Home Blog Page 9

WATCH: New video Shows Top Dem REFUSING Orders from Officers at County Jail

(The Post Millennial) – Police released video on Thursday of Democrat State Rep. Jewell Jones being booked at the Livingston County Jail in Howell after his April 6 crash on I-96.

Jones can be seen in the officer’s bodycam video refusing almost every command from officers as they try to book him into the jail. He mentions Democrat Gov. Gretchen Whitmer several times.

“Big Gretch is the homie. When she finds out about this, she might be a little upset.”

Officers remained calm and polite towards Jones as he continued to argue with police over mask compliance and other orders.

Jones was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving and resisting arrest after State police troopers said they found Jones’ SUV with the vanity plate ELECTED in a ditch on I-96 near Fowlerville. Jones is charged with resisting arrest, operating while intoxicated, reckless driving and possession of a weapon while under the influence of alcohol.

Dashcam footage was released Sunday showing Democrat Michigan state Representative Jewell Jones resisting arrest after driving into a ditch on the ride of a road while intoxicated.

Jones repeatedly said once on the ground that he would cooperate if they took their hands off him, but continued to resist arrest. “I’m being abused by a f–ing police officer, I’m black… When I call Gretchen, I’ll need y’all IDs and badge numbers, everything,” Jones continued.

One clip of the Livingston County Police footage from WXYZ 7, Jones asks officers while in a police cruiser to call the Director of the Michigan State Police Col. Joseph Gasper. “Tell Joe who you got, and call f–ing Joe.

I’m not sure he’s up or not. If he’s not up, wake him up. Tell Joe who you have, tell Joe who you have handcuffed.

Jones reportedly had a blood-alcohol Content of 0.19 percent, more than twice the legal limit, and had a gun in his cup holder. Charges being faced by Jones include resisting and obstructing a police officer, operating a motor vehicle with high blood alcohol content, operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, possession of a weapon under the influence of alcohol and reckless driving. Jones is an auxiliary officer with the Inkster Police Department, according to WXYZ 7.

thepostmillennial.com/watch-new-video-shows-mi-state-rep-jewell-jones-refusing-orders-from-officers-at-livingston-county-jail

WATCH: Kamala Harris ADMITS It… Biden Furious

(The Post Millennial) – Vice President Kamala Harris was being interviewed on ABC news on Thursday, where she essentially agreed with Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC)’s claim that America is not a racist country.

Said Harris, “I believe that we need to adj… well, first of all… no. I don’t think America is a racist country, but we also do have to speak truth about the history of racism in our country and its existence today.”

Fox News’s David Rutz tweeted:

“CNN’s @VanJones68, a strong Joe Biden-Kamala Harris backer, said last night that Scott had lost “tens of millions” Black voters by saying the country wasn’t racist. Harris this morning said the country wasn’t racist.”

Jones did in fact talk at length about Scott’s statement and his speech in general, saying that “he lost a lot of African American [voters], by the tens of millions, when he said that America is not a racist nation.”

“Look, you can say that we are getting better, you can say that we have come a long way, but when you look at these numbers, when you look at these statistics, it is very clear that this country is still struggling with racism. We still have racism showing up in every institution.”

Far-left Democrats on social media have even taken to calling Scott “Uncle Tim” after the above statement.

As of this writing, nobody has called out Harris for making the exact same statement.

thepostmillennial.com/watch-kamala-agrees-that-america-is-not-a-racist-country

Watch: Christian Pastor Arrested For Saying Marriage is Between a Man and a Woman

(InfoWars) – A Christian pastor in the UK was arrested by police after a member of the public reported him for the “homophobic” comment of saying that marriage was between a man and a woman.

Yes, really.

The incident occurred outside Uxbridge Station in west London. A video clip shows the elderly pastor being confronted by police and forcefully handcuffed before being led away.

“I wasn’t making any homophobic comments, I was just defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. I was only saying what the Bible says – I wasn’t wanting to hurt anyone or cause offence,” said John Sherwood, who has been a pastor for 35 years.

“I was doing what my job description says, which is to preach the gospel in open air as well as in a church building,” he added.

Sherwood was arrested under the Public Order Act, for using “abusive or insulting words” that cause “harm” to another person after a member of the public flagged down officers snitched on him.

Although the pastor was released without charge after spending a night in jail he is still under investigation by the Crown Prosecution Service and could be charged at a later date.

“When the police approached me, I explained that I was exercising my religious liberty and my conscience,” he added. “I was forcibly pulled down from the steps and suffered some injury to my wrist and to my elbow. I do believe I was treated shamefully. It should never have happened.”

The UK is notorious for hate crime laws where authorities will investigate supposed “hate incidents” if the “victim” merely perceives themselves to have been victimized.

