Blog

05/08/2019 by The Doctor Of Common Sense

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Discovers a Garbage Disposal, Asks if It Is ‘Environmentally Sound’

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez still has a lot to learn … about garbage disposals.

The rookie congresswoman had her first experience with the food-shredding machine at her new Washington D.C. apartment Monday night and had no idea what to make of it … other than it sounds scary.

AOC’s reactions to testing out her disposal are pretty amusing, and to be honest … she asks some fair questions about the benefits of the inner sink contraption. For instance — is cramming food scraps down there really better than just tossing them in the trash?

Of course, the Green New Deal advocate couldn’t resist getting political about discovering her newfound amenity … and reminding everyone where she came from. She also cracked a joke about folks telling her to stick her hand in.

We don’t suggest that, but here’s a free hot tip — if it starts to stink down there, drop a few pieces of orange peel in and flip the switch while running cold water.

We’re pretty sure it’s environmentally sound too.

https://www.tmz.com/2019/05/07/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-garbage-disposal-apartment-scared-blown-away-funny/

05/03/2019 by The Doctor Of Common Sense

Attorney General William Barr’s Summary of the Crooked Bob Mueller Report

Washington, D.C.

March 24, 2019

The Honorable Lindsey Graham
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
290 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
United States House of Representatives
2132 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable Doug Collins
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary
United States House of Representatives
1504 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member Collins:

As a supplement to the notification provided on Friday, March 22, 2019, I am writing today to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III and to inform you about the status of my initial review of the report he has prepared.

The Special Counsel’s Report

On Friday, the Special Counsel submitted to me a “confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions” he has reached, as required by 28 C.F.R. $ 600.8(c). This report is entitled “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.” Although my review is ongoing, I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation.

The report explains that the Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated allegations that members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others associated with it, conspired with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, or sought to obstruct the related federal investigations. In the report, the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.

Page 1See Original Document

The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in connection with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed. During the course of his investigation, the Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action. The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public. Below, I summarize the principal conclusions set out in the Special Counsel’s report.

Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.

The Special Counsel’s report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel’s investigation was whether any Americans – including individuals associated with the Trump campaign – joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”¹

The Special Counsel’s investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.

The second element involved the Russian government’s efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

¹ In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign “coordinated” with Russian election interference activities. The Special Counsel defined “coordination” as an “agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.”

Page 2See Original Document

Obstruction of Justice.

The report’s second part addresses a number of actions by the President – most of which have been the subject of public reporting – that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion – one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

The Special Counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel’s office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel’s obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.²

In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department’s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.

Status of the Department’s Review

The relevant regulations contemplate that the Special Counsel’s report will be a “confidential report to the Attorney General. See Office of Special Counsel, 64 Fed. Reg. 37,038,

² See A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222 (2000).

Page 3See Original Document

37,040-41 (July 9, 1999). As I have previously stated, however, I am mindful of the public interest in this matter. For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as much of the Special Counsel’s report as I can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.

Based on my discussions with the Special Counsel and my initial review, it is apparent that the report contains material that is or could be subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of information relating to “matter[s] occurring before [a] grand jury.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B). Rule 6(e) generally limits disclosure of certain grand jury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6(e) material beyond the strict limits set forth in the rule is a crime in certain circumstances. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 401(3). This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for their intended criminal justice function.

Given these restrictions, the schedule for processing the report depends in part on how quickly the Department can identify the 6(e) material that by law cannot be made public. I have requested the assistance of the Special Counsel in identifying all 6(e) information contained in the report as quickly as possible. Separately, I also must identify any information that could impact other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other offices. As soon as that process is complete, I will be in a position to move forward expeditiously in determining what can be released in light of applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.

As I observed in my initial notification, the Special Counsel regulations provide that “the Attorney General may determine that public release of” notifications to your respective Committees “would be in the public interest.” 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(c). I have so determined, and I will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you.

