Random

    Opinion

    Home Opinion Page 39

    Pelosi Knew – Tucker Carlson Interviews Capitol Police Chief Again over Jan 6

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    3
    Nancy Pelosi via Gage Skidmore flickr

    ANALYSIS – The original interview Tucker Carlson did with former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund about the Capitol Riot never aired on Fox News because Tucker was fired just before. Still, a lot about that interview has leaked. 

    I wrote about some of Sund’s claims earlier in August. 

    In that piece, I note that the Jan 6 riot was not a false flag operation, and most of the rioters were confirmed Trump supporters. However, in many ways, it was allowed to happen.

    But to put the entire thing on the record, Carlson did the interview again – and posted it to X, formerly known as Twitter. And it is damning to those Democrats who benefited from the Capitol Riot.

    Much of what Sund has said coincides with or dovetails with facts I have written about previously, especially how the Sergeant at Arms for both the House under Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and the Senate under Democrat Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, both declined National Guard support until it was too late.

    The same occurred with the Democrat Mayor of Washington, DC, Muriel Bowser who specifically stated that troops not be deployed unless the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) approved. 

    She added that she believed her police department was “well trained and prepared to lead the way” to ensure Jan. 6 unfolded safely. They weren’t. And they didn’t.

    This despite President Donald Trump offering the National Guard to them more than once.

    *(Note that the graphic above is incorrect in one detail – Officer Brian Sicknick was NOT killed defending the Capitol. He died later of natural causes (a stroke) unrelated to the riot.)

    In the case of Pelosi, Carlson is direct: “So this is an event that Pelosi herself has likened to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 — you know, the worst thing that’s ever happened on American soil — and she’s in charge of allowing the National Guard to come in and respond but she doesn’t for 71 minutes? What is that?”

    But Sund adds more details and perspective to the event that makes the lead up even more damning for the Democrats.

    The Blaze reported:

    In the interview, Sund indicated critical intelligence pertaining to possible threats ahead of the Jan. 6 protest was withheld from the Capitol Police and that the absence of such intelligence was cited by the congressional sergeants at arms — who were reporting to then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell at the time — as cause not to reinforce the Capitol in advance with the National Guard and federal assets.

    However, the outlet added the former Chief now understands that the intelligence was there. It just wasn’t provided to his department:

    According to the former chief, “We now know FBI [and] DHS was swimming in that intelligence. We also know now that the military seemed to have some very concerning intelligence as well,” adding that the FBI field office in Washington and other outfits “didn’t put out a single official document specific to January 6. That’s very unusual.”

    During a conference call on Jan. 5, 2021, with the leaders of the Metropolitan Police Department and the FBI Washington field office along with National Guard, military officials, and others, “not one person on that call talked about any concerns from the intelligence … that was out there.”

    “This was handled differently. … It’s almost like they wanted it to be watered down, the intelligence to be watered down for some reason,” said Sund. “It wasn’t right the way the intelligence was handled and the way we were set up on the Hill.”

    The question is – did these federal security agencies make the decisions not to forward this intelligence on their own, or where they told not to send it?

    In the interview, Sund noted that then-acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley had “both discussed locking down the city of Washington, D.C., because they were so worried about violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6.”

    Sund added: “On Sunday and Monday, they had been discussing locking down the city, revoking permits on Capitol hill because of the concern for violence.” 

    He continued: “You know who issues the permits on Capitol Hill for demonstrations? I do. You know who wasn’t told? Me.”

    This deserves much more investigation. The Jan 6 Committee was a partisan circus and designed only to blame Trump.

    I have argued that the Pentagon leadership was extremely wary of bringing in the National Guard or any federal assets to DC due to the extreme overreaction by Democrats over Trump sending federal officers to quell riots in Portland a few months earlier.

    Democrats also were apoplectic with rage at Trump’s actions to stop violent rioters outside the White House on June 1st. 