Earlier this year, we highlighted how officers in Merseyside took part in an electronic ad campaign outside a supermarket which claimed “being offensive is an offence.”

In 2019, UK police investigated the potential “hate crime” of a transgender woman being turned down for a porn role because she still has a penis.

A video published by the UK government Home Office last year also suggested that insulting someone’s appearance now constitutes a “hate crime,” despite this not being the law.

www.infowars.com/posts/uk-christian-pastor-arrested-for-saying-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/

U.S. Shouldn’t Be ‘Too Proud’ to Learn from Communist China on Infrastructure

(Breitbart) – Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said in an interview Tuesday the United States should not be “too proud” to learn from countries the Biden administration claims outrank America in infrastructure quality.

Yahoo News reported :

As the Biden administration begins promoting its infrastructure plan to members of Congress and the American public, Buttigieg stressed that the U.S. should look to the example set by other countries.

“The U.S. shouldn’t be too proud to learn from other countries, especially now that we’re out of the top 10 [ranked countries for infrastructure],” he said. “I always want to see the U.S. No. 1.”

Buttigieg said the U.S. shouldn’t fall behind its competitors or its allies, pointing to Japan, Spain and China as countries with impressive high-speed train systems, which he said “can’t come soon enough” to the U.S.

According to the Biden administration, the U.S. ranks 13th in the world for “infrastructure quality.”

Its analysis concluded communist China is #3.

“We need to be keeping up with all of our competitors – whether it’s a strategic competitor like China, whether it’s our allies in Europe. We should be doing the best,” Buttigieg told Yahoo.

It was not clear if the Biden administration was evaluating traditional infrastructure, such as roads and bridges, or its expanded definition that also includes social services.

In 2017, a story published by Sa d Business School argued “China’s infrastructure investment may be doing more harm than good.”

‘The evidence suggests that for over half of the infrastructure investments in China made in the last three decades the costs are larger than the benefits they generate, which means the projects destroy economic value instead of generating it,” Dr. Atif Ansar, Programme Director of the MSc in Major Programme Management, Sa d Business School, said.

Committing to big projects is risky, the publication argued, because they are susceptible to cost overruns.

“In a lot of the projects we looked at, the users simply didn’t show up,” Dr. Alexander Budzier said. “The cars don’t show up on the roads and bridges, and the riders don’t turn up on the trains. That means the schemes don’t generate the revenue they need to pay back their loans.”

Professor Bent Flyvbjerg noted infrastructure projects create jobs in the short run, “But as soon as the last team leaves the construction site, that project is no long a positive for the economy.”

“With politicians everywhere eager to get shovels in the ground, it’s a timely reminder that big infrastructure schemes can create as many problems as they solve,” the analysis said.

Kyle Olson is a reporter for Breitbart News. He is also host of “The Kyle Olson Show,” syndicated on Michigan radio stations on Saturdays-download full podcast episodes . Follow him on Parler .

www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/04/28/pete-buttigieg-u-s-shouldnt-proud-learn-communist-china-infrastructure/

Who is “we the people”

Our current President Joe Biden just said in his speech to the joint session of Congress

“Our Constitution opens with the words, “We the People”. It’s time we remembered that We the People are the government”.

yup he said that…

But according to constitutioncenter.org

 

The Preamble of the U.S. Constitution—the document’s famous first fifty-two words— introduces everything that is to follow in the Constitution’s seven articles and twenty-seven amendments. It proclaims who is adopting this Constitution: “We the People of the United States.” It describes why it is being adopted—the purposes behind the enactment of America’s charter of government. And it describes what is being adopted: “this Constitution”—a single authoritative written text to serve as fundamental law of the land. Written constitutionalism was a distinctively American innovation, and one that the framing generation considered the new nation’s greatest contribution to the science of government.

The word “preamble,” while accurate, does not quite capture the full importance of this provision. “Preamble” might be taken—we think wrongly—to imply that these words are merely an opening rhetorical flourish or frill without meaningful effect. To be sure, “preamble” usefully conveys the idea that this provision does not itself confer or delineate powers of government or rights of citizens. Those are set forth in the substantive articles and amendments that follow in the main body of the Constitution’s text. It was well understood at the time of enactment that preambles in legal documents were not themselves substantive provisions and thus should not be read to contradict, expand, or contract the document’s substantive terms.

But that does not mean the Constitution’s Preamble lacks its own legal force. Quite the contrary, it is the provision of the document that declares the enactment of the provisions that follow. Indeed, the Preamble has sometimes been termed the “Enacting Clause” of the Constitution, in that it declares the fact of adoption of the Constitution (once sufficient states had ratified it): “We the People of the United States . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Importantly, the Preamble declares who is enacting this Constitution—the people of “the United States.” The document is the collective enactment of all U.S. citizens. The Constitution is “owned” (so to speak) by the people, not by the government or any branch thereof. We the People are the stewards of the U.S. Constitution and remain ultimately responsible for its continued existence and its faithful interpretation.

