “We hire ex-cons,” or “Former felons encouraged to apply”? Probably never. So much for so-called “corrections programs,” eh?

And then, there’s this prima facie fact as well, that no one in their right mind wakes up one day and says to themselves, “Gee… I think I want to become an addict.” No one.

We human beings are complex creatures, and it is impossible to point directly to one thing, and one thing only as the cause of addiction. Suffice it to say, that there are many factors, some of which include physical (including sexual) and/or emotional abuse, or other trials and tribulations of life. Some, as well, have been victimized by poor medical care, such as over-prescribing of narcotics by reckless, lackadaisical, or greedy physicians, some of whom have operated “pill mills,” indiscriminately dispensing huge volumes of narcotics for profit.

But, even the DEA (a Federal law enforcement agency), and reputable science and medical researchers have acknowledged that “No deaths from overdose of marijuana have been reported.” The same cannot be said of beverage alcohol. It’s literally impossible to die from over-consumption of cannabis, precisely because, unlike opioids, the psychoactive ingredient – THC – does not affect the brain stem (because there are no receptors there for it to attach to), which is where the body’s respiratory drive center is located. That is a finding of science made in 2020. Now, imagine this: Science would never have advanced by learning that seemingly minor fact if “Just say NO!” was effective (and it is not).

If you’d like to know more about cannabis science, I refer you to this science and fact-based page:
Questions and Answers about Cannabis

And, without further ado, I present to you this eye-opening article which genuinely warrants further consideration, and additional discussion.

---

Why Red State Oklahoma Is Home To A Booming Medical Marijuana Market

Published June 28, 2021 
By John Schroyer

People outside the cannabis industry might be surprised to learn that the most liberal medical marijuana market in the country isn’t California anymore. Nor is it Colorado, Oregon or another left-leaning blue state.

It’s politically conservative Oklahoma.

The red state has pulled a U-turn on marijuana policy since 2014, when the state’s attorney general – along with his then-counterpart in Nebraska – filed a federal lawsuit to overturn neighboring Colorado’s new recreational marijuana program.
But the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

Fast-forward to June 2018, when Oklahoma voters soundly approved one of the loosest medical marijuana programs in the country.

Two months later, Oklahoma regulators began accepting applications for MMJ business licenses.

Sales began that December, by which point the state already had nearly 900 dispensaries, and it’s been pushing the envelope since then when it comes to MMJ policy.

Today, business is booming.

Oklahoma has more than 2,000 dispensaries – the most in the nation. And the 2021 MJBizFactbook projects

Oregon US Representative Earl Blumenauer Introduces Blueprint to Legalize Marijuana

PREDICTION:

Cannabis WILL be legalized within the next 6 – 8 months at the Federal level.

As state after state, and nation after nation is legalizing or decriminalizing cannabis in one form, or another, the United States is facing a decision which was made nearly 100 years ago to make illegal a practically harmless substance, which itself has shown, and continues to show significant promise for the amelioration of serious disease, malady, and human suffering.

According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, in their 2017 “Drugs of Abuse” report,

“No deaths from overdose of marijuana have been reported.”

The National Cancer Institute has written that it’s impossible to overdose on cannabis, because our body’s cannabinoid receptors — the chemicals that bind to THC — are not located in areas of the brainstem that control respiration. For that reason, a “lethal dose” of cannabis is like the flying spaghetti monster: It DOES NOT EXIST.

In stark contrast, the CDC has stated in January 2018 that

“excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths.“

Significantly greater lethality comes from tobacco use, and in April 2018, the CDC stated that

“cigarette smoking kills more than 480,000 Americans each year.“

In 1972, the Schaffer Commission, officially, the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, issued a report entitled Marihuana: A signal of misunderstanding which was the first report by the United States Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, was largely dismissive of specious claims that there was danger in its use, and recommended ending marijuana prohibition and adopting other methods to discourage use.

Specifically, it debunked false claims made about cannabis, and found that, contrary to earlier assertions made about during efforts to keep it illegal,

“marihuana was usually found to inhibit the expression of aggressive impulses by pacifying the user.”

It stated further that,

“neither informed current professional opinion nor empirical research, ranging from the 1930’s to the present, has produced systematic evidence to support the thesis that marihuana use, by itself, either invariably or generally leads to or causes crime, including acts of violence, juvenile delinquency or aggressive behavior.”

Another infamously false claim that marijuana use caused “insanity,” was similarly debunked, and the Commission wrote that

“previous estimates of marihuana’s role in causing crime and insanity were based on quite erroneous information.”

They even warned that
maintaining cannabis’ illegal status
“carries heavy social costs”
and that
“the better method {to discourage its use}
is persuasion
rather than prosecution.”

And in fact, they wrote that “we reject the total prohibition approach and its variations” and instead recommended “a decriminalization of possession of marihuana for personal use on both the state and federal levels.”

A portion of their recommendation was regulation, and wrote in part that “by establishing a legitimate channel of supply and distribution, society can theoretically control the quality and potency of the product.”

Of course, none of the recommendations were followed, and instead, Nixon, the paranoid president who maintained an “enemies list” (and recorded conversations, and narrowly missed criminal indictment, for which reason he resigned the Presidency), initiated his now-infamously-failed “War on Drugs,” and kept marijuana listed on Schedule I.

Nixon’s Domestic Policy Advisor, John Erlichman (1925-1999), was quoted by Dan Baum in Harper’s Magazine April 2016, and said the following of Nixon’s War on Drugs:

“The Nixon campaign in 1968,
and the Nixon White House after that,
had two enemies:
The antiwar left and Black people.
You understand what I’m saying?
We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be
either against the war or Black,
but by getting the public to
associate the hippies with marijuana
and Blacks with heroin,
and then criminalizing both heavily,
we could disrupt those communities.
We could arrest their leaders,
raid their homes,
break up their meetings,
and vilify them night after night on the evening news.
Did we know we were lying about the drugs?
Of course we did.”

Such statements seem to very clearly suggest that laws prohibiting cannabis consumption were left in place for one purpose alone, and that is to use the instrument of law to keep under foot those who might be socially undesirable – most notably, the poor, and ethnic minorities – and that is an egregious abuse of law, and contradicts almost every idea of equality under law in our Constitution.

Our Federal government, along with State and Local governments, regulates and taxes beverage Alcohol and Tobacco (which is 2/3 of the ATF’s name), and does so successfully, and in the process, generates significant revenue for all three levels of governments. Along with that, entrepreneurial enterprises in those two industries hire almost countless numbers of people, and generate significant revenue nationally, and globally through export.

The Libertarian think-tank Cato Institute, in their statement which decries that which they call the “nanny state,” quotes late, former POTUS Ronald Reagan in former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan’s book “The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World,” as having said, “Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.” (Penguin Press, Chapter 4, (p. 87), 2007.)

In keeping with the overall sentiment expressed in the Shafer Commission report,

50 Years Of Failure – Total Wa$te Of Time And Money

How long does it take to see a failed social experiment for what it is – a total, abysmal failure, which has taken a wrecking ball to society?

Apparently, at least 50 years.

We learned much more quickly with beverage alcohol.

---

The War On Drugs: 50 Years Later

After 50 Years Of The War On Drugs, “What Good Is It Doing For Us?”

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/17/1006495476/after-50-years-of-the-war-on-drugs-what-good-is-it-doing-for-us

When Aaron Hinton walked through the housing project in Brownsville on a recent summer afternoon, he voiced love and pride for this tight-knit, but troubled working-class neighborhood in New York City where he grew up.

He pointed to a community garden, the lush plots of vegetables and flowers tended by volunteers, and to the library where he has led after-school programs for kids.

But he also expressed deep rage and sorrow over the scars left by the nation’s 50-year-long War on Drugs. “What good is it doing for us?,” Hinton asked.

As the United States’ harsh approach to drug use and addiction hits the half-century milestone, this question is being asked by a growing number of lawmakers, public health experts and community leaders.

In many parts of the U.S., some of the most severe policies implemented during the drug war are being scaled back or scrapped altogether.

Hinton, a 37-year-old community organizer and activist, said the reckoning is long overdue. He described watching Black men like himself get caught up in drugs year after year and swept into the nation’s burgeoning prison system.

“They’re spending so much money on these prisons to keep kids locked up. They don’t even spend a fraction of that money sending them to college or some kind of school,”  said Hinton, shaking his head.

Republican President Richard Nixon explains aspects of the special message sent to the Congress, June 17, 1971, asking for an extra $155 million for a new program to start his infamous social experiment which he called the “War on Drugs.” He labeled addiction and drug misuse “a national emergency” and said the money would be used to “tighten the noose around the necks of drug peddlers and thereby loosen the noose around the necks of drug users.” In 50 years, his plan has proven to be an abysmal failure. Behind him on the LEFT is Egil Krogh, Deputy Director of the Domestic Council. At right is Dr. Jerome Jaffe, MD who Nixon recruited to lead a new drug strategy. (AP Photo/Harvey Georges)

Hinton has lived his whole life under the drug war. He said Brownsville needed help coping with cocaine, heroin and drug-related crime that took root here in the 1970s and 1980s.

His own family was scarred by addiction.

“I’ve known my mom to be a drug user my whole entire life. She chose to run the streets and left me with my great-grandmother,” Hinton said.

Four years ago, his mom overdosed and died after taking prescription painkillers, part of the opioid epidemic that has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Hinton said her death sealed his belief that tough drug war policies and aggressive police tactics would never make his family or his community safer.

The nation pivots (slowly) as evidence mounts against the drug war

During months of interviews for this project, NPR found a growing consensus across the political spectrum — including among some in law enforcement — that the drug war simply didn’t work.

“We have been involved in the failed War on Drugs for so very long,” said retired Major Neill Franklin, a retired Major with the Baltimore City Police and the Maryland State Police who led drug task forces for years.

During a press conference this week, he said,

America Invented Global Narcotraffickers

Make no mistake, I openly advocate for the wholesale legalization, taxation, and regulation of cannabis similarly as is done for beverage alcohol — though I have not always. And yet, as a licensed healthcare professional, I am under no misguided notion that there are genuine scientific considerations to be had.

Like many others, this is not a simple matter, per se — it is as complex as we human beings, with myriad matters which “Just Say ‘NO!’” has never, nor will ever, satisfy. Science and understanding is not advanced by the word “NO!”

Similarly as well, there is practically no disagreement that historic American jurisprudence on the matter not only had its genesis with deep roots in racism – which remains to this day – but has almost single-handedly created the global criminal cabal of narcotrafficking enterprises that have now become international terrorist organizations. It has now become a matter of national security, and not just for the United States. Global security is predicated upon addressing these concerns.

Jesus Malverde is a mythical figure, allegedly born as Jesús Juárez Mazo on December 24, 1870, just outside Culiacán, the state capital of Sinaloa, whom is said to be the “patron saint” of “narcotraficantes” (drug traffickers), and is known by his devotees as “el ángel de los pobres” (the angel of the poor).
According to legend, he was a lifetime resident of Sinaloa, an historically poverty-stricken area which is now recognized as the de facto headquarters location for a bloodthirsty global narcotrafficking cartel bearing the state’s name, which is infamous for their nefarious misdeeds, cold-blooded murders, and other heinous acts.
The legends, which vary widely, typically assert that Malverde was a “Robinhood” type character, who stole from the wealthy and distributed to the poor. In reality, narco-money has significantly revitalized Sinaloa, and to a large extent, reinforced ancient customs, including the veneration of folk saints as Jesus Malverde.

It is, in fact, fueling the civil sociopolitical upheaval in Central American nations such as

No Smoking, No Joking: Alabama’s Medical Marijuana Law Examined

Flowering bud (female) of the Cannabis Sativa plant, aka “marijuana”

There are 49 other states to which Alabama could turn to examine what works, and what does not, and could emulate the best of the best.

But, Alabama’s gonna’ Alabama, regardless of who, or what party’s in office.

---

Alabama patient advocates may have celebrated following “Guvnah Memaw’s” signature on the “Darren Wesley ‘Ato’ Hall Compassion Act” sponsored by Republican State Senator Dr. Tim Melson, MD (District 1).

But now, reality is about to set in.

The law, like so many others, is a fiasco. Citizens should rejoice the legislature cannot figure out how to connive and wheedle a gambling scheme to benefit themselves, or their “Big Mule” cronies.

Superficially, the “compassion act” sounds good.

That’s where it stops.

The law leaves patients high and dry when it comes to protecting them, and:

• Allows them to be fired without recourse, denied UC benefits, and denied Worker’s Comp benefits “regardless of the individual’s impairment or lack of impairment resulting from the use of medical cannabis.” {page 15, line 20, §20-2A-6(a)(10)} {page 16, line 13, §20-2A-6(a)(11)(c)}

But then, patient abandonment & neglect is Alabama’s forte.

• Allows DHR to remove children from a patient’s household, and states that the agency shall not be prohibited from “considering a parent or caretaker’s use of medical cannabis as a factor for determining the welfare of a child.” {page 16, line 19, §20-2A-6(a)(11)(d)}

• Penalizes diversion much more harshly than trafficking <500lbs of marijuana – 2 to 20 years vs 5 years + $50,000 fine, respectively. {Section 13A-12-231(1)(a)&(b)}

• Automatically suspends the driver’s license of “any person who is recommended a daily dosage of medical cannabis that exceeds 75 mg… regardless of whether he or she holds a valid medical cannabis card.” {page 99, line 9, Section 6}

• Taxes collected, over and above the board’s operating expenses, less 10%, will go to… The General Fund. {page 22, line 18, §20-2A-10(3)(c)}

No surprise there. It’s Alabama’s slush fund.