    There was also the incessant talk in the media about Trump using the military for a ‘coup,’ which Miller has stated as a constraint several times. These all remain valid explanations for the Pentagon’s preferred inaction. 

    And maybe for the Mayor’s decision to initially reject Guard troops.

    But what about Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer? What did they know and when did they know it? And why did they veto reinforcing the Capitol till the chaos had already begun?

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Amanda Head: Fox News Viewers Down, MSNBC Up!

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    1

    Viewers are leaving Fox News in droves…

    Watch Amanda explain the situation below:

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Pentagon Spying on Everything for Bad Comments About Generals

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    2
    David B. Gleason from Chicago, IL, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

    ANALYSIS – Big Brother keeps growing – As part of the broader government war against free speech, the Department of Defense (DoD) is now using Orwellian means to search the internet, social media, and just about everything else, for things we say or post.

    And it’s not just for legitimate physical threats against generals, it will also be looking for simple negative comments about our top military leaders.

    And we should all be outraged. This really is scary stuff. This even goes beyond recent reports of the government buying our detailed personal information from data brokers, which I wrote about here.

    The military runs a little-known outfit called the Army Protective Services Battalion under the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division (CID). Think of it as the Pentagon’s Secret Service for generals.

    Its mission specifically falls under CID’s Executive Protection and Special Investigations Field Office. And it has a lot of resources. Its new webpage notes:

    With over 400 assigned special agents, police officers, analysts, physical security specialists, and professional support personnel spread across three continents, the Executive Protection Field Office is the largest office within CID providing worldwide dignitary protection for the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of the Army, Chief of Staff of the Army, and over a dozen other protectees in domestic and overseas locations.

    Executive Protection also protects foreign counterparts during official visits to the United States, along with designated former or retired Department of Defense officials. Army CID’s dignitary protection mission is supported by robust protective intelligence and threat management investigative capabilities. [Emphasis added].

    This perfectly legitimate organization exists to safeguard our senior military brass, as well as foreign brass visiting our country. As part of its duties, it conducts legitimate ‘protective intelligence’ to identify potential physical threats to its protectees. 

    I am very familiar with their mission having worked with some of these folks as a military attaché during high-level foreign visits by our Defense Secretary and generals. I also have professional experience with dignitary protection. 

    All this is very good and vital stuff.

    The problem arises when the scope of the protective intelligence mission expands to include things that it shouldn’t. In this case, the unit is tasked to protect current and former high-ranking military officers from “assassination, kidnapping, injury or embarrassment.” 

    Yes, among the big threats is “embarrassment.” 

    That’s bad enough since it opens the door to looking into things that they shouldn’t just because they might embarrass a general. 

    But now, according to an Army procurement document from September 2022, reports the Intercept, the detachment’s mission has expanded to include monitoring social media for “direct, indirect, and veiled” threats and identifying “negative sentiment” regarding its protectees. 

    And it’s hiring a technology contractor to do its dirty work.

    “Negative sentiment” – that is almost as bad as “mean tweets.” It is beyond outrageous.

    I have expressed ‘negative sentiment’ toward a few senior military leaders numerous times online and in published articles – including Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Mark Milley.

    And I will continue to do so, as is my 1st amendment right.

    The line should be when anyone makes veiled or direct physical threats against any political or military leader, not just says mean things.

    As The Intercept reports: “There may be legally valid reasons to intrude on someone’s privacy by searching for, collecting, and analyzing publicly available information, particularly when it pertains to serious crimes and terrorist threats,” Ilia Siatitsa, program director at Privacy International, said.

    “However,” he added, “expressing ‘positive or negative sentiment towards a senior high-risk individual’ cannot be deemed sufficient grounds for government agencies to conduct surveillance operations.”

    Siatitsa rightly concluded: “The ability to express opinions, criticize, make assumptions, or form value judgments — especially regarding public officials — is a quintessential part of democratic society.”

    Beyond that, what if the Army is protecting a Chinese general visiting the United States? Will they surveil or target Americans who are critical of this foreign adversary’s general or of China?