It is sometimes observed that the language “We the People of the United States” was inserted at the Constitutional Convention by the “Committee of Style,” which chose those words—rather than “We the People of the States of . . .”, followed by a listing of the thirteen states, for a simple practical reason: it was unclear how many states would actually ratify the proposed new constitution. (Article VII declared that the Constitution would come into effect once nine of thirteen states had ratified it; and as it happened two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, did not ratify until after George Washington had been inaugurated as the first President under the Constitution.) The Committee of Style thus could not safely choose to list all of the states in the Preamble. So they settled on the language of both “We the People of the United States.”

Nonetheless, the language was consciously chosen. Regardless of its origins in practical considerations or as a matter of “style,” the language actually chosen has important substantive consequences. “We the People of the United States” strongly supports the idea that the Constitution is one for a unified nation, rather than a treaty of separate sovereign states. (This, of course, had been the arrangement under the Articles of Confederation, the document the Constitution was designed to replace.) The idea of nationhood is then confirmed by the first reason recited in the Preamble for adopting the new Constitution—“to form a more perfect Union.” On the eve of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln invoked these words in support of the permanence of the Union under the Constitution and the unlawfulness of states attempting to secede from that union.

The other purposes for adopting the Constitution, recited by the Preamble— to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”—embody the aspirations that We the People have for our Constitution, and that were expected to flow from the substantive provisions that follow. The stated goal is to create a government that will meet the needs of the people.

As noted, the Preamble’s statements of purpose do not themselves grant powers or confer rights; the substantive provisions in the main body of the Constitution do that. There is not, for example, a general government power to do whatever it judges will “promote the general Welfare.” The national government’s powers are specified in Article I and other provisions of the Constitution, not the Preamble. Congress has never relied on the Preamble alone as the basis for a claimed power to enact a law, and the Supreme Court has never relied on the Preamble as the sole basis for any constitutional decision. Still, the declared purposes for the Constitution can assist in understanding, interpreting, and applying the specific powers listed in the articles, for the simple reason that the Constitution should be interpreted in a manner that is faithful to its purposes.

Finally, the Preamble declares that what the people have ordained and established is “this Constitution”—referring, obviously enough, to the written document that the Preamble introduces. That language is repeated in the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, which declares that “this Constitution” shall be the supreme law for the entire nation. The written nature of the Constitution as a single binding text matters and was important to the framing generation. The U.S. Constitution contrasts with the arrangement of nations like Great Britain, whose “constitution” is a looser collection of written and unwritten traditions constituting the established practice over time. America has a written constitution, not an unwritten one. The boundaries of what may be said and done in the name of the Constitution are marked by the words, phrases, and structure of the document itself. To be sure, there are disputes over what those words mean and how they are to be applied. But the enterprise of written constitutionalism is, at its core, the faithful interpretation and application of a written document adopted by the people as supreme law: “this Constitution for the United States of America.”

 

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/preamble-ic/interps/37

‘It’s About To Get Much Worse’: Supply Chains Implode As ‘Price Doesn’t Even Matter Anymore’

(Zerohedge) – By Greg Miller, of FreightWaves ,

The number of container ships stuck at anchor off Los Angeles and Long Beach is down to around 20 per day, from 30 a few months ago. Does this mean the capacity crunch in the trans-Pacific market is finally easing? Absolutely not, warned Nerijus Poskus, vice president of global ocean at freight forwarder Flexport. “It’s not getting better. It’s getting worse,” he told American Shipper in an interview on Monday.

“What I’m seeing is unprecedented. We are seeing a tsunami of freight, ” he reported.

“For the month of May, everything on the trans-Pacific is basically sold out. We had one client who needed something loaded in May that was extremely urgent and who was ready to pay $15,000 per container. I couldn’t get it loaded – and we are a growing company that ships a lot of TEUs [twenty-foot equivalent units]. Price doesn’t always even matter anymore.’

Restocking driving volumes higher

Poskus said that trans-Pacific import volumes are still rising. He noted that January trans-Pacific imports were up 10% versus 2019 (comparisons to 2020 numbers are skewed by COVID) and 13.5% in February, then jumped 51% in March. “So, we’re now at 1.5 times pre-pandemic levels.”

With imports far outpacing retail sales growth, he attributed volumes to inventory restocking. “The restocking is actually affecting the trade even more than growth in demand. That tells me that this will last even longer. Let’s say U.S. consumer demand slows down in Q3 and Q4. That’s not expected, but even if it does, [capacity availability and rates] shouldn’t improve quickly, simply because of the huge restocking demand.”