Sincerely,
William P. Barr
Attorney General

05/02/2019 by The Doctor Of Common Sense

Democrat Rep. Says ‘Some Kids Are Unwanted, So You Kill Them Now or You Kill Them Later’

This is the face of the Democratic Party. A washed up Pimp.

Democrat Rep. Says ‘Some Kids Are Unwanted, So You Kill Them Now or You Kill Them Later’

Alabama state Rep. John Rogers, a Democrat, said, while debating a bill that would ban most abortions in the state, “Some kids are unwanted, so you kill them now or you kill them later.”

“You bring them in the world unwanted, unloved, you send them to the electric chair,” Rogers continued. “So, you kill them now or you kill them later.”

Ryan Saavedra

✔

@RealSaavedra

Alabama State Rep. John Rogers (D) on abortion: “Some kids are unwanted, so you kill them now or you kill them later. You bring them in the world unwanted, unloved, you send them to the electric chair. So, you kill them now or you kill them later”

6,509

7:14 PM – May 1, 2019

10.8K people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

U.S. Rep. Bradley Byrne, a Republican from Alabama who is challenging Sen. Doug Jones in 2020 for his Senate seat, tweeted:

Bradley Byrne

✔

@BradleyByrne

It’s an abomination that Alabama has a Senator in @DougJones who is unabashedly pro-abortion & refuses to stand up to this type of extremism from members of his party in defense of innocent human life.

Alabama deserves a 100% pro-life voice representing us in the US Senate.

8:03 PM – May 1, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

242 people are talking about this

The Alabama state House overwhelmingly approved a measure Tuesday that would ban most abortions in the state.

Lawmakers in the House voted, 74-3, to approve the legislation after most Democrats walked out of the chamber, refusing to vote.

Rogers chastised his colleagues for their decision to walk out of the chamber, reported Yellow Hammer News.

“When you’re opposed to something, stand there and fight it,” Rogers said. “I’m not leaving and walking out… I’m not scared of a fight.”

According to Yellow Hammer, Rogers added: “I may bring a bill to force all men to have vasectomies. That would end this whole debate. There would be no more abortions and eventually no more voters.”

The Human Life Protection Act, HB 314, would make abortion a Class A felony and attempted abortion a Class C felony. The only exceptions are in cases in which “abortion is necessary in order to prevent a serious health risk to the unborn child’s mother.”

The measure would make performing an abortion punishable by a minimum of ten years for an abortionist.

“The heart of this bill is to confront a decision that was made by the courts in 1973 that said the baby in a womb is not a person,” said Republican state Rep. Terri Collins, who sponsored the bill in the state House, reported the Associated Press. She added that while such a ban would likely be struck down by lower courts, the goal is to get to the Supreme Court.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/05/01/democrat-on-abortion-some-kids-are-unwanted-so-you-kill-them-now-or-you-kill-them-later/

05/02/2019 by The Doctor Of Common Sense

Father Found Guilty Of Family Violence For Calling His Trans Daughter A She

Last week, Justice Francesca Marzari of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, declared a father guilty of “family violence” against his 14-year-old daughter on the sole basis that he had engaged in “expressions of rejection of [her] gender identity.” These “expressions” revolved entirely around his polite refusal to refer to his daughter as a boy in private, and his steady choice to affirm that she is a girl in public.

As previously reported, the BC Supreme Court ordered in February that 14-year-old Maxine* receive testosterone injections without parental consent. Accordingly, Maxine began regular injections at British Columbia (BC) Children’s Hospital over the course of the last two months.

Her father, Clark*, strongly objects to this treatment and immediately sought to reverse the decision in the BC Court of Appeal. Hoping to raise awareness of his case, Clark gave a number of interviews to media outlets, including The Federalist. In these interviews, he repeatedly referred to his daughter as a girl, stating to The Federalist that “she is a girl. Her DNA will not change through all these experiments that they do.”

While many might take this to be an honest statement of biological fact, Marzari quoted it as a prime example of Clark’s “family violence of a public denial of [Maxine’s] gender identity.” Marzari convicted Clark of this violence, and issued a “protection order” preventing him from speaking to journalists or the public about his case.