    And according to the documents uncovered by The Intercept, the program the Army is procuring for its newly expanded intelligence mission is a dystopian surveillance nightmare. 

    It will scour everything, everywhere, and then even pinpoint the location of the person making the comment.

    This is extremely frightening.

    The Army describes their surveillance system as “a reliable social media threat mitigation service” with an “Open-Source Web-based toolkit with advanced capabilities to collect publicly available information (PAI).”

    Information is not only grabbed up from Twitter’s “firehose” but also from 4Chan, Reddit, YouTube, Discord, Telegram, private contractors like Dataminr, as well as smartphone apps and advertisers.

    Combined with cellular location data the Army could also precisely pinpoint those who might make a mean tweet about current or former military officials. 

    The Intercept adds that all this data, plus CCTV feeds, radio stations, personal records, and even webcams – would be available via a “universal search selector.” That means they can access just about anything.

    The Army also wants the contractor to preserve the “anonymity and security needed” by “using various egress points globally to mask their identity.” This means they can conveniently make it look like the folks doing the snooping are in China or Russia.

    This is a very scary domestic spying capability to use against Americans. Congress must investigate this Orwellian program immediately and remove elements that will infringe on our constitutional rights.

    Or it will soon be used against you.

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Amanda Head: Liberals and Their Lies on the 4th of July!

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    0

    Liberals just can’t help themselves…

    Watch Amanda explain the controversy below:

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Democrats Give Their Media Green Light to Go After Bidens

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    7
    CNN Headquarters via Wikimedia Commons

    ANALYSIS – It seems that the Democrat establishment has given its media the green light to start reporting real news about the Bidens. Some will see it as them going after Joe and Hunter Biden, but most will see it as something long forgotten by these organizations – journalism.

    Either way, as Hot Air asked: “Who let the dogs out?” 

    And more importantly, why now?

    White House Press reporters not from Fox News, or other conservative outlets, are finally asking Joe Biden tough questions, including whether he was involved in his son’s shady business deals.

    And CBS Evening News did an entire national broadcast piece interviewing the senior IRS whistleblower about how the agency held back in its investigation into Hunter Biden.

    The segment was only three minutes long, but that’s a lifetime in broadcast news, especially when the topic has literally been banned from the establishment media since Biden launched his campaign in 2020.

    In the CBS segment reporter Jim Axelrod interviewed IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley in a professional manner and allowed him time to fully answer his questions.

    The segment included reporting “…the stunning claim he [Shapley] was blocked from pursuing leads that could have led to the president himself.”

    This follows another CBS News story on the two whistleblowers last Thursday that included transcripts of their interviews with GOP lawmakers.

    That story noted that: “Two IRS whistleblowers allege sweeping misconduct, including interference in the Hunter Biden tax investigation, according to the GOP House Ways and Means Committee chairman and newly released transcripts of congressional interviews with the whistleblowers.”

    This can only start building to a bigger deluge of actual reporting on the Biden scandals. The question is why now? David Catron explained his view of the Democrat intrigue in the Spectator:

    Something changed last week inside the Beltway that suggests the people who run the Democratic Party now realize President Biden’s tenure in office is not sustainable beyond 2024. The “tell” was not, however, the latest revelation by IRS whistleblowers about his corrupt administration. It was instead the sudden awakening of the White House press corps. The same “reporters” who snored through more than two years of preposterous claims by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and her predecessor simultaneously woke up Friday. Correspondents from media outlets CNN, CBS, NBC, and even the New York Times aggressively questioned Jean-Pierre about the metastasizing Hunter Biden scandals. 

    This wasn’t spontaneous. The word has gone out that regime change is coming [emphasis added].

    So, it seems Democrats want Biden out. And Kamala Harris too. And can you blame them?

    I have long predicted that Biden would not finish the 2024 race. Too old. Too frail. Too demented. Too scandal plagued. And Harris is just plain dumb. And unelectable.