Poskus also believes there is a growing export backlog piling up each day in Asia, awaiting available ship slots. If that backlog grows too big, he said, ‘I honestly don’t know what’s going to happen.’ As a result of the backlog and restocking demand, he thinks ‘prices will remain high and shipping will probably remain difficult for the rest of this year. And then after that, you have the peak for Chinese New Year in 2022.’

About to get even worse

He said that the situation today is the worst he’s witnessed – and he believes it’s about to get even more severe.

“Buckle up. The month of May will be the worst people have ever seen,” he predicted. Because some shippers will have to wait in line behind the growing backlog in Asia, he expects “what’s going to happen soon is that some importers won’t even be able to get on the boat. For them, it will almost feel like trade is coming to a halt.”

Poskus’ comments mirror cargo bookings data. FreightWaves’ SONAR platform features a proprietary index of shippers’ ocean bookings (SONAR: IOTI.USA). Bookings to the U.S. are measured in TEUs on a 10-day-moving-average basis as of the scheduled date of overseas departure. As of Monday, the index was at a new all-time high and forward bookings data showed a continued rise ahead.

Spot premiums back with vengeance

As of Friday, the Freightos Baltic Daily Index assessed the Asia-West Coast spot rate (SONAR: FBXD.CNAW) at $4,797 per forty-foot equivalent unit (FEU) and the Asia-East Coast rate (SONAR: FBXD.CNAE) at $6,306 per FEU – both near all-time highs.

But that’s only part of the rate story. “Indexes are not bills. Premiums are not reflected in the indexes,” said Poskus. Earlier this year, some of the premium charges came down as container availability in Asia improved. That’s reversed, said Poskus, who noted that the Ever Given incident in the Suez Canal pulled container equipment from the market. “Container shortages in Asia are again very bad because of the Ever Given, and it will take another four to six weeks to come back to normal.”

The added premiums to get spot cargo loaded “are back and they’re higher than before,” he said. “They are $2,000-$3,000 above FAK [spot price] and that’s the best case.”

Spot cargo that was booked 21 days prior and was forecast within the shipper’s allocation is still getting FAK pricing on spot, he noted. However, “everything last minute is basically a free-for-all auction. You are basically offering as much money as you can and hoping somebody will take it. Many importers are now struggling. We’re seeing so many new customers approaching us asking for help because they can’t get loaded.”

Contract rates up sharply

A recent presentation by Xeneta, a company that collects contract data, showed Asia-West Coast contracts being negotiated this year at around 30%-50% higher levels than last year.

Poskus’ numbers are around double Xeneta’s. “We are seeing fixed-price increases of slightly over 100% on Asia-West Coast and about 75% on Asia-East Coast,” he said. “Also, almost every single contract rate is subject to peak season surcharges [PSSs], so the prices aren’t exactly fixed. I think the PSSs will reduce the gap between the spot and fixed market.”

Asked about shippers who have yet to conclude their annual contracts, he said, “If you want a fixed price in today’s market, the answer you’ll get from the carriers is that it’s too late. We advised many importers to sign early because the trans-Pacific contract season would close [early] because there’s more demand than supply. And that’s exactly what happened.”

There are exceptions, such as larger shippers with June-to-June contracts who began discussions with carriers earlier this year. “But if you are just a simple importer and you are yet to sign your fixed contract, you will be in the spot market,” said the Flexport vice president.

Advice to importers

Poskus offered several pieces of advice to importers scrambling to get container loads to the U.S.

He noted that carriers need reefers in the U.S. market for refrigerated exports to Asia. On the way back from Asia, these reefers are powered down and can be used as non-operating reefers (NORs) to transport dry cargo. “Believe it or not, carriers are still moving some NORs empty because importers don’t like them. This is a missed opportunity to move cargo in NORs. My advice is: Take that option. If you’re searching for the best solution in this market, you’re going to see even more delays.”

He also suggested moving cargo via less-than-container-load (LCL) shipments. “LCL is still moving. Of course, you cannot move thousands of containers LCL, but if you have something urgent, you can still get space for LCL on May sailings. Instead of waiting, break your some of your shipments down into LCL shipments and at least get some inventory,” he said.

Yet another option: Be creative with routings. For example, direct China-West Coast sailings may be sold out, but cargo can be routed from China through the Panama Canal to Cartagena, Colombia, then back through the canal to the West Coast. “It has a longer transit time but it can be loaded in the same week and it’s an option versus waiting a month and a half to get loaded [for the direct route],” he said.