• Has an even number of voting board members (12), assuring deadlock on

Research: Most Religious Americans Support Broad Cannabis Legalization

A Pew Research Center survey conducted April 5-11, 2021 among 5109 randomly sampled U.S. adults who were all members of Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel – a group of over 10,000 adults randomly selected from throughout all 50 states who regularly participate in Pew’s surveys – found that most religiously affiliated Americans favor broad cannabis legalization.

Compared with other religiously affiliated groups, at 44%, White Evangelicals were

NYC Bird-Watcher Case NOT What It Seems

By now, I suppose that you’ve probably read at least 2, 3, or maybe even 4 articles on this matter, and perhaps heard 5, 6, or more stories on teevee and/or radio about it, as well.

And, you’ve probably also found that, almost without exception, they practically say the exact same thing.

But, when you read THIS article – and I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE your readership of it (it’s pasted herein below) – you’ll notice MANY things in this story that are DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT from 99.9% of all other stories covering the exact same subject matter.

ALL other articles on this topic are like cotton candy – colorful, appear larger than life, are sweet, fun to eat, easy to swallow… and entirely without substance.

After you eat it all, you’re immediately left wanting more. It’s NOT satisfying in any way.

Again, this article is 100% different, and is almost entirely satisfying – unlike all others.

From the outset, I’ve contended that there was, and is, MUCH MORE to that story than was being reported —and— I was also then aware of the bird-watcher’s habit of threatening dog owners, and his boastful tweets about the same in which he openly wrote/stated that he carried poisoned dog treats (in his backpack) “for such occasions.”

This story details the numerous similar incidents in which he was historically and regularly involved, and cites the individuals whom he threatened, and their reports of them.

I’d be very surprised if this woman didn’t become a multi-millionaire from this, and subsequent lawsuits, related to that most unfortunate incident in Central Park.

Woman in NYC Bird-Watcher Case Sues Former Employer Franklin Templeton over Firing
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/woman-who-called-cops-on-black-bird-watcher-sues-over-her-firing
–––––––––––––––––––––
–––––––––––––––––––––
For your benefit, here’s the article:

Woman in NYC Bird-Watcher Case Sues Franklin Templeton in Firing (1)

By Patrick Dorrian
May 26, 2021, 9:21 AM; Updated: May 26, 2021, 11:16 AM

COURT: S.D.N.Y.
TRACK DOCKET: No. 1:21-cv-04692

• JUDGE: Ronnie Abrams
• COMPANY INFO: Franklin Templeton

Franklin Templeton characterized a former employee as “racist” for calling the police on a Black birdwatcher whom she had words with while walking her dog in Central Park, publicized the incident on Twitter, and falsely claimed it conducted an investigation before firing her, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court in Manhattan.

Amy Cooper said the May 25, 2020, incident was spurred by her fear of the birdwatcher, Christian Cooper, who she says had a history of “aggressively confronting” dog owners for walking their dogs off-leash. He similarly initiated the dispute with her in the same aggressive manner while she was walking her dog alone, causing her “to reasonably fear” for the safety of her and her pet, Cooper said.

That’s why she called the police, Cooper told the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in a Tuesday complaint. Franklin Templeton would have known that if had performed the investigation it told the public it had conducted, she said.

“We believe the circumstances of the situation speak for themselves and that the Company responded appropriately,” Franklin Templeton told Bloomberg Law on Wednesday in an email. “We will defend against these baseless claims.”

The company didn’t really look into the incident before firing Cooper the following day, just shy of five years after she was hired, the suit said.

It only interviewed her in the immediate aftermath, when she was still “palpably distraught and fearful of her safety,” Cooper said. And it never spoke or tried to speak with Christian Cooper or any of the other dogwalkers he had previously accosted, she said.

That includes a Black man who issued a statement to the media May 26, 2020, stating that he too feared Christian Cooper “because of his body language and screaming” when confronting him while he was walking his dog off-leash in the park, the suit said.

Nor did Franklin Templeton

A Radicalized Supreme Court

Democratic senators say if the Supreme Court strikes a blow against Roe v. Wade by upholding a Mississippi abortion law, it will fuel an effort to add justices to the court or otherwise reform it.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority this week agreed to hear the Mississippi case, which could dramatically narrow abortion rights by allowing states to make it illegal to get an abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

“It will inevitably fuel and drive an effort to expand the Supreme Court if this activist majority betrays fundamental constitutional principles,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“It’s already driving that movement,” he added.

Senator Blumenthal said it doesn’t mean that a Congress led by Democrats would immediately be able to add justices to the court, but he suggested it would add momentum to reform efforts at a minimum.

“Chipping away at Roe v. Wade will precipitate a seismic movement to reform the Supreme Court. It may not be expanding the Supreme Court, it may be making changes to its jurisdiction, or requiring a certain numbers of votes to strike down certain past precedents,” he said.

No one knows for sure when the Supreme Court will hand down its decision on the Mississippi abortion law, but it is widely expected to hear arguments after it convenes in October. That could set up a decision next year.

Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D), another member of the Judiciary Committee, said the court’s review of the Mississippi law raises serious concerns.

“It really enlivens the concerns that we have about the extent to which right-wing billionaire money has influenced the makeup of the court and may even be pulling strings at the court,” he said.

“We’ve got a whole array of options we’re looking at in the courts committee,” Senator Whitehouse said of the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, which President Biden established by executive order in April.

Senator Whitehouse said even if

Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Green, and other House GOPers, Seek to Defund Police

Banana Republicans are 100% pure hypocrites.

---

Matt Gaetz

Marjorie Taylor Greene

Florida Republican Representative Matt Gaetz (CD-1) and a group of other House Republicans on Friday, 30 April 2021 introduced legislation to defund the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, a law enforcement and investigative arm of U.S. Postal Service.

The legislation, “H.R.2921 – To prohibit funds from being used to implement the Internet Covert Operations Program under the United States Postal Inspection Service, and for other purposes,” was in response to a March bulletin distributed by the Postal Service’s Inspection Service’s Internet Covert Operations Program (iCOP), and reported by Yahoo News earlier this month. The bulletin cited the Postal Inspection Service’s concerns about potential “significant” likely violent protests planned for March 20 based upon “online inflammatory material,” and possible threats to the integrity and security of the U.S. Mail System, in conjunction with posts on radical right-wing social media platforms Parler and Telegram.

American intelligence agencies have debriefed Congress and issued reports about the serious threat to national security posed by domestic terrorists, particularly White supremacists, neo-Nazis and other racist groups such as Proud Boys, and others, following their concerted attack upon Congress on January 6, 2021 as they were performing their Constitutionally-mandated duties by certifying election results. Those groups, and others sympathetic with them, primarily used the radical right-wing social media platforms Parler and Telegram to coordinate their efforts, and attack.

Louie Gohmert-TX 1

Paul Gosar

“iCOP analysts are

Houston, TX Hospital System To Fire Employees Who Refuse COVID-19 Vaccination

Houston Methodist Hospital, a not-for-profit 8-hospital system – 4 of which are ANCC Nursing Magnet status accredited – and academic medical center, with over 2502 beds in the Houston, Texas metro area, has publicly announced that they will fire any employee who refuses to get a COVID-19 vaccination.

The Houston Press and Houston Chronicle reported today, Thursday, 22 April 2021, that Bob Nevens, the hospital chain’s Director of Corporate Risk and Insurance, and Jennifer Bridges, a Houston Methodist Registered Nurse at the system’s Baytown facility, are on schedule to be fired soon if they don’t comply by obtaining a COVID-19 vaccine within the hospital system’s deadline of June 7, 2021.

Dr. Marc L. Boom, MD, the hospital system’s CEO, had the idea to require all employees to get vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to keep their jobs, and offered $500 incentive bonuses to any employee who demonstrated proof of vaccination. Houston Methodist was the first hospital system nationally to make COVID-19 vaccination mandatory for employees.

Houston Methodist Hospital

And to this point, a clear majority – 84% – of the hospital system’s 26,000 employees have received at least 1 COVID-19 vaccine dose as of Tuesday this week, according to Houston Methodist’s Director of Public Relations Stefanie Asin.

Houston Methodist’s Human Resources Department has stated that the hospital system will consider requests from employees who don’t want to be vaccinated for medical or for religious reasons.

However, neither Mr. Nevens nor Nurse Bridges are refusing COVID vaccination on those grounds. And neither Mr. Nevens, who is a 10-year hospital system employee, nor Nurse Bridges, who is a 7-year employee, consider themselves “anti-vaxxers,” and both have for many years received the annual influenza vaccine.

Mr. Nevens and Nurse Bridges have both said that their reluctance to receive COVID-19 vaccinations arises fromtheir concerns with the vaccines’ emergency approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, rather than the more well-known and much lengthier standard, traditional, and much more well-known approval process.

Nurse Bridges said that as a Registered Nurse, “I’ve taken every vaccine you’re ever supposed to take. We just want more

New Mexico Passes Adult Recreational Cannabis Use Law

The State of New Mexico has become the latest state to legalize cannabis for Adult Recreational Use (ARU). There are now 18 states, 1 locality (District of Columbia), and 2 protectorates (Guam, Northern Mariana Islands) that have done so, for a total of 21 governmental entities in the United States jurisdiction which have legalized ARU.

The GRAND TOTAL of people who reside in those areas is: 139,471,628.

The United States Census Bureau estimates U.S. population to be slightly above 330,200,000. That’s around 42.23% of the total estimated population. Guam is an American protectorate, and its residents, and the residents of the Northern Mariana Islands, are American citizens.

Many more states have legalized cannabis for medical use (MMJ), and/or have decriminalized possession to either a civil violation equivalent to a traffic ticket, or as a misdemeanor offense. One state – Oklahoma – has so liberalized their Medical Marijuana program that it is now viewed as a de facto legalization, which has in turn garnered the Sooner State the nickname “Tokelahoma.”

There are only 14 states in which cannabis is not legal for medical use. They are: Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Cannabis or its products in any form is 100% illegal in the territory of American Samoa, while Puerto Rico has a Medical Marijuana law, as does the American Virgin Islands.

It’s very likely only a short matter of time before cannabis is legalized at the Federal level.

The Alabama Attorney General’s Office Has IDIOTS Working There

This matter was just brought to my attention.

The figure 0.3% is 3/10ths of 1% (three tenths of one percent) – NOT “three one-thousandths” as they incorrectly wrote.

Any grade school child should be able to tell the difference.

Note the emboldened text highlighted in purple on the lower portion of the page.

And examine the dates…

NO ONE has caught that gross error since the time it was written – 2 years 4 months 20 days
or 28 months 20 days
or 124 weeks 3 days
or 871 calendar days

and updated –
1 year 7 months 26 days
or 19 months 26 days
or 86 weeks 2 days
or 604 calendar days.

If the folks working in that office are that dimwitted, or lazy – take your pick – what does that say about the rest of the state government?

Remember: Steve Marshall’s incompetency is precisely why former Governor Bentley wanted him in that office, in order to avoid prosecution.

The history of it all is utterly Machiavelian – Steve Marshall fired Matt Hart, a former Federal Prosecutor who was a tenaciously aggressive and fearsome Special Prosecutor for the State, who

Yes, Georgia’s New Republican Vote Restriction Law Makes Illegal Giving Water Or Food To Voters

Many questions have arisen, and comments have been made, about Georgia’s new voting restrictions law.

Republican state legislators who wrote, passed, and signed the bill into law (Republican Governor Brian Kemp was formerly Secretary of State when he campaigned for the Governor’s office… and as a state official, oversaw his own election… nope, no conflict of interest there, eh?) continue to claim that the “integrity” and “security” of the voting systems in Georgia should be strengthened – as if they were insecure to begin with.

They were not.

The essence of what has happened, as many have observed and stated, is that since Republicans lost in the national election for President, and in the Senate election, they’re changing the rules in order to make it easier for them to win next time.

There was NO fraud, NO irregularities, NO insecurity in the Georgia election, nor in any election in the nation. Period.

So, here for your perusal, is the word-for-word reading of the law, including a screenshot of the law as passed, and

Texas Prosecutes Black Woman Who Made An Honest Mistake

One of the tenets of law is intentionality, which is the foreknowledge of, and intent to willfully disobey, or violate, law, and often includes recklessness as an element of intent. Intent is part and parcel of motive, and in context, often accompanies an evil, or malicious motive. In law, typically, a person cannot be convicted of a crime if there is no intent. Motive, however, is different from intention, and is irrelevant in determining liability.

Sometimes it’s said that “ignorance is no excuse for the law,” but that’s a mere colloquialism which itself has no basis in law. It’s nothing but a hollow saying, for it has no support in any way. There is such as thing as “willful ignorance,” which is an intentional, and therefore deliberate, act. And, the classic Steve Martin comedy sketch in which he presents his defense to a “foul crime” as “I forgot” is funny precisely because there are crimes which are so inherently gross in their violation – rape, murder, armed robbery, arson, etc. – that no reasonable, or sane person could ever assert that they forgot it was illegal.

Negligence is similar, insofar as there is a risk which is assumed by the offending party, which has the potential to harm another person, or property. Negligence occurs when it is likely that harm will occur from the offending party’s conduct, and knowingly engages in the risk. Again, a deliberate action.

Recklessness requires determining that the offending party should have known they were taking a risk, but the difference between recklessness and negligence is not always clear. An example of recklessness would be DUI – the offending party clearly knows they were taking a risk, and continued with the conduct. Once again, a deliberateness is evident.

However, there are crimes that are not inherently, or morally wrong, and it is impossible for any one person to know all laws. Furthermore, many laws are intricately complex, which further adds to the confusing calculus. Because of that, it puts even the most circumspect and conscientious people at risk of violating laws for which many – including legislators, legal experts, jurists, attorneys, and others – are unaware of their requirements. And in that sense, the traditional protection afforded by determining culpability before conviction is dismissed.