    But what now? Conservative commentator Chad Prather notes in The Blaze:

    “They’re gonna really run Joe down, and it’s gonna get to a point where basically, Jill’s gonna come along and pull Joe and say, ‘You know, Joe and I have decided that we have fixed everything Trump messed up. We’ve done our job; it’s time to pass the mantle on to the successor.’”

    Prather adds that Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 race will allow him to avoid any criminal liability and believes he and Jill will sign a very big book deal, and as part of a bigger deal, will likely let Harris be president, briefly.

     “She’ll get to be the first female president — just for a second. That’ll keep her from running her mouth too much later on, because they’ll throw her that bone,” Prather adds.

    “She’ll go down in history as that.”

    I must admit this scenario sounds plausible to me. The only remaining question is, who will be the real Democrat candidate for president in 2024?

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Democrat House Intel Committee Chief Pressured Twitter to Ban Journalists and Critics

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    0

    ANALYSIS – In the ‘yes, we were right all’ along category, it is crystal clear that leading Democrats politicos held enormous sway over the woke peons at Twitter, and still do at other Big Tech social media companies. 

    And, in clear violation of the First Amendment, and press freedom, these top Democrats use that power to pressure these companies to suspend and ban journalists and critics alike.

    In the latest bombshell drop from Musk’s Twitter Files we learn that by 2020, Twitter was inundated with requests and demands from elements of the government to censor various personalities and narratives.

    The most egregious example is that of Adam Schiff, his position as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee gave him credibility to push false narratives, and then push Big Tech to censor any contrary views.

    Significantly, Schiff’s office wanted Twitter to shut down one of the most effective journalists pushing back on his phony Russia collusion narrative.

    Fox News reports:

    Published Tuesday, the latest round of the Twitter Files – internal documents revealing how Twitter engaged in censorship and promoted disinformation in tandem with government agencies for the past few years – revealed that Schiff’s office asked Twitter to remove journalist Paul Sperry and others from the site. 

    Taibbi, who published the Twitter Files post-by-post to Twitter at the behest of Musk, provided documentation showing that “the office for Democrat and House Intel Committee chief Adam Schiff” asked “Twitter to ban journalist Paul Sperry.”

    The document Taibbi shared featured correspondence between the “House Permanent Select Intelligence Committee” – Schiff’s office – and Twitter, which included a request to “Suspend the many accounts, including @GregRubini and @paulsperry, which repeatedly promoted false QAnon conspiracies and harassed [REDACTED].”

    In the article [Schiff wanted banned], Sperry said then-CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella was overheard talking in the White House with Sean Misko, a holdover staffer from former President Barack Obama’s administration.

    A former official who reportedly heard the conversation told Sperry, “Just days after [Trump] was sworn in they were already trying to get rid of him.”

    Paul Sperry is a senior staff writer for RealClearInvestigations and has also penned pieces for the New York Post, the Federalist, and other publications.

    RealClearInvestigations senior writer Mark Hemingway tweeted, “Of course, Sperry’s real crime was doing vital reporting exposing the mistruths about Russia collusion, a subject Schiff lied about for years.”

    The New York Post explained:

    Sperry’s reporting clearly showed the partisan motives behind the leaks, and how they were partly manufactured partisan CIA hacks to bring down the former president.

    Schiff’s outrageous demands and pressures were solely intended to crush that news from ever being seen.

    Thankfully, not all the Twits at Twitter were as easy to manipulate as others. 

    In response to the last Schiff request, another unidentified Twitter employee wrote, “no, this isn’t feasible/we don’t do that.”

    But the fact that Schiff and other partisan Democrats succeeded many other times is the real issue. 

    It’s also a good reason to have Schiff not only removed from the intelligence committee as the new GOP leadership intends, but to also remove him from Congress entirely for gross abuse of power and other ethical breaches.