“Just get your cargo to the continent of North America and from there you can get it to where it needs to go, whether it’s with NORs or LCL or transshipping [through hubs like Cartagena] or shipping it to Canada and then putting it on rail to Chicago and trucking it to New York. It will be expensive, but at least it will get there.

“You have to be flexible. Look for any routing and be creative. It’s a moving target. And don’t wait. If something opens up, act fast.”

www.zerohedge.com/markets/its-about-get-much-worse-supply-chains-implode-price-doesnt-even-matter-anymore

JUST IN: Supreme Court DEFIES Biden Agenda

(BigLeaguePolitics) – The Supreme Court announced Monday that they will soon take up a case involving the scope of the Second Amendment. This would mark the first time in a decade that SCOTUS has taken a case regarding the right to firearm ownership.

The case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett, is being brought to the limelight in regards to New York state law regarding the ability of a citizen to carry a concealed weapon in public. In order to obtain a concealed carry permit, New York residents are required to prove to government workers that they have an “actual and articulable” need to do so.

“The Supreme Court’s decision in the case could have an impact on the millions of people living in jurisdictions with restrictive public carry licensing regimes and will tell us how broadly the current set of justices are reading the Second Amendment,” said Jacob D. Charles, the executive director of the Center for Firearms law at Duke University School of Law.

After the District of Columbia v. Heller case in 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s rights to defend themselves in their home and that Washington, D.C. could not legally ban handguns. Until now the Supreme Court has yet to take any other case regarding the secondment, drawing frustrations from many.

“If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this Court would intervene,” Thomas wrote in a 2018 case. “But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the 2nd Amendment is a disfavored right in this Court.”

What distinguishes New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett from DC v. Heller is the scope of the Second Amendment rights being argued. With this new case, the Supreme Court may rule in a manner that allows millions of residents in New York and other states to carry a concealed firearm – a right that has been denied to many for decades.

Will the Supreme Court at last affirm the Second Amendment right granted to all Americans, regardless of the desires of those who seek to infringe it? Recent rulings may discourage some, but the previous ruling in DC v. Heller, coupled with multiple Trump appointees having taken the court, might be just enough to turn the tide.

bigleaguepolitics.com/scotus-to-take-up-major-second-amendment-case/

Feds Execute Search Warrant at Rudy Giuliani’s Manhattan Apartment

(Breitbart) – Federal investigators executed a search warrant at Rudy Giuliani’s apartment in Manhattan as part of an investigation involving dealings with Ukraine, according to a Wednesday report.

The New York Times , citing “three people with knowledge of the matter,” reported that the feds executed a search warrant at the lawyer’s Upper East Side apartment as part of the investigation into his dealings with Ukraine – specifically, the accusations that he “illegally lobbied Trump administration in 2019 on behalf of Ukrainian officials and oligarchs.”

In September 2019 interview on CNN’s Cuomo Primetime , Giuliani said he asked Ukraine to look into then-candidate Joe Biden before clarifying that he “asked them to look into the allegations that related to my client, which, tangentially, involved Joe Biden in a massive bribery scheme, not unlike what he did in China.”

“I asked the Ukraine to investigate the allegations that there was interference in the election of 2016 by the Ukrainians for the benefit of Hillary Clinton,” he told host Chris Cuomo, who asked, “You never asked anything about Hunter Biden? You never asked anything about Joe Biden?”

“The only thing I asked about Joe Biden is to get to the bottom of how it was that Lutsenko, who was appointed, dismissed the case against AntAC,” he said.

“So you did ask Ukraine to look into Joe Biden?” Cuomo asked, prompting an, “of course I did” from the former New York City mayor.

“You just said you didn’t,” Cuomo said.

“No, I didn’t ask them to look into Joe Biden,” Giuliani countered. ” I asked them to look into the allegations that related to my client, which, tangentially, involved Joe Biden in a massive bribery scheme, not unlike what he did in China.”

Watch:

Giuliani reportedly met and interviewed former Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin in Kyiv in December 2019, prompting further speculation, as Breitbart News detailed :

Giuliani traveled to Ukraine to meet with Shokin and other former prosecutors, according to the New York Times . He was reportedly filming a documentary with the One America News Network (OANN), according to ABC News.

Giuliani’s interest in Ukraine stems from his effort to defend President Trump against claims of “Russia collusion,” which were ultimately debunked by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report, which was released in April. Some allegations of “Russia collusion” were reportedly fueled by Ukrainian sources working with Democrats, allegedly through a Democratic National Committee (DNC) contractor and former British spy Christopher Steele. Giuliani apparently hoped to use information gathered in Ukraine to defend Trump by explaining how the “Russia collusion” narrative began. In addition, Giuliani became interested in the story of former Vice President Joe Biden’s intervention in Ukraine to ensure that Shokin was fired, during a time when Biden’s son, Hunter, was on the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma.