Most folks would agree, I’m certain, that it’s probably not too uncommon for anyone to violate a law unknowingly. And, when such a thing occurs, and someone is arrested for the same – for unknowingly violating a law – when the time for prosecution comes around (if it does), because often, such cases are rapidly dismissed by the state (government) because intentionality is missing.

The state has a responsibility to its citizens to make them aware of the law, so that they can abide by it.

But, in Texas, there is presently a case which will undoubtedly be heard by that state’s Supreme Court (though it must first be heard by the TX Court of Criminal Appeals) which raises that very question:
Can a citizen be held to account for unintentionally violating a law, when the state had a responsibility – which they admittedly failed to do – to notify the citizen of their circumstances before the law, and liability to it?

Crystal Mason

A Fort Worth, TX woman – Crystal Mason – who happens to be Black, was on supervised release for a Federal felony conviction related to tax fraud, when she cast a provisional ballot in 2016. She had been released from prison the previous year. She and her former husband had owned a tax preparation business, and was accused of inflating tax deductions on some returns which they prepared for clients, and eventually plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the government, and was sentenced to 5yrs in prison, and 3yrs supervised release. She was placed on probation for 2 of 3 other felonies, and received deferred adjudication for the 3rd.

Neither state, nor Federal authorities notified her that she was, by Texas state law, ineligible to vote until the entire term of her punishment was fully completed.

Officials who were overseeing her supervised release testified at her trial that they never informed her that she was ineligible to vote under Texas state law.

She was urged by

Matt Gaetz: Another Drowning Rat From Trump’s Sunken Ship

He’s a “Florida Man” to be certain, and his Twitter bio states as much. He’s the moral equivalent of Jeffrey Epstein. His “NAY” vote was the EXCLUSIVE – the SOLITARY – the ONLY vote against a human sex trafficking bill. And his flimsy “excuse” or rationale why, is as weak as water. He’ll be out soon as just another worthless, hypocritical, flash-in-the-pan piece of GOP garbage.

---

Matt Gaetz, On The Ropes From Juvenile Sex Trafficking Investigation, Finds Few Friends In The GOP

by Juliegrace Brufke & Mike Lillis
03/31/21 05:33 PM EDT

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/545850-gaetz-on-the-ropes-finds-few-friends-in-gop

In four years on Capitol Hill, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) has experienced a meteoric rise to national prominence — one fueled by a close alliance with former President Trump, a penchant for political theatrics and a no-apologies brand of conservatism that’s made him a darling of the right-wing cable outlets.

Matt Gaetz now – with a slicked-back pompadour, and snazzy suit.

Yet this week, facing a federal investigation into allegations of a sexual relationship with an underage girl, Gaetz is finding himself in an unusual spot: On the ropes and virtually alone.

Few of Gaetz’s GOP colleagues are coming to the defense of the third-term Floridian following a New York Times report that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is investigating allegations of sexual misconduct with — and interstate trafficking of — a minor roughly two years ago. And a number of Republicans, while warning against jumping to premature conclusions about Gaetz’s conduct, also suggested they wouldn’t miss him if he were gone.

“I don’t know anything about this situation other than to say he has certainly made enemies and painted a bull’s-eye on his back,” said one Republican lawmaker, who requested anonymity to speak freely on a sensitive topic. “This appears to be a self-inflicted wound.”

Gaetz has vehemently denied that he had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old-girl — the central allegation of the Justice Department probe, which was launched under the Trump administration. Gaetz contends that he and his family have been targeted by a former DOJ official in an extortion scheme seeking millions of dollars to have the allegations vanish.

In a series of tweets, statements and media interviews Tuesday evening, he maintained that

Alabama GOP Politicians Meddle In Healthcare To Deny Treatment

Should government exercise control over its citizens to the extent that:
a.) Certain types of private health care is illegal;
b.) Certain people are denied care?

Should your neighbors (aka “the government”) have the right to tell you, and/or your family, what you can, or cannot be treated for by a licensed healthcare professional?

Suppose someone said, “Well… I don’t think you need to be treated for

Research Study Finds COVID-19 Numbers Vastly Underestimated

This is some of the first proven and confirmed evidence that what we have been told by the experts is 100% accurate and true.

“Typhoid Mary” Mallon (1869-1938), was an impoverished, illiterate Irish emigrant to the United States who worked primarily as a cook, and who became infamous for spreading typhoid fever, which at the time was an incurable, easily-spread, often deadly disease, for which no vaccination existed.

People who DO NOT KNOW THEY ARE INFECTED ARE SPREADING THE DISEASE BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE SYMPTOMS.

It is a REPEAT of the classic example first shown by “Typhoid Mary” Mallon (1869-1938), an Irish emigrant to the United States who worked as a cook (one of the highest paying jobs at the time), and was actively infected with typhoid fever, yet NEVER – NOT EVEN ONCE – showed any signs of infection.

Tragically, however, as was common in the era in which she lived, she had low education and was practically illiterate, and her refusal to heed the advice of experts, and her insistence upon working in kitchens, resulted in the deaths of many people whom she thereby infected with typhoid fever because of her deliberately wanton disregard of advice, and disobedience to the order of law. She, however, claimed that she was being persecuted for being Irish and poor.

Her case was the first, and a prime example of the dangers of ignoring sound expert medical and scientific advice. As well, her case demonstrated the differences in attitudes toward public health between now, and then, because she filed lawsuits against the governmental authorities that detained her, and forbade her from either working, or being in public, and quarantined her. At the time, there was no vaccine against typhoid.

And throughout the remainder of her life, and up to the time she died, she never – not even once – ever showed signs of typhoid fever infection. And she did not die of typhoid fever. She died of

Idiots Abound

Idiots abound.

They can be found everywhere. And lately, they’ve been popping up as radicalized right-wing nut jobs.

Remember a dude named “Cliven Bundy”?

He’s the asshole from Nevada who owed the United States government tons of money in back-owed grazing fees and in 2014 instigated an armed standoff with Federal agents and other Federal Law Enforcement Authorities in Bunkerville, Nevada where he resided, who sought his detention over his passive-aggressive response to the matter… along with his failure to pay the Bureau of Land Management the contractually agreed-upon fees for the privilege of allowing his cattle to graze upon BLM land.

Cliven Bundy

He had been illegally grazing his cattle herd on public land since 1993.

Later, he was arrested by the FBI at the Portland International Airport while he was on his way to the Malheur fracas. He had become a patsy for the right-wing extremist movement because of Fox News incessant telecasting of the matters surrounding him, and his movements.

Yeah… THAT’s the Bundy we’re talking about. Apparently, he’s no relation to the mass murderer Ted Bundy, or of the fictional teevee character “Al Bundy” of “Married… with Children.” Though, he could be.

Turned out, he’s at least two bricks shy of a load, as well, and made this incredibly racist, bigoted remark at one of is daily “press conferences” whih was picked up by the New York Times.

Mr. Bundy recollected once driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas several years ago and at the “press conference” said:

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro… and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do. And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Bundy has a stable of kids, 14 in fact, all of whom are adults. The eldest is a son named Ammon. He’s an asshole just like his father. The apple doesn’t fall too far from the tree, you know.

Ammon Bundy

Seems that Ammon has gotten himself into more trouble.

Naturally, he’s a

Two Simple Questions

Simple questions deserve simple answers.

So, here are two sets of questions about two matters.

Each matter has two options.

Choose either a.), or b.) for each of the two matters.

1.) Pertaining to Voting:

a.) Should voting be made easy and uncomplicated as possible?

–or–

b.) Should voting be made difficult and complicated?

–AND–

Should there be a law… v2.0

More questions!

In our last installment – “Should there be a law… ” – we asked 14 questions.

This time, we’re asking a few more.

Actually, 3.4285 times more.

And, that’d be 48.

We’re asking 48 questions this time.

So… what do you think?

Should there be a law (or laws) that addresses these matters?

---

1.) Should cash transactions involving United States real estate be subject to anti-money laundering laws?

2.) Should Congress examine the money laundering and terrorist financing risks in the real estate market, including the role of anonymous parties, and review legislation to address any vulnerabilities?

3.) Should Congress examine the methods by which corruption flourishes and the means to detect and deter the financial misconduct that fuels that driver of global instability?

4.) Should Congress monitor government efforts to enforce United States anti-corruption laws and regulations?

5.) Should United States elections be free of interference from foreign governments, including any contribution, donation, expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication by a corporation, limited liability corporation, or partnership, and should they file with the Federal Election Commission, under penalty of perjury, a statement that a foreign national did not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision making process relating to such activity?

6.) Should foreign nationals be forbidden from participating in any way in the decisionmaking processes of Corporate PACs and Super PACs?

7.) Shall the Federal Election Commission conduct an audit after each Federal election cycle to determine the incidence of illicit foreign money in such Federal election cycle?

8.) In order to prevent money laundering, and improper spending, should corporations, labor organizations, and certain other entities be required to report campaign-related disbursements aggregating more than $10,000 in an election reporting cycle, and not later than 24 hours after each disclosure date file a report of the same with the Federal Election Commission?

9.) Should that report identify each such legal entity and each such beneficial owner who will use that other entity to exercise control over the entity, and the name and address of each person who made such payment?

10.) Should commercial transactions in the ordinary course of any trade or business conducted by the covered organization be exempted from such reports?

11.) Should the integrity of American democracy and national security be enhanced by improving disclosure requirements for online political advertisements in order to uphold the Supreme Court’s well-established standard that the electorate bears the right to be fully informed?

12.) Should regulations on political advertisements provide sufficient transparency to uphold the public’s right to be fully informed about political advertisements made online?

13.) Should transparency of funding for political advertisements be essential to enforce other campaign finance laws, including the prohibition on campaign spending by foreign nationals?

14.) Should digital or online political advertising clearly state who paid for it?

15.) In order to prevent fraud, deceit, and money-laundering, should platforms that sell political advertising be required to maintain records of transactions?

16.) When political advertising is paid for with a credit card by a citizen of the United States who is living outside the country, should they be required to be identified as a United States citizen to the seller by providing the United States address they use for voter registration purposes?

17.) Should broadcast stations, providers of cable and satellite television, and online platforms be required to make reasonable efforts to ensure that political communications made available by such station, provider, or platform are not purchased by a foreign national, directly or indirectly?

18.) Should pre-recorded telephone and video calls made for political purposes announce the political nature of the call at the beginning of the call?

19.) Should shareholders of corporations have the right to know that their money is being spent for political campaigns, and the details of them?

20.) Should Presidential Inaugural Committees be prohibited from soliciting and accepting money from corporations and foreign interests, i.e. should the obtain money or funds from United States citizens only?

21.) Should Inaugural Committees shall file with a report with the Federal Election Commission disclosing any donation by an individual to the committee in an amount of $1,000 or more not later than 24 hours after the receipt of such donation?

22.) In order to protect the integrity of democracy and the electoral process, and to ensure political equality for all, should

Should there be a law…

Let’s talk a few minutes about what should, and what should not be.

For example…

---

1.) • Should there be, and should Federal Judges abide by, “a code of conduct, which applies to each justice and judge of the United States”?

2.) • Should there be a DEDICATED ENFORCEMENT UNIT “within the counterespionage section of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice for the enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938”?

3.) • Should it be illegal “for any person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, to corruptly hinder, interfere with, or prevent another person from registering to vote or to corruptly hinder, interfere with, or prevent another person from aiding another person in registering to vote”?

4.) • Should “a State motor vehicle authority require each individual applying for a motor vehicle driver’s license in the State to indicate whether the individual resides in another State or resided in another State prior to applying for the license, and, if so, to identify the State involved; and to indicate whether the individual intends for the State to serve as the individual’s residence for purposes of registering to vote in elections for Federal office”?

5.) • Should it be illegal for a political party or another partisan organization to send mail to addresses of registered voters whom they have identified as likely to be unfriendly to their candidate, and then use all the undeliverable returned mail to make what is called a caging list to challenge voters when they show up at polls to vote?

6.) • Should the right of an individual who is a citizen of the United States to vote

Georgia Crackers & Banana Republicans Waffle Again

So they got their clocks unexpectedly cleaned in the November General Election, and now, they don’t like it.

And what do they do?

Change the rules, because they don’t like them any more.

That’s right!

Where, or in what sport does that ever occur – that the losing team seeks rule changes after a loss, because they lost?

None.

Why?

Because respectable teams understand that their losses are exclusively because of poor playing skills, including faulty strategy, bad tactics, and nothing more. And in politics, it boils down to the questions how well have you treated the people? What have you done FOR them to help, and benefit them?

Georgia elections official Gabriel Sterling, pictured in November 2020, pushed back on false claims about voter fraud. But he supports some Republican initiatives to change voting laws, saying it could help elections administrators.

It’s only been 16 years since Republicans last changed the voting rules in Georgia, and… well, read this article by Georgia Public Broadcasting about the matter -AND- the article by NPR in which Gabriel Sterling, Georgia’s Chief Operating Officer for the Secretary of State’s office, is interviewed.

“In 2005, the year that Republicans gained control of state government after decades of Democratic domination, HB 244 was a 59-page bill that contained nearly 70 revisions of state election code, including two major changes: adding a photo ID requirement for in-person voting and allowing Georgians to vote by mail without an excuse, and without an ID.

“At the time, Democrats and voting rights groups adamantly opposed both measures. Lawmakers compared the photo ID requirement to Jim Crow laws and warned that Georgia would have some of the country’s most restrictive voting procedures. The addition of no-excuse absentee voting did not reassure Democrats, either. In an eerie inversion of today’s positions, they argued that it would introduce a system ripe for abuse.

““By removing restrictions related to mailed absentee ballots, HB 244 opens a greater opportunity for fraud,” former Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed, then a Democratic state senator, wrote in an op-ed. “Skeptics might point out that absentee voters have historically voted for Republicans in higher numbers.”