While the main thrust of Marzari’s ruling focused on Clark’s public statements, Marzari also ordered that Clark be enjoined from “exposing” Maxine to any materials that might “question whether [her] gender identity is real or the treatments [she] seeks are in [her] best interests.” This order arose from the fact that, in mid-March, Clark invited his daughter to watch a video of a small-time Canadian conservative commentator with him.

The video contained a section discussing Maxine’s case, which she quickly recognized. She told her father she “did not want to watch the video, and went to [her] room.” This incident, according to Marzari, was a clear case of an “attempt to persuade [Maxine] to abandon treatment,” and, hence, of family violence.

Family Violence via Talking in Public?

What Marzari found particularly egregious, however, was not Clark’s private interactions with his daughter but his “continued willingness to provide interviews to the media … in which he identifies [Maxine] as female, uses a female name for [Maxine] … and expresses his opposition to the therapies [Maxine] has chosen.” According to the court, this willingness placed Maxine at “a significant risk of harm.”

This harm was not so much feared because Maxine’s anonymity might be breached (it is worth noting that Maxine previously sought to have the press publish her real name), but because Clark’s “family violence of a public denial of [Maxine’s] gender identity” was regarded as likely to cause Maxine distress. Marzari argued that such a denial about such a “deeply private aspect of [Maxine’s] innermost thoughts and feelings” was likely to lead to a variety of dangers, “including self-harm.”

Marzari argued that the “people and organizations” to whom Clark granted interviews had shown themselves “fundamentally opposed” to transgender ideology, yet Clark “continued to support the media organizations posting his commentary with additional interviews.” This kind of attitude was, in Marzari’s view, justification for enjoining Clark from sharing any information with journalists—or with practically anyone outside his legal team—about his daughter’s “sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, mental or physical health, medical status or therapies.”

The court also emphasized that Clark must not allow relevant documents (petitions, affidavits, letters, court orders, etc.) to come into the hands of third parties not “authorized by order of this court,” or with “written consent” from his daughter.

While forbidding Clark to speak to the public about his daughter’s case, Marzari stated that she was not overriding Clark’s “freedom of thought and speech.” “There is no requirement that [Clark] change his views about what is best for [Maxine],” she explained. “It is only how he expresses those views privately to [Maxine] and publically to third parties that is affected.”

The fact that Clark is now not allowed to express his views publicly to anyone at all was, apparently, understood to be a fairly imposed consequence for his previous court-objected behavior. Had he strictly abstained from referring to his daughter “as a girl or with female pronouns,” he might not have been guilty of family violence and so subject to this order.

While the judge’s view of matters enjoys support on the political left, some feel the ruling is biased and politically motivated. Kari Simpson, president of Canadian pro-family organization Culture Guard, argued that Marzari’s decision severely limits Clark’s freedom of speech. Citing Marzari’s significant and recent history of LGBT and pro-abortion activism before her 2017 appointment to the BC Supreme Court, Simpson argued that she was operating as an “activist judge” more interested in delivering a ruling convenient to her cause than enforcing laws designed to protect families and children.

Unfortunately, the gag order on Clark makes it difficult to report his reaction to this new development in his case. In the meantime, his appeal of the court’s original ruling regarding testosterone injections is set to be heard on May 14.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/24/father-gagged-found-guilty-family-violence-calling-trans-daughter/

05/01/2019 by The Doctor Of Common Sense

Former Muslim Minneapolis Police Officer Found Guilty Of Killing A Unarmed Woman

Former Minneapolis Police Officer Mohamed Noor was found guilty by a jury on Tuesday in the 2017 death of Justine Damond, an unarmed woman who was fatally shot shortly after she called 911 to report a possible rape.

The decision from the jury, which received the case on Monday, followed three weeks of testimony in the trial against Noor.

The former officer was found guilty of third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. However, the jury found him not guilty of second-degree murder. Noor was taken straight from the courtroom into the custody of the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Dept. His sentencing was scheduled for June 7.