“As Biden himself later recalled , the Vice President personally threatened Ukraine with the loss of $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees unless Shokin was fired in 2016,” as Breitbart News reported.

www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/04/28/feds-execute-search-warrant-rudy-giulianis-manhattan-apartment/

Maricopa audit continues: Judge denies Democrats motion to hide the truth

(NOQReport) – Share the truth A Maricopa County Judge denied Democrat’s request to stop the election audit in Arizona. However, he rejected the auditing firm’ motion to hide policies and procedures from the public and media, which may lead to further appeals, according to the judge.

Many Republicans were concerned about Judge Daniel Martin base on his ties to Perkins Coie and indications he made yesterday that he wasn’t sure about the constitutionality of the audit in regards to protection of voters’ rights. Several conservative news outlets were predicting he would grant the temporary restraining order against the audit filed by an army of attorneys on behalf of the Democrats.

All of this followed drama earlier in the week when the case was reassigned to Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Daniel G. Martin hours after Judge Christopher Coury recused himself from the case due to the involvement of an attorney who had worked as an extern in his office within the last five years. According to Trending Politics :

On Thursday, Democrats filed a lawsuit to block the Maricopa County election audit. The former judge agreed to pause the audit until Monday.

“Superior Court Judge Christopher Coury said he wants to ensure the recount fully complies with Arizona law and asked for more information by Monday morning on the audit’s policies and procedures,” AZ Central reported.

“If Gallardo or the Democratic Party post a $1 million bond, the audit will be paused at 5 p.m.,” the report cited the judge.

The Democrats failed to produce the $1 million bond and so the audit was cleared to proceed as planned until the temporary restraining order was filed. Another impediment to 2020 election transparency has been removed, and thus it will proceed as planned.

One of the reasons the left so desperately wants to stop the audit is because auditors may have methods that would defeat a massive attempt to commit election fraud. On Saturday, video surfaced that seemed to show auditors running the ballots under ‘black light’ scanners, which would potentially reveal watermarks that would separate legal ballots from illegal ones. An Arizona Central reporter refuted claims that there are watermarks on the ballots.

The method possibly being used by Cyber Ninja’s may be the one developed by technologist Jovan Pulitzer. Whether it’s his or not, there seems to be physical forensic auditing happening that goes beyond standard scanners or manual examination. As we reported earlier this week :

Maricopa County in Arizona is one of the first major audits to be performed. It’s happening right now despite multiple attempts by Democrats to block it. A video from the audit, which can be seen live at AZAudit.org , appears to show Pulitzer’s scan in action, though there has been no confirmation of this.

President Trump has been chiming in since the beginning of the audit. His future is most at stake as this could be the first domino to fall if it’s discovered there was demonstrable and incontrovertible proof of massive voter fraud the changed the results of the 2020 presidential election.

On Tuesday, he dropped a press release that made a bold prediction:

“The Radical Left Democrat Party has gone absolutely INSANE in fighting the Forensic Audit of the 2020 Presidential Election Scam, right now taking place in the Great State of Arizona. They sent a team of over 100 lawyers to try and stop it because they know what the result of the Arizona Senate sponsored audit will be – and it won’t be good for the Dems.

“The audit is independently run, with no advantage to either side, but the Democrats don’t want to hear anything about it because they know that they lost Arizona, and other scam election states, in a LANDSLIDE. They also know that the Arizona State Legislature approved virtually none of their many election requests, which is totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The people of Arizona are very angry, as are the people of our Country. If we can’t have free and fair elections, we don’t have a Country. The audit must continue. America deserves the TRUTH!”

Conservatives can breath an ever-so-brief sigh of relief at this great and, frankly, unexpected news. But the fight continues and there’s no room for error. We need to keep the pressure up for the truth to come out.

noqreport.com/2021/04/28/maricopa-audit-continues-judge-denies-democrats-motion-to-hide-the-truth/

If the left really wanted to reduce instead of exploit violence, these are 5 ‘radical’ ways of doing it

(NOQReport) – Share the truth Although the national socialist media has done its level best to encourage mass murder over the past month, it hasn’t translated to an emotional appeal for the stepping stones to gun confiscation.

There was a time in the not too distant past when the anti-liberty left would try to apply collective punishment to 330 million innocent people for the crimes of a few. A time when each tragedy would add some bizarre form of emotional capital to force everyone to give up some more freedom and have the government infringe on their basic civil rights.

This was partially because many believed the lie that it’s “too easy” to obtain a gun in the United States .

Now with chaos on the streets and the record gun sales, that lie is evaporating. People are wondering if the left is lying about the ‘easy access to guns’, what else are they lying about?