“Among the lawmakers who voted for the bill were Gov. Brian Kemp (then a state senator), House Speaker David Ralston, Speaker Pro Tem Jan Jones, Majority Leader Jon Burns, Senate Rules chairman Jeff Mullis, Georgia Republican Party Chairman David Shafer (then a state senator) and Reps. Terry England, Sharon Cooper, Ed Setzler, Lynn Smith and Barry Fleming, author of the current House omnibus which is one of the bills that would add an ID requirement to absentee ballots and applications.

“Democrats who opposed the 2005 bill included current Sen. Minority Leader Gloria Butler, Sens. Ed Harbison, Horacena Tate, Kasim Reed and Reps. Debbie Buckner, Roger Bruce, MARTOC chair Mary Margaret Oliver, and Calvin Smyre, currently the longest-serving member of the House, among others.

“Democrats said at the time that requiring photo ID to vote in person would disenfranchise lower-income, older and non-white voters, while pressing the idea that expanded no-excuse absentee voting without an ID requirement was an invitation to fraud.

““This bill would actually open the door wide to opportunities for voter fraud because it allows voting by mail where you present no identification whatsoever,” Democratic Secretary of State Cathy Cox said in an Atlanta Journal-Constitution article. “So those parts of the bill really don’t jive in my mind in terms of any real effort to crack down on what someone perceives to be voting fraud.”

“Fast forward to 2021: There has been no evidence of widespread fraud with absentee-by-mail voting and, until the 2018 governor’s race, the relative few voters that used absentee ballots skewed older, whiter and more Republican.

“A record number of Georgians participated in the November general election thanks in part to expanded voting rules and procedures pushed by Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. Demographic changes and a surge in automatic voter registrations have shifted statewide politics to razor-thin margins, and Democrats took advantage of no-excuse absentee voting to flip the state’s electoral votes and both U.S. Senate seats.

“In the elections debate following the 2020 presidential race, the arguments might sound familiar. Former President Donald Trump and other top Republicans have questioned the security of the more than 1.3 million absentee ballots cast by Georgians in the November election, claimed that the state’s method of matching signatures to verify absentee ballots opened the door to fraud, and proposed sweeping changes to fix the system.

“Raffensperger told GPB News that adding an ID requirement to absentee ballots seemed like a logical solution given the complaints from both sides of the aisle.

““A year ago we were being sued by the Democrats,” Raffensperger said in the interview. “They did not like signature match, they said it was unconstitutional and now the Republicans are saying the same thing. Well, you guys are both singing off the same song sheet now, so maybe now we need a verifiable photo ID component with the absentee ballot process.”

“Gov. Brian Kemp supported no-excuse absentee voting in 2005, and by the end of his run as secretary of state in 2018, touted Georgia as a national leader in election law because of the state’s absentee rules, automatic voter registration and at least 16 days of in-person early voting — a distinction that his successor Raffensperger touts at the bottom of every press release.

“But other Republican legislators have changed their stances on the state’s election laws over the past decade-and-a-half.”
–––MORE–––

Georgia is recognized as a national leader in elections. It was the first state in the country to implement the trifecta of automatic voter registration, at least 16 days of early voting (which has been called the “gold standard”), and no-excuse absentee voting. Georgia continues to set records for voter turnout and election participation, seeing the largest increase in average turnout of any other state in the 2018 midterm election and record turnout in 2020, with over 1.3 million absentee by mail voters and over 3.6 million in-person voters utilizing Georgia’s new, secure, paper ballot voting system.

See: https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/state_election_board_invites_dominion_voting_systems_to_discuss_2020_statewide_voting_system_implementation

See: Georgia Senate Republicans Pass Bill To End No-Excuse Absentee Voting
by Stephen Fowler
March 8, 2021; 6:07 PM ET
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/08/974985725/georgia-senate-republicans-pass-bill-to-end-no-excuse-absentee-voting

Georgia elections official Gabriel Sterling gained national attention a few months ago by pushing back against former President Donald Trump’s false claims of voter fraud. 

But Republican state lawmakers in Georgia, inspired by those falsehoods, have introduced a handful of bills that would increase barriers to voting for some people.

---

Georgia Elections Official Gabriel Sterling Responds To Bills That Make Voting Harder

March 9, 2021; 5:04 AM ET

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/09/974948010/georgia-elections-official-gabriel-sterling-responds-to-bills-that-make-voting-h

Georgia is among 43 states that are considering similar legislation, according to the Brennan Center.

Sterling, a Republican who is now the chief operating officer for the Georgia secretary of state’s office, says some of the measures backed by Republican Georgia state lawmakers go too far. 

But he argues that many of the proposals could end up helping elections administrators.

There was no widespread fraud in Georgia, he says, but there were small numbers of double voting, out-of-state voting and felons voting. Rules involving photo IDs could make things easier for elections workers, he says.

“In a state like Georgia, where the election is getting closer and closer, every vote’s going to count,” Sterling says. “And anything we can do to make the system more secure and provide confidence to everybody, that’s the kind of things that we need to be focusing on.”

Sterling talked with NPR’s Scott Detrow on Morning Edition about the proposals under consideration and why he opposes the Democrat-backed voting rights bill that passed the U.S. House last week.

Here are excerpts of the interview:

One proposal would eliminate no-excuse absentee voting and add voter ID requirements for absentee voting. This is being characterized by many voting rights groups as nothing more than a response to the fact that Democrats won Georgia Senate races and the presidential race last year and that Democrats used absentee voting more than Republicans. Are they wrong?

––MORE––

Feel Like Overturning A Few Elections? Here’s Where It’s Now Happening.

Imagine for a minute, if you can, what it would be like for your elected Representatives and Senators, at either the State, or Federal level to literally “undo,” or attempt to “undo,” an election that was in every way conducted properly (meaning ethically, honestly, and openly, in accordance with all applicable laws), simply because they didn’t “like” the way The People voted – the results or outcome of the election wasn’t to their suiting, or liking.

There was such an attempt at the State level by the former President – the most notably infamous one being an hour-long phone call to the Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, of which there is a publicly available audio recording of the entire call (transcript of entire call here), in which the former President said numerous times “I just want to find 11,780 votes” (Joe Biden won Georgia by a margin of 11,779 votes) – trying to enlist Secretary Raffensberger’s assistance in his effort to “find” votes which would dishonestly, unjustly, inequitably, and illegally “throw” the election to himself.

The Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney and the Georgia State Attorney General’s Office are both investigating that matter in order to determine what, if any, election-related laws were broken in the course of that phone call, which may include “the solicitation of election fraud, the making of false statements to state and local governmental bodies, conspiracy, racketeering, violation of oath of office and any involvement in violence or threats related to the election’s administration.”

The audio taped recording of the Trump-Raffensperger phone call is quite likely much worse than any of the numerous covert so-called “smoking gun” audio tapes of Richard Nixon’s presidency. Nixon’s numerous recorded conversations with staff, and others, including of his phone calls, which detailed his involvement in the numerous crimes of the Watergate burglary/break-in, also revealed him to be paranoid.

And cockamamie conspiracy theories aside – especially and particularly the one of “The BIG Lie,” as told by the former President – NO ONE made any overt, or clandestine effort or attempt to “steal” any election from anyone. PERIOD.

But the point of the matter is this:
There are
GENUINELY
now-ongoing efforts
to literally “undo”
the results of honest elections
in the United States.

No, this is NOT a joke… and, NO this is NOT a conspiracy theory.

It is a documented fact.

What does it say for democracy and the democratic process if the expressed will of the people is somehow, overridden, undone, or cancelled?

Yeah… it’s that “cancel culture” thing.

And it is Republicans who are doing it.

Remember the thing about “psychological projection” – a morbid behavior in which people deny or defend in themselves the very characteristic or behavior they abjure and detest in others? It’s a type of “blame shifting,” and a refusal to accept either reality or responsibility.

Read for yourself the following 2 news items to learn what GOP-Banana Republican types are doing in some states.

---

Marijuana Foes Deploy New ‘Playbook’ To Thwart State Legalization, Upend Election Results

By Jeff Smith
Published February 18, 2021
https://mjbizdaily.com/marijuana-legalization-foes-aim-to-overturn-election-results/

Efforts to thwart voter-approved marijuana legalization in Mississippi, Montana and South Dakota are evidence of a “playbook” that reflects new legal strategies and greater willingness among local government officials to nullify election results, experts say.

Those efforts – led by anti-marijuana politicians and other opponents – threaten to stop or delay the implementation of new medical and recreational cannabis markets that would generate hundreds of millions of dollars in sales a year.

In Idaho, some state lawmakers are

Impeachment v2.0 Day 3: The Devil Made Me Do It

“Trump told us to do it.”

Trump’s MAGA supporters rioter-insurrectionists who were assembled at the White House Ellipse Park January 6, 2021 quickly became violent exclusively because they believed that Trump was asking them to do so – that they were doing his bidding.

“He said, ‘Be there.’ So I went and I answered the call of my president.”

House Impeachment Managers cited social media posts, recorded video, and court documents which reflected as much.

“I Answered the Call of My President.”

Impeachment Managers also extensively documented that several months BEFORE the election, Trump was laying the groundwork for convincing his cult of followers that the November presidential election was fixed, and that his victory was stolen because of

Kansas City Chiefs Win In Super Bowl LV Shutout

See how insane that headline is?

The fact of the matter is, that 43-year old quarterback Tom Brady led the Tampa Bay Buccaneers to a Super Bowl 55 victory over the Kansas City Chiefs 31-9 in Tampa, Florida’s Raymond James Stadium.

And like the 2020 General Election, it too was seen worldwide. There was no “Deflate-Gate,” there were no biased referees, there were no ineligible players on field, there were no players on either side using performance enhancing drugs, and there were no changes to the goal lines, or hash marks.

It was a 100% fair game.

Just like the 2020 November General Election.

Maybe in the interim, before the next season starts, for the benefit of future games, and in order to restore confidence in the game, the Kansas City Chiefs can get some rules changed to help them win next time.

Remember: Denial is not a river in Egypt.

---

States’ Republicans Weigh New Laws Making It Harder To Vote

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/07/964598941/after-record-2020-turnout-state-republicans-weigh-making-it-harder-to-vote

After an election that saw record voter turnout, with many of those voters casting their ballots early and by mail, some Republican state lawmakers are proposing a wave of new voting laws that would effectively make it more difficult to vote in future elections.

The proposals come in the aftermath of the unprecedented onslaught of disinformation about the conduct of the 2020 election by former President Donald Trump and some of his allies in the Republican Party.

“Some folks bring these proposals forward and say, ‘Well, we just need to address confidence in our election systems,’ when it’s some of those very same people, or at least their allies and enablers, [who] have denigrated our election system by either telling lies or at least leveraging or relying on other people’s lies to justify some of these policies,” said Steve Simon, Minnesota’s Democratic Secretary of State, at a news conference organized last week by the Voter Protection Program.

A recent analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice found that 106 bills have been filed by Republican lawmakers in 28 states that would restrict voting (the group also found 406 bills in 35 states that would expand voting access). Many of the bills would limit voting by mail, add new voter ID requirements, make it more difficult to register voters and give states greater leeway to purge voter files if voters don’t consistently cast ballots in every election.

“Some of them are for show; some of them have to be taken more seriously,” said Trey Grayson, a former Republican Secretary of State in Kentucky, at the same news conference.

Some of the most sweeping proposals come in Arizona and Georgia, where

“Just say ‘NO’” has never worked. Here’s what does.

Freedom.

What a concept, eh?

The very idea that you have a brain, and therefore, can think independently to decide FOR YOURSELF what you want, or ought, to do, continues to frustrate others who think that they know better than you do what personal decisions you should make for yourself!

It’s an adult decision.

Why, it’s nothing short of… LIBERTY!

ENOUGH! of the “Nanny State”!

Take your religion home, and GET IT OUT OF GOVERNMENT!!

Practice it PRIVATELY, with your family, friends, and other like-minded individuals. STOP forcing your PRIVATE religious ethics and morals upon others by writing public laws that mirror your private interpretation of your religion.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptists that cited the establishment clause of our nation’s Constitution, which as he wrote, erected a “a wall of separation between Church & State,” or as we now say, between government, and religion.

Religious nuts have been trying to tear it down, ever since.

And they’re STILL TRYING TODAY!

---

‘Drug Use For Grown-Ups’ Serves As An Argument For Personal Choice

If you grew up scared of what illicit drugs could do to you — hearing about all the horrors that could befall you from everyone from Nancy Reagan to your parents — the threat may have felt very real: If you actually took a puff off that joint that the kid who slept through math class offered you, it could lead to failed relationships, chronic unemployment, self-destruction.

The shame would outlive you.

But drugs are a more complicated matter than they’ve been made out to be, according to Dr. Carl L. Hart. In his new book Drug Use for Grown-Ups, the Columbia University professor of psychology and psychiatry zealously argues that drug use should be a matter of personal choice — and that, in more cases than not, personal choice can lead to positive outcomes. His positions may seem quite extreme to some but they also, by and large, make a lot of sense — and are backed up by ample research.

A major reason drugs have such a negative public image, Hart asserts, is racism. He notes that after the Civil War, some Chinese railroad construction workers smoked opium and, sometimes, established “opium dens” to do so. Over time, more and more white Americans visited these dens to smoke opium too. That in turn led to broader, bigoted social fear among whites, like, for example, the sentiments captured in H.H. Kane’s 1882 report:

“The practice spread widely…Many women and young girls, as also young men of respectable family, were being induced to visit the dens, where they were ruined morally and otherwise.”