Defense attorneys have said Noor was reacting to a loud noise and feared an ambush in the deadly incident. Prosecutors argued there was no evidence Noor faced a threat that justified the use of deadly force.

Body camera footage of the encounter was played earlier this month during the trial, showing the woman’s final moments, as well as officers’ unsuccessful attempts to save her.

One officer’s body camera showed Noor and his partner taking turns performing CPR on Damond before firefighters arrived, the Minneapolis Star Tribune previously reported. Another body camera video showed Noor being taken to a supervisor squad.

Officer Mark Ringgenberg testified Noor kept asking if Damond was OK.

“I just told [Noor] not to say anything,” Ringgenberg said. “I don’t remember specifics.”

Damond, 40, had called 911 to report a possible rape near her home. Noor and his partner were rolling down the alley behind the woman’s residence and checking out the call just before the shooting. Noor testified that a loud bang on the squad car scared his partner and that he saw a woman raising her arm appear at his partner’s window. He fired to protect his partner’s life, he said.

Damond was a dual citizen of the U.S. and Australia and was set to be married a month after the shooting occurred.

Noor lost his job with the police department after charges were filed against him.

In a statement, the Somali-American Police Association (SAPA) criticized the jury’s decision.

“Officer Noor is the first police officer in Minnesota’s history to be convicted of murder while in the line of duty,” the statement read. “SAPA believes the institutional prejudices against people of color, including officers of color, have heavily influenced the verdict of this case. The aggressive manner in which the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office went after Officer Noor reveals that there were other motives at play other than serving justice.”

“SAPA fears the outcome of this case will have a devastating effect on police morale and make the recruitment of minority officers all the more difficult.”

https://www.foxnews.com/us/former-minneapolis-police-officer-found-guilty-in-2017-death-of-unarmed-woman-shot-after-calling-911

04/30/2019 by The Doctor Of Common Sense

The Department of Defense Is Spending $7.4M For Our Troops to Feed Illegal Immigrants

The Department of Defense is planning to spend $7.4 million on a troop mission at the United States-Mexico border that includes feeding and caring for migrants and border crossers, the agency announced Monday afternoon.

The mission will involve sending 320 more U.S. troops heading to the southern border to help Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents take care of migrants who have crossed the U.S. border.

Defense Department officials described the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) request for more aid for migrants as necessary in dealing with the “humanitarian crisis” at the southern border.

Aside from helping to feed and care for migrants, the Defense Department mission will also include busing and transporting border crossers in the U.S. Federal officials made clear that troops will not perform any law enforcement functions:

DoD personnel will assist in driving high-capacity CBP vehicles to transport migrants; providing administrative support, including providing heating, meal distribution and monitoring the welfare of individuals in CBP custody; and attorney support to ICE. [Emphasis added]
DoD personnel will not perform any law enforcement functions. In any situation that requires DoD personnel to be in proximity to migrants, DHS law enforcement personnel will be present to conduct all custodial and law enforcement functions, and provide force protection of military personnel. [Emphasis added]

A defense official said, “monitoring the welfare of individuals” means U.S. troops will conduct walk-throughs and check to see if migrants are OK, but are not going to have interaction with them. If any interaction is needed, troops would contact DHS, the official said.

DHS is still determining where this support will be needed. The location will determine whether the support would apply to migrant children, adults, or families, the official said.

The Defense Department support will be required through September 20, 2019, at an estimated cost to U.S. taxpayers of about $7.4 million. The Pentagon will foot the bill at first, but be reimbursed by the DHS later.

DHS’s additional aid for migrants and border crossers comes as the U.S.-Mexico border has been inundated with record levels of illegal immigration.

Last month, alone, more than 92,000 border crossers were apprehended at the border. Experts have projected that at current rates, illegal immigration this year could outpaceevery year of the Bush and Obama administrations with potentially 1.28 million border crossers and illegal aliens entering the country.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/04/29/pentagon-approves-7-4m-for-troops-to-feed-care-for-border-crossers/