Poll: Support for Stricter Gun Control Drops.

A recent poll from the Pew Research Center shows that polling for new restrictions on liberty are at lower levels than they were in 2019. Of course, Newsweek was astounded that the crimes of the insane didn’t automatically translate to calls for the restrictions in civil rights for everyone else.

Despite String of Mass Shootings, Fewer Americans Favor Stricter Gun Laws Today Than in 2019

The nonpartisan think tank found that just 53 percent of U.S. adults think gun laws should be stricter than they currently are-a 7-point drop from September 2019, when six in 10 Americans backed tougher firearm legislation.

Democrats are the most likely to say gun laws should be stricter than they are today. Eighty-one percent held that view in the most recent survey, a slight decline from 86 percent in 2019.

This falls in line with a Rasmussen survey that indicated that 64 percent of likely U.S. voters say “it’s not possible to completely prevent mass shootings,”

Comments from Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Chairman, Alan Gottlieb, further pointed out that:

Democrats as a whole actually make up the so-called ‘fringe’ of the electorate when it comes to guns and the Second Amendment. We have said it before, and will continue repeating it, Democrats have become the party of gun confiscation and prohibition, not just gun control. The farther Democrats drift toward an anti-freedom, anti-liberty agenda, the farther the party, and its leadership, move away from traditional American ideals.

It’s become so bad for the anti-freedom brigades of the authoritarian socialist left that they have been venting their anger at president * and expressing their despair in editorials: Gun control is a lost cause. Come despair with me .

Reducing violence without attacking the people’s common sense civil rights

As it’s always the case when the nation’s socialist left goes all authoritarian it does this ‘selectively’. People will often talk in broad terms about the threat to liberty and civil rights. But in reality, these threats will be directed at the left’s political opponents or rivals. Case in point, a report from ABC News: In Minneapolis, armed patrol group tries to keep the peace . Just as some are more equal than others, it’s okay for some to have guns, just as long as they are of the proper political persuasion.

However, there are ways of reducing violence without attacking the people’s common sense civil rights. The first is just leaving people alone instead of incessantly harassing them with new laws and infringements on their liberty and civil rights.

1. Stop depriving the people of their common sense civil rights.

The numbers from the FBI show that there are more than 400 million guns in civilian hands . Other estimates from a few years ago – before the record-breaking sales – had this at 400 – 600 million guns. By the same token, a few years ago it was estimated that there were 120 to 140 million gun owners, running the numbers from polling and adults in the country.

It should be obvious that these numbers are much higher at present with all of the new gun owners, as well as existing people having to replace their firearms after all of those inadvertent boating accidents. As the saying goes, if over 140 million people with over 600 million guns were a problem, we would know about it.

Statistics show that the majority of gun owners are more law-abiding than the public in general. The logic behind this should be easy to understand, even for leftists. Generally speaking, being convicted of a crime means losing the right to possess or carry a firearm. This serves as a substantial incentive to abide by the law.

It was more than illustrative in the reaction to the Supreme Court that will be taking up a case challenging a New York law. A staff writer for Slate posed this as a choice between two ‘concrete options’ :

Allow SCOTUS to knock down state and local restrictions on concealed public carry in the midst of endless mass shootings, or expand the court.

This shows that the anti-liberty left doesn’t understand the concept of deterrence or the fact that more good guys and gals with guns are a good thing.

The enemies for freedom only have one solution for every problem; restrict everyone’s civil rights even if it doesn’t work and endangers people. Mayor Bill de Blasio, (D) New York, lamented :

“We have come so far to try and keep guns out of the hands of New Yorkers, particularly young people and the Supreme Court – it looks like they’re working overtime to put guns right back in those hands.”

Letting the mask drop a little bit, take note that he didn’t qualify that as criminals but only New Yorkers, signifying that he simply wants guns confiscated completely.

Once again we see that the left follows the axiom set out by engineer and writer Robert A. Heinlein:

“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.”

Those references illustrate that the left falls into that first category in opting for control rather than liberty.

Anti-liberty leftists always like to claim that having guns in the hands of the innocent will result in “wild-West” shootouts, when in reality criminals don’t know who is armed – this prevents trouble instead of causing it, but somehow leftists can’t understand this basic logic.

2. Ban Massacre zones.

These are places based on the magical thinking of the authoritarian leftists that a mere sign or rule will stop a mass murderer bent on killing people. These are also known as “Gun Free” zones, but leftists never can quite understand the meaning of the quotes in that phraseology. They are that condition only when the innocent follow the rules. Criminals by definition do not, thus they are the only ones that carry the hardware and the reason they are called massacre zones.