Then there was the post-Civil War use of cocaine among some Black day laborers, something Hart writes was at first encouraged by white employers because of the productivity it could promote. Soon enough, however, articles appeared widely that tried to make a connection between African American cocaine use and criminality. One particularly egregious article in The New York Times in 1914, cited by Hart, even reported that some police in the South “who appreciate the vitality of the cocaine-crazed” were switching to higher-caliber weaponry capable of “greater shocking power for the express purpose of combating ‘the fiend’.”

But horrifying history aside, one of the book’s most eye-opening aspects is its challenge of the long-running association between drugs and addiction. First the basics: Addiction, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM – 5), must be a source of distress for a drug user. It must also interfere with a person’s job, parenting or personal relationships. Other indications of addiction may be

Anti-Censorship Laws DO NOT Apply To Private Enterprise

For all the hoopla being raised by Banana Republicans parading as GOP types, including the Loser in Chief, about the decision Twitter made to cut him (and others) off from their private non-governmental service, and who are calling it “censorship,” the United States Supreme Court has some news for you:

Censorship laws DO NOT apply to the Private Sector.

Period.

If you don’t like it, take it up with those who decided it: KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

The case was Argued February 25, 2019 — Decided June 17, 2019, and named Manhattan Community Access Corp. et al. v. Halleck et al.

In a Certiorari to The United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit, No. 17–1702, the court ruled that “The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits only governmental, not private, abridgment of speech,” and held that MNN (private nonprofit corporation, petitioner Manhattan Neighborhood Network (MNN)) was not a state actor subject to the First Amendment.

The court wrote further, that, “A private entity may qualify as a state actor when, as relevant here, the entity exercises “powers traditionally exclusively re-served to the State.” The precedent for that decision was rendered in the case Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U. S. 345, 352.

“The Court has stressed that “very few” functions fall into that category. Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U. S. 149, 158.”

In the decision, the court wrote in part that,

“Under the state-action doctrine as it has been articulated and applied by our precedents, we conclude that operation of public access channels on a cable system is not a traditional, exclusive public function. Moreover, a private entity such as MNN who opens its property for speech by others is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor. In operating the public access channels, MNN is a private actor, not a state actor, and MNN therefore is not subject to First Amendment constraints on its editorial discretion. We reverse in relevant part the judgment of the Second Circuit, and we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

The background facts of the case which formed the basis of the suit are fairly straight-forward, and reads as follows:

“DeeDee Halleck and Jesus Papoleto Melendez produced public access programming in Manhattan. They made a film about MNN’s alleged neglect of the East Harlem community. Halleck submitted the film to MNN for airing on MNN’s public access channels, and MNN later televised the film. Afterwards, MNN fielded multiple complaints about the film’s content. In response, MNN temporarily suspended Halleck from using the public access channels. Halleck and Melendez soon became embroiled in another dispute with MNN staff. In the wake of that dispute, MNN ultimately suspended Halleck and Melendez from all MNN services and facilities. Halleck and Melendez then sued MNN, among other parties, in Federal District Court. The two producers claimed that MNN violated their First Amendment free-speech rights when MNN restricted their access to the public access channels because of the content of their film.

“MNN moved to dismiss the producers’ First Amendment claim on the ground that MNN is not a state actor and therefore is not subject to First Amendment restrictions on its editorial discretion. The District Court agreed with MNN and dismissed the producers’ First Amendment claim.

“The Second Circuit reversed in relevant part. 882 F. 3d 300, 308 (2018). In the majority opinion authored by Judge Newman and joined by Judge Lohier, the court stated that the public access channels in Manhattan are a public forum for purposes of the First Amendment. Reasoning that “public forums are usually operated by governments,” the court concluded that MNN is a state actor subject to First Amendment constraints. Id., at 306–307. Judge Lohier added a concurring opinion, explaining that MNN also qualifies as a state actor for the independent reason that “New York City delegated to MNN the traditionally public function of administering and regulating speech in the public forum of Manhattan’s public access channels.” Id., at 309.

“Judge Jacobs dissented in relevant part, opining that MNN is not a state actor. He reasoned that a private entity’s operation of an open forum for speakers does not render the host entity a state actor. Judge Jacobs further stated that the operation of public access channels is not a traditional, exclusive public function.

“We granted certiorari to resolve disagreement among the Courts of Appeals on the question whether private operators of public access cable channels are state actors subject to the First Amendment. 586 U. S. __ (2018). Compare 882 F. 3d 300 (case below), with Wilcher v. Akron, 498 F. 3d 516 (CA6 2007); and Alliance for Community Media v. FCC, 56 F. 3d 105 (CADC 1995).”

Certiorari [pronounced “sir-sha-rar-ee”] is a writ [a written order issued by a court] seeking review of a lower court decision by a higher court.

The court wrote also that,

We’ll End Up Thanking Trump For What He Did

I suppose, in a somewhat oblique manner, we can thank Trump for making America “great again.”

And, I do mean that in all sincerity.

I never voted for, nor supported his candidacy, nor his Presidency, nor practically anything done during his maladministration.

So, how could we The People possibly stoop to such a level as to actually “thank” him for what he did?

Perhaps in much the same way that we could thank

Texas Republican Makes An Easy-To-Understand Argument Against Trump’s False Election Claims

U.S. Capitol Police in plain clothes stand behind barricaded doors to the House floor and draw pistols upon Trump 2020 mobsters who violently invaded the U.S. Capitol Building, Wednesday, January 6, 2021 during the Constitutionally-ordered tallying of the states’ certified Electoral College votes.

The shocking events that unfolded yesterday in our nation’s capitol – rioting thugs, marauders, and hooligans who violently overthrew and violently invaded our Nation’s Capitol building complex thereby participating in insurrection after being egged on by their losing candidate, the soon-to-be-former President Trump – are unprecedented. Not since the War of 1812 when British soldiers breached and burned our nation’s capitol has the capitol been invaded. The sad part is, that it was brought about EXCLUSIVELY by a Lying, Lawless and Treasonous American President – Trump – whom the GOP has coddled and cultivated.

Again, yesterday’s domestic terroristic events were brought about exclusively by President Trump, who has consistently falsely asserted that he “won” the 2020 General Election, despite numerous

Trump Recorded Asking GA SOS to Commit Election Crimes

By now, unless you’ve been hiding under a rock, or just checked in from an overnight trip to Mars, you’ve heard the news that the soon-to-be-former President suborned conspiracy and fraud from the Georgia Secretary Of State Brad Raffensperger.

The Washington Post, in conjunction with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, first published the story, which was quickly picked up by other news reporting outlets, including the Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, New York Times, NPR, and many others, including international news outlets.

• AJC – Trump demands Georgia elections official overturn his defeat in hourlong call
January 3, 2021 at 9:40:50 PM CST
https://www.ajc.com/politics/politics-blog/trump-demands-georgia-elections-official-overturn-his-defeat-in-hourlong-call/6MRGK445JNAGHBL2HXLZ3FIVZU/

• WaPo – ‘I just want to find 11,780 votes’: In extraordinary hour-long call, Trump pressures Georgia secretary of state to recalculate the vote in his favor.
January 3, 2021 at 8:59 p.m. CST
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/d45acb92-4dc4-11eb-bda4-615aaefd0555_story.html

Full transcript and audio – https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html

• NPR – “This Was A Scam”: In Recorded Call, Trump Pushed Official To Overturn Georgia Vote
January 3, 2021 2:51 PM ET
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/03/953012128/this-was-a-scam-in-recorded-call-trump-pushed-official-to-overturn-georgia-vote

• NYT – Trump, in Taped Call, Pressured Georgia Official to ‘Find’ Votes to Overturn Election
January 3, 2021 Updated 10:06 p.m. ET
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/03/us/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-georgia.html

• Reuters – In recorded call, Trump pressures Georgia official to ‘find’ votes to overturn election
January 3, 2021 1:40 PM
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump/in-recorded-call-trump-pressures-georgia-official-to-find-votes-to-overturn-election-idUSKBN2980MG

• Associated Press – Trump, on tape, presses Ga. official to ‘find’ him votes
January 3, 2021 at 9:17:20 PM CST
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-georgia-elections-a7b4aa4d8ce3bf52301ddbe620c6bff6

• Voice Of America – Trump, in Phone Call, Pleaded with Georgia Officials to Overturn His Election Loss
January 03, 2021 07:10 PM
https://www.voanews.com/2020-usa-votes/trump-phone-call-pleaded-georgia-officials-overturn-his-election-loss

• DW – Donald Trump heard on tape telling state official to ‘find’ him votes
03.01.2021
https://www.dw.com/en/donald-trump-heard-on-tape-telling-state-official-to-find-him-votes/a-56121196

• France 24 – Trump presses top Georgia election official to ‘find’ votes for him in recorded phone call
03/01/2021 – 22:53
https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20210103-trump-presses-top-georgia-election-official-to-find-votes-for-him-in-recorded-phone-call

• Guardian – “I just want 11,780 votes”: Trump pressed Georgia to overturn Biden victory
Sunday 3 January 2021 14.10 EST
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/03/trump-georgia-raffensperger-call-biden-washington-post

• Business Insider – Trump pleaded with Georgia’s secretary of state to ‘find’ additional votes to win the state in an hour-long phone call, according to new audio
January 3, 2021 at 2:01:12 PM CST
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-georgia-votes-presidential-election-2021-01

The Loser in Chief and POS45 LEFT, and Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger RIGHT

Throughout the entire call, The Lying Sack of Shit in Chief, aka the Loser in Chief and Criminal in Chief, was consistently inconsistent in asserting his “the Earth is flat” debunked fraudulent election claims.

And even though his figures throughout the hour-long recorded phone call were inconsistent, there was one thing he consistently stated, in many ways, that he wanted : For the GA SOS to invalidate enough votes from the already-certified election results which would cause the election to be thrown to him.

If that’s not corrupt – to blatantly ask (numerous times) for a criminal act to be performed (to suborn fraud and conspiracy, “suborn” being defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed. 2004, as “to induce (a person) to commit an unlawful or wrongful act, esp. in a secret or underhanded manner”) – I don’t know what is.

And, as it turns out, it is illegal, at the State -and- Federal levels.

Republicans should rejoice that laws exist which regulate behavior involving elections and voting, and not just at the ballot box, either.

Georgia Code
Title 21 – Elections
Chapter 2 – Elections and Primaries Generally
Article 15 – Miscellaneous Offenses

Section § 21-2-604. Criminal solicitation to commit election fraud; penalties

(a) (1) A person commits the offense of criminal solicitation to commit election fraud in the first degree when, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony under this article, he or she solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or otherwise attempts to cause the other person to engage in such conduct.

(2) A person commits the offense of criminal solicitation to commit election fraud in the second degree when, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a misdemeanor under this article, he or she solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or otherwise attempts to cause the other person to engage in such conduct.

(b) (1) A person convicted of the offense of criminal solicitation to commit election fraud in the first degree shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than three years.

(2) A person convicted of the offense of criminal solicitation to commit election fraud in the second degree shall be punished as for a misdemeanor.

(c) It is no defense to a prosecution for criminal solicitation to commit election fraud that the person solicited could not be guilty of the crime solicited.

(d) The provisions of subsections (a) through (c) of this Code section are cumulative and shall not supersede any other penal law of this state.

Code 1981, § 21-2-604, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 683, § 21/SB 82.

-AND-

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 – CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 4 – CRIMINAL ATTEMPT, CONSPIRACY, AND SOLICITATION
§ 16-4-7 – Criminal solicitation
O.C.G.A. 16-4-7 (2010)
16-4-7. Criminal solicitation

(a) A person commits the offense of criminal solicitation when, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony, he solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or otherwise attempts to cause the other person to engage in such conduct.

(b) A person convicted of the offense of criminal solicitation to commit a felony shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than three years. A person convicted of the offense of criminal solicitation to commit a crime punishable by death or by life imprisonment shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years.

(c) It is no defense to a prosecution for criminal solicitation that the person solicited could not be guilty of the crime solicited.

(d) The provisions of subsections (a) through (c) of this Code section are cumulative and shall not supersede any other penal law of this state.

-AND-

52 USC 20511: Criminal penalties Text contains those laws in effect on January 3, 2021
From Title 52-VOTING AND ELECTIONS Subtitle II-Voting Assistance and Election Administration CHAPTER 205-NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION

§20511. Criminal penalties

A person, including an election official, who in any election for Federal office-

(1) knowingly and willfully intimidates, threatens, or coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any person for-

(A) registering to vote, or voting, or attempting to register or vote;

(B) urging or aiding any person to register to vote, to vote, or to attempt to register or vote; or

(C) exercising any right under this chapter; or

(2) knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds, or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by-

(A) the procurement or submission of voter registration applications that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held; or

(B) the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held,

shall be fined in accordance with title 18 (which fines shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury, miscellaneous receipts (pursuant to section 3302 of title 31), notwithstanding any other law), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

( Pub. L. 103–31, §12, May 20, 1993, 107 Stat. 88 .)

-AND-

18 USC 241: Conspiracy against rights
Text contains those laws in effect on January 3, 2021
From Title 18-CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I-CRIMES
CHAPTER 13-CIVIL RIGHTS

§241. Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured-

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696 ; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, §103(a), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75 ; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §7018(a), (b)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396 ; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, §60006(a), title XXXII, §§320103(a), 320201(a), title XXXIII, §330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970 , 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§604(b)(14)(A), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)

-AND-

2 USC 10307: Prohibited acts
Text contains those laws in effect on January 3, 2021
From Title 52-VOTING AND ELECTIONS Subtitle I-Voting Rights
CHAPTER 103-ENFORCEMENT OF VOTING RIGHTS

§10307. Prohibited acts
(a) Failure or refusal to permit casting or tabulation of vote

No person acting under color of law shall fail or refuse to permit any person to vote who is entitled to vote under any provision of chapters 103 to 107 of this title or is otherwise qualified to vote, or willfully fail or refuse to tabulate, count, and report such person’s vote.