It is somewhat mind boggling that the data shows 94% of mass shootings take place in massacre zones, and yet leftists still insist on them. Most often they will simply deny reality or outright lie claiming that there is no connection. Basic logic proves them wrong. They can never answer the question of whether a criminal would prefer a place some may be armed or no one may be armed. The latter is the obvious answer, but that eviscerates the whole idea of massacre zones and liberty reform in general.

Most mass murderers meticulously plan out their attacks. So, it only makes logical sense that they would avoid places where they would be stopped by a good guy or gal with a gun.

The anti-liberty left never fails to have their knee-jerk reaction to a tragedy in trying to exploit other people’s pain for their political gain. Taking away the liberty and civil rights of the innocent does nothing to keep anyone safe. It only makes things worse, far worse.

3. The authoritarian socialist media has to stop glorifying mass murderers.

Media contagion has been studied and researched for many years now. The AP piece on the most recent tragedy referred to the fact that it was “the latest in a spate of mass shootings after a relative lull during the pandemic.”

Consider the number of research papers and articles written on the phenomena:

The media is an accomplice in mass shootings Mass Shootings Can Be Contagious, Research Shows “Media Contagion” Is Factor in Mass Shootings, Study Says Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings While they have dialed it back as of late – perhaps they knew they were making it look too obvious – the sequence of shootings has shown they’ve had some ‘success’ at encouraging mass murder.

The media could directly control whether or not they influence follow-on attacks by simply minimizing the use of the killer’s name, image, and particulars. They could also forgo their morbid obsession with incessantly repeating the number of dead to encourage the next mass murderer to try to up the ante in a perverse competition. As we have repeatedly stated, the information can be available it just doesn’t need to be blasted out in wall-to-wall coverage inspiring the next miscreant to attain infamy in the same manner.

4. Close the border/Stop rewarding criminals.

Colion Noir was interviewed on Tucker Carlson and they could not understand the quandary of rewarding criminality while trying to deprive the innocent of their common sense civil rights . The authoritarian socialists want to destroy local police departments, let in untold thousands of criminals and terrorists, and release felons from jail while they confiscate guns from the innocent.

“[You are saying] that we should defund them or they shouldn’t be there. But then at the same time, you’re telling me I shouldn’t have a firearm to protect myself in the event that they are not there. So what would you have me do? Just be a victim,” he said.

“So at that point, it begs the question, what is the ultimate goal, and I think a lot of it really is in the word gun control, which is control. I think the overall goal is control.”

“You can control a population of people that don’t have the means to defend themselves.”

Authoritarian leftists tend to look at career criminals as victims of the system thus, they have a two-fold reason to go easy on them. They can exploit the chaos they cause for further control schemes while they let them go because of ‘systemic racism’ or whatever the buzzword is of the minute.

The problem is that the principles of operant conditioning mean that if you reward a behavior you will get more of it. Reward violence, and you will see more violence.

5. Stop denigrating local law enforcement.

One of the other points made during the Colion Noir interview on Tucker Carlson was that it didn’t make any sense that the authoritarian left would want to defund the police given that most of their authoritarian dreams require law enforcement muscle to make them come true.

None of this makes logical sense in the short term, but the anti-freedom folks don’t think in the short term. Their eventual goal is to set up a national socialist security apparatus. However, they first have to knock down local law enforcement; the level that is the most accountable to the people.

This means that local law enforcement would be the most efficient at protecting the people, while enforcing the law in the fairest manner possible. Conversely, when they run down the local constabulary and decrease their budget, they won’t be as efficient and an increase in violence will be the result.

So, while it may seem to be pure insanity to confiscate guns, defund the police and import criminals, it all makes perfect sense to the anti-liberty left as stepping stones to a nationalized police force who is accountable only to a national governing body.

The Bottom line – real solutions to violence instead of stepping stones to power.

Of course, it would never occur to the anti-liberty left to implement these common-sense measures to reduce violence simply because there would be nothing in it for them. Authoritarian socialists only have one goal and that is the attainment of power over the people.

If they actually cared about safety they would take steps to keep people safe and reduce violence as we have detailed. But, as we have seen with the case of Ma’Khia Bryant, the left is okay with violence if they can use it to advance their agenda . The reality is that they only care about ‘safety’ when it means they can eviscerate our civil liberties.

Conserving basic freedoms; such as the common sense civil right of self defense, banning massacre zones, halting media contagion, punishing criminality, and supporting local law enforcement would go a long way towards actually reducing violence, and it wouldn’t deprive the people of their liberty. There should be no doubt that leftists would oppose these practical solutions for that very reason. For when it comes to prioritization of liberty or control, anti-liberty leftists will always favor control over liberty.

noqreport.com/2021/04/28/if-the-left-really-wanted-to-reduce-instead-of-exploit-violence-these-are-5-radical-ways-of-doing-it/