(b) Intimidation, threats, or coercion

No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for exercising any powers or duties under section 10302(a), 10305, 10306, or 10308(e) of this title or section 1973d or 1973g of title 42.1

(c) False information in registering or voting; penalties

Whoever knowingly or willfully gives false information as to his name, address or period of residence in the voting district for the purpose of establishing his eligibility to register or vote, or conspires with another individual for the purpose of encouraging his false registration to vote or illegal voting, or pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both: Provided, however, That this provision shall be applicable only to general, special, or primary elections held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the United States Senate, Member of the United States House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands, or Resident Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

(d) Falsification or concealment of material facts or giving of false statements in matters within jurisdiction of examiners or hearing officers; penalties

Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of an examiner or hearing officer knowingly and willfully falsifies or conceals a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(e) Voting more than once

(1) Whoever votes more than once in an election referred to in paragraph (2) shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(2) The prohibition of this subsection applies with respect to any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the United States Senate, Member of the United States House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands, or Resident Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

(3) As used in this subsection, the term “votes more than once” does not include the casting of an additional ballot if all prior ballots of that voter were invalidated, nor does it include the voting in two jurisdictions under section 10502 of this title, to the extent two ballots are not cast for an election to the same candidacy or office.

(Pub. L. 89–110, title I, §11, Aug. 6, 1965, 79 Stat. 443 ; renumbered title I, Pub. L. 91–285, §2, June 22, 1970, 84 Stat. 314 ; amended Pub. L. 91–405, title II, §204(e), Sept. 22, 1970, 84 Stat. 853 ; Pub. L. 94–73, title IV, §§404, 409, Aug. 6, 1975, 89 Stat. 404 , 405.)

And yet, as of this writing, there has been only ONE reporting outlet with the gumption to tell it like it is.

POLITICO, which headlined their story “Trump’s pressure on Georgia election officials raises legal questions: In audio from a Saturday phone call, the president is heard urging the officials to reverse his loss,” they wrote in part that, “President Donald Trump’s effort to pressure Georgia officials to “find” enough votes to overturn President-elect Joe Biden’s victory could run afoul of federal and state criminal statutes, according to legal experts and lawmakers, who expressed alarm at Trump’s effort to subvert democracy with less than three weeks left in his term.”

They wrote further that,

“Georgia state law includes two provisions that criminalize “solicitation of election fraud” and “conspiracy to commit election fraud.” Trump’s detractors also pointed to a federal statute that criminalizes “the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent.”

“Anthony Michael Kreis, a Georgia State University law professor, said: “The Georgia code says that anybody who solicits, requests or commands or otherwise attempts to encourage somebody to commit election fraud is guilty of solicitation of election fraud. ‘Soliciting or requesting’ is the key language. The president asked, in no uncertain terms, the secretary of state to invent votes, to create votes that were not there. Not only did he ask for that in terms of just overturning the specific margin that Joe Biden won by, but then said we needed one additional vote to secure victory in Georgia.”

““There’s just no way that if you read the code and the way the code is structured, and then you look at what the president of the United states requested, that he has not violated this law — the spirit of it for sure,” Kreis continued.

“Kreis added that the phone call could not be divorced from recent episodes in which Trump amplified a false conspiracy theory about Raffensperger’s family and his vows to end the political careers of people like the secretary of state and Kemp for upholding Biden’s victory in the election. He also said Trump’s request for a specific number of votes — just enough to prevail by one — undercut the notion that he was simply asking for the truth.

““If I’m the president of the United States and my pardon power is not — does not extend to state acts, I don’t think that in the last few days of my term that I would want to be engaging in activities that even remotely subject me to the possibility of state criminal prosecution,” Kreis said. “That’s what makes this even more bewildering to me, is because if he had sensible advisers they would just keep him off the phone.”“

Regarding the claims of inaccurate, or otherwise invalid absentee, and mail-in ballots, which require signatures, the Liar in Chief claimed that there were “thousands and thousands” of ballots illegally cast which did not properly have signatures authenticated properly.

Brad Raffensperger, Georgia Secretary of State:

“President Trump, we’ve had several lawsuits, and we’ve had to respond in court to the lawsuits and the contentions. Um, we don’t agree that you have won. And we don’t — I didn’t agree about the 200,000 number that you’d mentioned. And I can go through that point by point.

“What we have done, is we gave our state Senate about one and a half hours of our time, going through the election issue by issue, and then on the State House, the Government Affairs Committee, we gave them about two and a half hours of our time, going back point by point on all the issues of contention. And then just a few days ago we met with our U.S. Congressmen, Republican Congressmen, and we gave them about two hours of our time talking about this past election. Going back, primarily what you’ve talked about here focused in on primarily, I believe, is the absentee ballot process. I don’t believe that you’re really questioning the Dominion machines. Because we did a hand re-tally, a 100% re-tally of all the ballots and compared them to what the machines said and came up with virtually the same result. Then we did the recount, and we got virtually the same result. So I guess we can probably take that off the table.

“Mr. President, the challenge that you have is, the data you have is wrong. We talked to the congressmen and they were surprised.

“But they — I guess there was a person Mr. Braynard who came to these meetings and presented data and he said that there was dead people, I believe it was upward of 5,000. The actual number were two. Two. Two people that were dead that voted. So that’s wrong. There were two.”

 

The GBI (GA Bureau of Investigation) examined signatures (which change over time) on ballots and found no problems.

The entire state’s ballots was recounted at least three times – and once manually – and no problems were found which would have affected the outcome of the race.

The Associated Press reported on Saturday, November 21, 2020 that,

Trump Administration Making Roadway For Illegal Aliens In Desert

Dynamite raises clouds of dust above Guadalupe Canyon, near the New Mexico-Arizona border. The Diamond A Ranch, which is located next to the construction site, has sued the government, claiming the blasting has sent “car-sized boulders tumbling down onto ranch property.”
Image by John Kurc

The Trump administration is making it easier for illegal aliens to come into the United States.

The route along the U.S./Mexico border in Arizona and New Mexico has some of the most ruggedly inhospitable, and treacherous terrain in the nation. It is only barely accessible by foot, or mule, and is range for numerous wild animals, such as the jaguar, and ocelot – large cats – and a longtime wildlife migration corridor.

Construction crews using tons of explosives in a technique called “pioneering,” are leveling mountains and cliffs to make roadways for heavy equipment to access the area.

The private landowners complaint and lawsuit states that crews must first “make a level road, with the necessary grade and ability to support the weight of construction vehicles, and ultimately the wall itself.”

In a combined Federal lawsuit filed by private landowners near the Arizona-New Mexico border known as the malpais, or badlands, the owners of

A COVID-19 vaccine was ready January 13, 2020 – long before the pandemic began.

Margaret Keenan, a 90-year old Irish-English grandmother, was the world’s first to receive a coronavirus vaccination.

While the world is crowing about Margaret Keenan, a 90-year old Irish-British grandmother of four, being the first in the world to receive a coronavirus vaccine yesterday, on Tuesday, December 8, 2020, around 0630 local time (GMT) – she received the version collaboratively developed by the American company Pfizer and German company BioNTech – the American biotechnology company Moderna, in Massachusetts, had long had a vaccine developed.

Moderna had already designed a COVID-19 vaccine – mRNA-1273 – by January 13.

It was only recently, on  November 16, that they reported a 94.5% efficacy rate.

Moderna developed their vaccine only two days after the genetic sequence had been publicized internationally by Chinese researcher Professor Dr. Yong-Zhen Zhangm Ph.D. His humanitarian act of scientific generosity resulted in him being temporarily forced out of his lab.

Professor Dr. Zhang believes science holds the key to predicting viral outbreaks with similar accuracy as with which we now anticipate typhoons and tornadoes. He said, “If we don’t learn lessons from this disease, humankind will suffer another.”

Moderna’s vaccine design only took one weekend to develop at their Massachusetts facilities.

In fact, Moderna had completed development of their COVID-19 vaccine mRNA-1273 before the Chinese government had acknowledged the disease was transmitted by human-to-human means, and more than a week before the first confirmed coronavirus case in the United States – January 21.

And by the time the first American coronavirus death was reported a month later, on February 29, Moderna’s mRNA-1273 coronavirus vaccine had already been manufactured and shipped to the National Institutes of Health to begin its Phase I clinical trial.

All of that was long before the President had made any announcement about his “Operation Warp Speed,” the public-private partnership to develop a coronavirus vaccine, and yet even 2 months before Bloomberg News reported on April 29 that such a plan was in the works.

Regarding the announcement of the first known coronavirus-related death, it should be noted that, following autopsy results in mid-to-late April, the Santa Clara County California Medical Examiner’s office reported on April 21 that the first known COVID-19 related death occurred in United States on February 6. The first death was previously thought to have occurred in Kirkland, Washington on February 29. The New York Times reported that, “The virus has an incubation period of 14 days and people who die of it are often sick for at least three weeks, so the individual who died on February 6 could have been infected — and transmitting the infection to others — in early January, experts said.”

In essence, what that means, is that for the entire time the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic has infected well over 15 million – and counting – in the United States, we had the tools we needed to prevent it, as well as the death of over 250,000 Americans… and counting.

So, that begs the question: If Moderna had a vaccine ready in January, why has it taken until now – December, very nearly a year later – to have a vaccine readily available?

Moderna, a publicly-traded company (stock symbol: MRNA) with operations and headquarters in Massachusetts, is a biotechnology firm focused exclusively upon development of vaccines using mRNA – messenger RNA. Their vaccine is the first in the history of vaccine development to use mRNA.

Drs. Emmanuelle Charpentier-L & Jennifer A Doudna-R, are 2020 Nobel laureates, and creators of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing tool

Vaccines made using mRNA are fundamentally different from any other vaccine ever made. The history of vaccination began on May 14, 1796, when a country doctor from Gloucestershire, England, Dr. Edward Jenner, MD, first took some fluid from a cowpox blister and scratched it into the skin of James Phipps, an 8-year-old boy.

Dr. Jenner developed his vaccine while he was still a medical student, after noticing that milkmaids who had contracted a disease called cowpox, which caused blistering on a cow’s udders, did not catch smallpox. However, unlike smallpox, which caused severe skin eruptions and dangerous fevers in humans which often led to death, cowpox led to few ill symptoms in those women.

Science has come a very long way since then. While traditionally, vaccines were first made using active, live, then attenuated, then inactivated, or dead cells from the organism or virus. Throughout the history, the process of making vaccines used chickens’ eggs for the protein they contained, and were literally injected into the shell of an egg. Some are still made that way.

Most recently, two women have forever changed health, medicine, and many other life sciences, which gives hope to millions, and holds untold promises. Dr. Emmanuelle Charpentier, Ph.D., Director of Infection Biology at the Max Planck Institute, and Professor Dr. Jennifer A. Doudna, MD, Ph.D., Professor of Chemistry, Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Li Ka Shing Chancellor’s Professor in Biomedical and Health at the University of California Berkeley, in October 2020 won the Nobel prize in chemistry for the development of the revolutionary CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing tool which has been described as enabling “rewriting the code of life.”

Drs. Emmanuelle Charpentier-L & Jennifer Doudna-R, are the 2020 Nobel laureates in chemistry, and creators of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing tool.

Cas9 is a type of modified protein and acts like a pair of scissors that can cut parts of DNA strands. CRISPR stands for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, in essence, a repeating mirrored DNA sequence in genomes that repeats. The technology has worked in most every organism that it has been used on, including plants, animals, microbes and humans.

By using the gene editing platform CRISPR, which could be thought of as cut-and-paste, the idea is to remove parts of a genome using RNA as a means of guiding to a particular place within a genome, genes can then be modified to eliminate mutated, or harmful parts.

The ability to use such sophisticated gene splicing technology holds enormous promise.

As it relates to the coronavirus, the gene splicing technology uses a very small portion of messenger RNA (mRNA) from the coronavirus genome, and produces a gene that codes for the spike protein – the characteristic protruding part seen on images.

The coronavirus has 4 proteins, the spike is 1, and is the part that enables the virus to invade cells. By using only that part of the virus, it causes the body to produce antibodies that neutralize that spike protein. RNA vaccines cause the body to make only that spike protein. Then, encased in a fat molecule mRNA then enters cells, and sends a coded message to the body to make the protein, which in turn causes an immune response.

RNA vaccines have many advantages, which, unlike other vaccines produced other ways, they stimulate the production of killer T-cells which stop the coronavirus from replicating. And because mRNA vaccines are produced in test tubes or tanks, rather than being cultivated in cells (such as in eggs), they should be relatively quick and easy to produce.

The use of mRNA to treat disease, even genetic-based disease, such as cystic fibrosis, is brand new, but holds exciting possibilities. Moderna is perhaps one of the most promising mRNA therapeutics research firms in the world. And under the leadership and direction of Chief Science Officer Dr. Melissa Moore, Ph.D., Moderna has developed, and publicized, the scientific blueprint for a unique form of cancer therapy using mRNA which when used used, ensures its mRNA is made only inside cancer cells. Ryan Cross reported in Chemical and Engineering News on September 3, 2018 in “Can mRNA disrupt the drug industry? Messenger RNA technology promises to turn our bodies into medicine-making factories. But first Moderna—and a long list of old and new competitors—needs to overcome some major scientific challenges.” and wrote in part that, “Moderna scientist Ruchi Jain designed an mRNA that causes cancer cells to self-destruct but is recognized by, and destroyed in, healthy cells.”

Dr. Moore has a distinguished scientific pedigree, and

House Banana Republicans Cower From Weed, Senate Slave Driver “Moscow” Mitch McConnell Goes Up In Smoke

Despite numerous polls from various polling organizations showing an increasing desire of a majority of Americans to legalize cannabis, House Banana Republicans have run away from The People’s will and desire to continue to exact increasingly costly tolls upon taxpayers burdened by incarcerating its consumers.

Pew Research Centers latest findings on Americans’ attitudes toward cannabis show that “an overwhelming majority of U.S. adults (91%) say marijuana should be legal either for medical and recreational use (59%) or that it should be legal just for medical use (32%),” and that “fewer than one-in-ten (8%) prefer to keep marijuana illegal in all circumstances.”

Gallup Polling most recently found similar figures.

“The 68% of U.S. adults who currently back the measure is not statistically different from last year’s 66%; however, it is nominally Gallup’s highest reading, exceeding the 64% to 66% range seen from 2017 to 2019,” they wrote on November 9, 2020.

Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have legalized the plant for recreational purposes, while 36 states – plus the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands – have legalized the drug for medical purposes.

Cannabis, also commonly known as “marijuana,” remains illegal under U.S. federal law.
H.R.3884 Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act of 2019 or the MORE Act of 2019 (“To decriminalize and deschedule cannabis, to provide for reinvestment in certain persons adversely impacted by the War on Drugs, to provide for expungement of certain cannabis offenses, and for other purposes.”) was introduced by Jerrold Nadler (D, NY-10), had 120 cosponsors, passed through 8 committees: House – Judiciary; Energy and Commerce; Agriculture; Education and Labor; Ways and Means; Small Business; Natural Resources; Oversight and Reform.

Roll Call Number 235 on Roll Call 235, Bill Number: H. R. 3884, was held Friday, December 04, 2020, 01:08 PM EST, in the 116th Congress, 2nd Session.
The votes were:

Yea: 228

Nay: 164

Present: 0

Not Voting: 38

Status: Passed

Roll Call 235, Bill Number: H. R. 3884

Party	Yeas	Nays	Present	Not Voting
Democratic	222	6	0	4
Republican	5	158	0	34
Independent	1	0	0	0
Total	228	164	0	38

This bill decriminalizes marijuana.

Specifically, it removes marijuana from the list of scheduled substances under the Controlled Substances Act and eliminates criminal penalties for an individual who manufactures, distributes, or possesses marijuana.

The bill also makes other changes, including the following:

• • replaces statutory references to marijuana and marihuana with cannabis,
  • requires the Bureau of Labor Statistics to regularly publish demographic data on cannabis business owners and employees,
  • establishes a trust fund to support various programs and services for individuals and businesses in communities impacted by the war on drugs,
  • imposes a 5% tax on cannabis products and requires revenues to be deposited into the trust fund,
  • makes Small Business Administration loans and services available to entities that are cannabis-related legitimate businesses or service providers,
  • prohibits the denial of federal public benefits to a person on the basis of certain cannabis-related conduct or convictions,
  • prohibits the denial of benefits and protections under immigration laws on the basis of a cannabis-related event (e.g., conduct or a conviction),
  • establishes a process to expunge convictions and conduct sentencing review hearings related to federal cannabis offenses, and
  • directs the Government Accountability Office to study the societal impact of cannabis legalization.

---

WashingtonPost.com

House Votes To Decriminalize Marijuana As GOP Resists National Shift On Pot

by Mike DeBonis
December 4, 2020 at 2:34 p.m. EST

The measure is not expected to pass into law, and, due to political skittishness, it was only voted on after the November election and more than a year after it emerged from committee. But the House took a stand at a moment of increasing momentum, with voters last month opting to liberalize marijuana laws in five states — including three that President Trump won handily.

Friday’s vote, however, was largely along party lines, with

More Religious Sex Abuse Cases Emerge. This time, it’s Mormons.

The Federal government under this administration has recently re-activated the Death Penalty, and has argued also for adding other methods of execution to the mix, which is now only comprised of lethal injection, including firing squad. Hell… why can’t they just give ’em some fentanyl?

I have no pity, and no mercy for such individuals as referenced in the story below. I have none for any members of a faith organization who abuse their children. NONE WHATSOEVER.

And though I oppose the Death Penalty on pecuniary principles exclusively – it’s simply far too costly to execute (bad pun… I know) the law – we could, perhaps, make exceptions for cases like this.

Once a jury finds them guilty, or they plead guilty, march their sorry asses to some place and give ’em the fentanyl.

---

azcentral.com

Lawsuit: LDS Church officials, teacher knew of abuse but kept silent

 by Mary Jo Pitzl, The Arizona Republic

30 November 2020

---

A lawsuit filed Monday charges that two Mormon bishops and a teacher failed to report a Bisbee, Arizona father’s repeated sexual and physical abuse of three of his children, despite a state law that makes reporting such offenses mandatory.It argues that the “clergy-penitent privilege” in the law, which keeps confessions confidential, does not apply to such cases. The teacher, a former border-patrol agent as well as the children’s Sunday school teacher, had a clear duty under the law in both of her roles to report the abuses to police, the suit alleges.

“Each of the Defendants had personal observations of the abuse, and also knew of the abuse outside of any confidential communication,” the complaint, filed in Cochise County Superior Court, alleges. The father’s abusive practices were discussed by church officials in routine meetings, and led to his excommunication in 2015 after church officials learned of his abuse of his daughter, then age 5.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of three of the six children of Paul and Leizza Adams, details Paul Adams’ repeated sexual abuse of his daughters over a seven-year period, including the rape of his infant daughter. Paul Adams was indicted on 11 counts of child sexual abuse in 2017 and was awaiting trial when he hanged himself in his prison cell later that year.

Leizza Adams, the mother, was convicted for child abuse in 2018 and was released from Perryville state prison in early October, state records show.

The children have since been adopted by various families and have different last names than their parents.

The suit names the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as well as the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church.

In a statement Monday, an attorney for the church, Bill Maledon, wrote:

How To Be Selfish During The COVID Pandemic

Wear a mask.

Yes, it’s just that simple.

None of this “I ain’t gonna’ wear a mask and you can’t make me, ‘cuz this is ‘Murka and we have FREEDOM!” kind of malarkey.

No, that simply won’t do.

Look out for A-number-one – yourself.

It’s like saying, wear gloves when you go outside, because it’s -30º below zero Fahrenheit. Protect yourself. Gloves only protect the person wearing them.

You see, even though we do have liberties – as good ol’ Justice Samuel Alito – a Bush II-appointed Supreme Court Judge who has been on the court since a 58–42 vote of Senate approval on January 31, 2006 – we also have limits. But Justice Alito doesn’t think so, and, has said as much.

Most recently, Justice Alito addressed the Federalist Society’s 2020 Annual National Lawyers Convention – which, despite its name, opposes a strong federal government – and since their 1982 inception, have been bit-by-bit-piece-by-piece tearing down and destroying the Federal government under guise of promoting personal liberties and freedom.

It was the Supreme Jurists who gave We the People the nefariously infamous and disastrous rulings in:
• Citizens United v Federal Election Commission – essentially ruling that money is free speech;
• McCutchen v Federal Election Commission – essentially allowing unlimited money to be contributed to candidates/politicians, and;
• Shelby County, Alabama v Holder – essentially gutting the Voting Rights act by removing sections 4(b) and 5, which were its “heart and lungs,” whereupon the decision, many states enacted restrictive voting laws.

There are others, of course, but those three are perhaps the most notorious during the oversight of Chief Justice John Roberts.

And that was all in the name of “originalism” and “textualism,” the preferred interpretive modality of The Federalist Society.

So, it should come as no surprise that Alito – a longtime member of the Federalist Society, who said “I have been a member for many years,” and by his own admission has attended every annual meeting for the past 14 years – would sacrifice the greater good upon the altar of “originalism” to the god of individual liberty.

Where in our nation is the sense of shared sacrifice for the greater, common good? That some obviously think that they simply MUST have “freedom” to do whatever they want, when they want, where they want, without regard for anyone else is anathema and contrary to the very idea of a “united” states – e pluribus unum – though many, one. And of course, now, we’re paying for it. For if you’re gonna’ dance, you gotta’ pay the piper. And we’re dancing like mad. But the greatest problem is, eventually, there’s nobody to dance with, and the piper gets sick and dies.

But hey… “You danced like hell, didn’t you!?!,” read no headstone ever.

Of course, the members would recite a quote often misattributed to Benjamin Franklin, though historical researchers tell us that the phrase was

Appointed Georgia Senator Kelly Loeffler Violated Federal Campaign Finance Law & Senate Ethics Rules On National Television

Today, Wednesday, 18 November 2020, Georgia’s Appointed Senator, multimillionairess Kelly Loeffler flagrantly violated Federal Campaign Finance laws, and Senate ethics rules by requesting/seeking/soliciting campaign contributions/donations for herself while on Senate property.

Senate Rules PROHIBIT any kind of political or candidate fundraising on U.S. Government/Congress property.

“Well, look… we know that hundreds of millions of dark, liberal money is pouring into our state. That’s why it’s so important that everyone across the country get involved. They can visit Kelly for Senate dot com, to chip in five, or ten bucks, and get involved, volunteer…”

– Appointed Georgia Senator Kelly Loeffler on Fox News program “America’s Newsroom,” Wednesday, 18 October 2020

The ethics rules established by the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics are explicitly clear:

Senate resources may only be used for official purposes.

No official resources may be used to conduct campaign activities.

In addition to this general prohibition, there are several criminal statutes that impose additional restrictions on campaign activities by Senate Members and staff:

No Campaign Activity in a Federal Building

Senate Members and staff may not receive or solicit campaign contributions in any federal building.

It’s also contrary to Federal law to do so, and 18 U.S.C § 607 states:

Utah Female Church Member Raped, Church Forces Her To Listen To Her Rape Recording

If you thought it couldn’t get any more weird, think again.

There are actually TWO “issues” here:

1.) What the church did to her, and;
2.) How the news reporting media is handling it.

Let’s take the 2nd one first.

Nowadays, news reporting agencies do not name the victim in cases of news reports of sexual assaults. Not identifying the victim is a good, right, proper, and just response to the problems that often occurred as a consequential by-product of naming the victims in news stories. Naming the victim served no genuine need and had no purpose as it related to reporting the story, and so in response, for the greatest part, most news reporting agencies have declined to publish the victim’s name. The obvious exception is for the stories in which a victim names a well-known/high-profile individual as the assailant/perpetrator.

That I’ve been able to find so far, there are very few news stories about the matter, and none of them name the victim.

The Scott M. Matheson Courthouse, 450 S State St, Salt Lake City, UT 84111, is the location for the Utah Supreme Court.

While normally, that isn’t a problem, per se, in this case, however, the female victim has filed suit against the church and four elders, and her case has come before the Utah State Supreme Court.

Fundamentally, what that means, is that she is named in the case as the plaintiff.

So the news reporting agencies which wrote about the story fundamentally erred by not reporting the most basic and important fact as it exists, which indeed, forms the very basis of the story – that an important, and problematic question has come before the Utah State Supreme Court and revolves around a religious practice.

The primary extant stories on the matter are by Deseret News in Utah, and the Daily Beast. The Daily Mail, The Independent, The Salt Lake Tribune, Patheos, KSL Broadcasting, and Crime Online have also published stories about the matter.

The Deseret News “is the longest-running newspaper in Utah and the state’s oldest continuously operating business.” Their story – “Utah High Court Weighs Case Of Woman Who Says Church Made Her Listen To Audio Of Her Rape” Lower courts say First Amendment prevents juries from considering case, by Annie Knox @anniebknox November 9, 2020, 6:56pm MST – may be found here:
https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/11/9/21557200/utah-supreme-court-case-woman-says-church-made-her-listen-to-audio-of-her-rape-jehovahs-witnesses

The Daily Beast is a publicly-traded independent news organization focusing upon “original reporting and sharp opinion in the arena of politics, pop-culture and power.” Their story – “Will a Church Get Away With Making a Teen Listen to Recording of Her Rape?” The Jehovah’s Witnesses of Roy, Utah, say their extreme interrogation of a teenage rape victim is protected religious practice., by Emily Shugerman, Gender Reporter, published November 14, 2020 7:15PM ET – may be found here:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/will-a-jehovahs-witnesses-church-get-away-with-making-a-teen-listen-to-recording-of-her-rape

The case is: Williams v. Kingdom Hall #20190422-SC

• The case filing may be found here:
https://law.justia.com/cases/utah/court-of-appeals-published/2019/20170783-ca.html

• Amicus briefs have been filed by Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection and may be found at:
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/our-work/defending-vulnerable-communities-sanctuary-cities-daca-and-more/williams-v-kingdom-hall/

• Appellate briefs may be found at the Utah State Court System website:
https://www.utcourts.gov/utc/appellate-briefs/2020/03/04/20190422-williams-v-kingdom-hall/

The oral argument before the Utah Supreme Court may be viewed online:

Now, let’s examine the first point of the matter – what the church did to her.

In order to more fully understand the question before the court, we need to know

2020 Recount: America Needs Uniformity In Voting Laws

Here is yet another PERFECT and PRIME EXAMPLE why America needs a National Uniform Voting Standards law.

In the story below, read for yourselves the inconsistencies in the various states on the single topic of election voting recounts. And those are just the handful of states in which the race is “too close to call,” per se, even though some have already been “called” by the Associated Press – though their call is NOT OFFICIAL. Their call is, however, widely respected because of its veracity and consistency. And to be widely respected for those reasons is good.

Point being, is that in the 7 states mentioned below, there are 7 DIFFERENT laws.

Here’s a friendly reminder:
We have 50 states.

A National Uniform Voting Standards Law would eliminate the variances and differences in the 50 states with regard to matters touching upon voting.

Here’s an example of something that would be a good compromise:
I think that it’s a good practice to be able to have requests for recounts by the interested parties, i.e., the candidates, rather than being court-ordered. In states where recounts may be requested by either candidate (the requestor), and in which the state pays, that could be modified to be a shared expense, borne in equal parts by the requestor(s) and the state, and perhaps even, in the case of a Federal election, in an equal third part by the U.S. Government. But again, these are things that merit, warrant and deserve significant further discussion.

There is LITERALLY NO SENSE in having 50 DIFFERENT sets of laws governing something common to us all as citizens – voting. If our nation had a National Uniform Voting Standards law, it would help establish unity in our nation, by creating uniformity, and it would similarly streamline many states’ operations, as well as significantly reducing questionable matters, and increase efficiency.

---

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2020/11/07/election-recount-rules-state-margins-biden-trump-georgia-arizona-florida-georgia-nevada-pennsylvania/6190424002/

usatoday.com

Georgia is heading for a recount over close Trump-Biden race. How does that work? How long will it take?

By Karina Zaiets, and Janet Loehrke, USA TODAY
Updated 8:24 a.m. CST Nov. 9, 2020

---

On Friday, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, said the state would have a recount because of the slim vote margin. The margin is currently  0.2% with 99% of votes counted. The state had about 4,169 votes left to count, according to Gabriel Sterling, Georgia’s voting system implementation manager. A [full statewide] recount could take until the end of the month, he noted.

Sterling said counties will hand-count a deck of ballots as a test, which will then be sent through high-speed scanners located at the central county elections office. If the tallies match and the election workers determine the scanner is working accurately, every single ballot will then be rescanned. According to AP’s research, there have been at least 31 statewide recounts since 2000. And of those, only three changed the outcome of the election. The initial margins in those races were all under 300 votes.

Rules for recounting

The laws governing recounts  vary by state and a handful of states do not offer a recount process at all. Here are the rules in key states:

• Arizona

An automatic recount is triggered in Arizona if

Why America Needs A National Uniform Voting Standards Law

How many voting-related laws are there in our allegedly “united” United States?

You’d likely be shocked to find out.

Maybe, maybe not.

And frankly, I don’t know how many voting related laws there are in our nation, and I’ve neither read, nor heard of any compendium on the subject, nor have I ever heard anyone directly or indirectly address the topic.

But, laws are finite – there are only a fixed amount at any given time – so it’s entirely possible to make a reasoned determination of that number. So let’s work it this way:

There are 3141 counties and county equivalents in the 50 United States.

If each county or county equivalent had only 1 law pertaining to voting related matters, that’d be 3141 laws.

If each state had only one law pertaining to any voting-related matter, there would be at least 50 laws.

And on the local level, Governing magazine wrote on May 31, 2019 that “nationally, there were a total of 38,779 general-purpose governments in the United States in 2017, along with another 51,296 special districts.” (Governing magazine also has a “heat map” of U.S. Local Governments from data provided by the 2017 Census of Governments, U.S. Census Bureau. Check it out. You might be amazed at what you find.)

So, if the 90,095 total general-purpose governments and special districts, 3141 counties/county equivalents and 50 states each had only 1 voting-related law, that’d be a GRAND TOTAL of 93,286 laws.

But I assure you, there are MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY MORE than just one voting-related law in each of those areas.

So, purely for illustration purposes, let’s just hypothetically say there are at LEAST 100 voting-related laws in each of the 50 United States. Doing the math, that’s 50 x 100 = 5000. Again, that’s at a minimum.

But, what if there are 200 voting-related laws in each of the 50 United States?

That’d be 10,000 voting-related laws. And that’s only at the state level.

Perhaps already you’re beginning to “get the picture,” to understand the size, scope, nature, and extent of the problem.

And to be utterly certain, and without question, the problem is the variety and number of voting-related laws, many of which are contradictory among them.

There’s LITERALLY NO justifiable, commonsensical, rational reason to have so many DIFFERENT – even blatantly contradictory – laws on just one subject over which the Federal government has ultimate authority.

Some people cry, whine, moan, groan and complain about

NPR F***s Up

Today, A.C. Barrett was administered the Constitutional oath as a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court by SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas.

She must still be administered the oath of office.

It’s only her SECOND job as a judge.

And she hasn’t even been a judge a total of 3 years yet!

Not even!!

Can you say “GREENHORN”? “Wet behind the ears”?

Recall that she came from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals – her first job as a jurist, which Trump also gave her. No doubt, he’ll expect something in return.

Yesterday, the Senate confirmed her nomination along a party line vote, 52R-48D.

It only took 31 days from nomination to confirmation for the Republican Senate Majority Leader “Moscow Mitch” McConnell of Kentucky to ramrod her through the process – a record time. She must like being

Mississippi Voters To Decide On Medical Marijuana

If you have family and friends whom reside in Mississippi, the following will be of particular interest to you.

If not, it will still be of significant interest. We’ll explain why momentarily.

First, some background.

This year, Mississippians will have the opportunity to vote on whether, or not, they want to avail themselves, their loved ones, and friends, of the opportunity to use cannabis to treat the symptoms of their diseases.

The bill which would bring Medical Marijuana to Mississippi is called Initiative 65. The bill is fully written, and is not a mere hollow proposal. Establishing a complete infrastructure, Initiative 65 thoroughly lays out the plans by and through which cannabis would become available to medically qualifying Mississippians, including the regulatory agency and mechanism, the taxation structure, prescriptive authority, distributive network, farming and production facilities, product safety testing mandates, and more.

Mississippi, like some other states, has a public initiative process by and through which citizens have the ability to facilitate legislative action outside of their legislature. It is a direct type of democratic involvement, which for them is ensconced in their State Constitution. The Mississippi Secretary of State’s website writes explicitly that, “The Mississippi initiative law affords voters an avenue for addressing important constitutional issues which the State Legislature does not.”

The site further references the qualifying conditions that must be met in order for any prospective measure to be placed on the ballot – and win – by stating that,

“for an initiative measure to be placed on the ballot, a minimum of 106,190 certified signatures must be gathered with at least 21,238 certified signatures from each of the five congressional districts as they existed in the year 2000. Signatures must be certified by county circuit clerks. A completed petition is filed with the Secretary of State’s Office, along with a $500 filing fee. Not only must an initiative receive a majority of the total votes cast for that particular initiative, it must also receive more than 40% of the total votes cast in that election.”

Suffice it to say, the state law establishes a very high standard which prospective initiative measures must meet in order for them to be placed on the ballot, and then to pass. Whereas in most other states, a simple majority is often all that’s required for any candidate or measure to win, or to pass, in Mississippi, that state’s Initiative Law requires that IN ADDITION TO meeting all other qualifying conditions, it must be voted upon by AT LEAST 40.1% of all voters/ballots cast.

For purposes of illustration – if there are 100 TOTAL voters/ballots cast in an election, and only 30 out of the 100 voters voted on the measure (called an “undervote,” a condition in which all voters do not bother to vote on a particular race or measure), and voted for it to pass, and the nay votes were -0- (zero), despite the 30-0 victory margin, it will NOT pass, because it did NOT “receive more than 40% of the total votes cast in that election.”

Again, despite the fact that more voters voted FOR the measure to pass, than voted against it (which in this example would be zero -0-), or did NOT vote upon it, the measure still would not be considered to have passed.

Enter Mississippians for Compassionate Care.

Comprised of 76 diverse individuals from a variety of backgrounds including Physicians, Nurse Practitioners and Professors, Registered Nurses, Republican and Democratic politicians, Party Executive Committee members, State Legislators, and Local Officials from both major parties, Ministers, retired Military Service members, Business Owners and Executives, District Attorneys, retired Law Enforcement Officers, and more, they are the members of the steering committee which are guiding the measure called Initiative 65 which, if approved by voters, would establish a Medical Marijuana Law in Mississippi.

Initiative 65 is a well-though-out bill, one which is thoroughly considered, and the bill for the prospective measure contains practically every aspect of consideration which would be involved in establishing an entire infrastructure for Medical Marijuana.

The bill MS Initiative 65 Proposed Measure may be read/downloaded here.

Enter the Mississippi State Legislature.

Over the years, in over 20 attempts, the state’s legislators quashed every effort to help the people, and not once did they ever

Amy Coney Barrett: Will she follow the law of recusal?

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the President’s nominee to be a Supreme Court Justice, has dodged the question of recusal on any potential case which might come before her which would be brought by the President on any matter pertaining to the 2020 General Election. She dodged because she replied that she would follow the law of recusal.

She said in part that, “I commit to you to fully and faithfully applying the law of recusal. … I will apply the factors that other justices have before me in determining whether the circumstances require my recusal or not. But I can’t offer a legal conclusion right now about the outcome of the decision I would reach.”

When asked about the law of recusal, she said in part that, “I can’t offer an opinion on recusal without short-circuiting the entire process.”

When specifically asked about election cases, she stated to the effect that it wasn’t a question she could answer “in the abstract.”

Obviously, she is aware of the law’s requirements, but what is concerning is if she will obey (follow) the law.

There could be an argument made that she has no interest in the case, per se, at least insofar as she was not a member of the President’s administration, nor had she done any work for him.

There are several disconcerting aspects of this matter, none of which concern her judicial temperament, nor her judicial philosophy, nor her rulings. First is that she has allowed herself to be used by the GOP and the President to force her, as their nominee, through the confirmation process in the midst of an ongoing election. Already, millions of people have voted.

Secondarily is Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s actions, in conjunction with the President’s efforts, to rush the nominee through the process. Rushed things are rarely done with high quality, or long-term thoughtfulness. Further, that “Moscow” Mitch McConnell has deliberately stalled, or “killed” well over 400 bills from the House of Representatives is prima facie evidence of his contempt for the Constitution, and legislative process. And that he has similarly refused to act upon any bill which would first, and foremost, deal with the matter of the coronavirus, aka COVID-19, and the needs of the people for their health, their needs for economic sustenance, and more, is again, hard-core evidence not merely of a lack of caring, but is an abandonment of his responsibilities to the American people, not merely to the citizens of Kentucky whose interests he is supposed to represent.

To the extent that Amy Coney Barrett participates in that wretched process, she is complicit in it all. She has, in effect, become a political tool, and is doing so knowingly.

Were she to have requested a delay of her hearings until after the election – a delay of a few mere weeks – she would likely have not garnered such opposition. For she is, in my considered estimation, more than a well-qualified jurist, and would be a good addition to the United States Supreme Court. Even 88 University of Notre Dame faculty members wrote an open letter to her, stating that it was “vital” that she “issue a public statement calling for a halt to your nomination process until after the November presidential election.”

In the letter, those faculty members also wrote in part that, “The rushed nature of your nomination process, which you certainly recognize as an exercise in raw power politics, may effectively deprive the American people of a voice in selecting the next Supreme Court justice,” and stated that “you can refuse to be party to such maneuvers. We ask that you honor the democratic process and insist the hearings be put on hold until after the voters have made their choice.”

And goodness knows, we need more legal diversity on the nation’s highest court, and I don’t mean to refer to sex, ethnicity, or any physical factor – I mean to refer to the schools of law which the nominees have attended. And as she herself has noted,

“I would be the first mother of school-age children to serve on the Court. I would be the first Justice to join the Court from the Seventh Circuit in 45 years. And I would be the only sitting Justice who didn’t attend law school at Harvard or Yale. I am confident that Notre Dame will hold its own, and maybe I could even teach them a thing or two about football.”

Would she be my pick?

Perhaps not, but again, it is the rushed nature of this event which is most exceedingly distasteful. Hypocrisy has neither a pleasing aroma, nor taste.

Finally, there are other matters concerning the Supreme Court which desperately need to be addressed, which undoubtedly will not have an opportunity to be discussed simply because of the Senate Majority Leader’s deliberately destructive tactics to “kill” legislation.

The verbatim transcript of her remarks has not yet been prepared by the Congressional Record. When it is ready, it will appear here:
https://www.congress.gov/event/116th-congress/senate-event/328163?s=1&r=8

Hearings to examine the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, of Indiana, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. 116th Congress (2019-2020)

Committee:	Senate Judiciary
Related Items:	PN2252
Date:	Tuesday October 13, 2020 (9:00 AM EDT)
Location:	216 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Website:	https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/

And so, for your benefit, here is the law of recusal to which she referred. You can, and should, read it for yourself. It’s not difficult to understand, and is straightforward, without mumbo jumbo jargon.

28 USC 455: Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
Text contains those laws in effect on October 12, 2020

From Title 28-JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE

PART I-ORGANIZATION OF COURTS
CHAPTER 21-GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO COURTS AND JUDGES

Jump To:
Source Credit
Amendments
Change of Name
Effective Date

§455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;

(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as

More American Problems

The sorts of problems described in the story linked below could be resolved very simply by Congress, which has the authority to regulate election law, but has chosen to abdicate the responsibility, failed to exercise that right, and allowed chaos and pandemonium to ensue by allowing at least 50 different laws, rules, regulations, and more.

By establishing a National Standard Election and Uniform Voting Law which would cover ALL aspects of voting, from registration, to identification, to hours of operation and places of polls, to dates, times, and types of voting methods used, ALL those questions and more would be settled, and uniform nationwide, from state to state, and sea to shining sea.

From Maine to Minnesota, Mississippi to Maryland, Michigan to Arizona, and from Florida to Washington, Georgia to Oregon, and California to Texas to the Carolinas, and all points in between — ONE LAW to govern them all.

We would then begin to have a truly UNITED STATES!

 

---

2020 Election Faces Unprecedented Amount Of Litigation

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/22/914431067/step-aside-election-2000-this-years-election-may-be-the-most-litigated-yet

Hundreds of lawsuits are already swirling around mail-in voting as campaigns, parties and outside groups try to sort issues both basic and technical — questions such as:

“Must a ballot be