    Keeping Track of the Criminal ‘Witch Hunt’ Against Trump

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    1
    Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    ANALYSIS – If you can’t beat him, charge him. As I wrote earlier: “From the four-year Hillary Clinton-manufactured ‘Russia collusion’ hoax to corrupt investigations to ‘deep state resistance’ within his administration to a partisan impeachment – no [other] president has been so unfairly hounded in U.S. history.”

    But the persecution clearly didn’t end with Donald Trump leaving the White House. The absolute fear he could return to office has since resulted in multiple prosecutions from idiotic nonsense such as his bookkeeping regarding hush money to a porn actress, to sexual assault that reportedly happened 30 years ago.

    But that was just the beginning, and those cases were brought by partisan local prosecutors. Now the prosecutorial floodgates have opened wider, with Joe Biden’s Department of Justice (DoJ) being weaponized to go after Trump.

    While I have blamed the ex-president for bringing the classified materials charges upon himself – see my earlier piece – there is no doubt that politics is playing a big part as well.

    And it is getting hard to keep up with all the charges and case and court timelines. His most recent indictment being related to his words and actions leading up to and during the January 6 Capitol Riot.

    “Not guilty,” Trump stressed the first word of his plea on Thursday (August 3) before Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya.

    The arraignment — U.S. special counsel Jack Smith’s second DoJ indictment against the former president — charges Trump with conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction, conspiracy to obstruct the Electoral College vote certification, and conspiracy against voter rights. 

    Charges that could carry serious prison time if convicted.

    With the latest four charges, Trump now faces 78 criminal counts.

    The 45-page indictment says Trump “pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results.”

    Trump’s next court date will be August 28, when U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, a harsh critic of January 6 defendants, and Obama-appointee, sets a trial date.

    “This is a very sad day for America,” Trump told reporters after the hearing, portraying the indictment and the other three criminal cases against him as a “witch hunt” intended to derail his 2024 presidential campaign.

    Among the criminal charges that special counsel Jack Smith released; media identified six of Trump’s former lawyers as unnamed co-conspirators in his bid to rig the elec­tion.

    They possibly are Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s former personal attorney; White House lawyer John Eastman; Trump attorney Sidney Powell; former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark; and attorney Kenneth Chesebro.

    The description of the sixth co-conspirator is a “political consultant” and is not immediately apparent — the indictment gives few details. 

    The consultant identified attorneys who could help carry out a scheme to present fake Electoral College votes to Congress as lawmakers certified the election results.

    According to the indictment, co-conspirator No. 2 is a lawyer who drafted a plan to have Vice President Mike Pence throw out Joe Biden’s Electoral Votes in Congress.

    Speaking publicly for the first time since Trump’s indictment, Pence told reporters he had hoped it wouldn’t come to a charge.

    “Sadly, the president was surrounded by a group of crackpot lawyers that kept telling him what his itching ears wanted to hear,” said Pence.

    Of the 78 charges across three criminal cases, 44 are federal and 34 state charges, all felonies, in three jurisdictions. Trump has denied wrongdoing in every case.

    However, Trump’s legal woes have done little to damage his status as a Republican front-runner. A New York Times/Siena College poll between July 23-27 showed a landslide lead of 37 percentage points over Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, his closest competitor in the Republican primary.

    Trump’s best defense against these mostly politicized prosecutions may be winning the White House in 2024.

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    UN Legal Body Normalizes Sex With Children – Crimes Against Humanity Next?

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    4
    U.S. Department of State from United States, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    ANALYSIS – No, this isn’t a story of a wacky conspiracy theory about global elites and pedophilia, it is real news. And this time the truth is close to the mark.

    According to a shocking report produced by legal experts backed by the United Nations, children can consent to sex with adults.

    This is not only despicable; it violates the very UN principles that protect children from sexual violence. 

    The widespread raping of women and children is an especially serious concern in the world’s war zones, where the heinous acts are considered war crimes. 

    And in other UN documents, allowing sex with children “may amount to grave breaches of international humanitarian law.”

    The findings of these supposedly enlightened jurists only blurs the lines of perverse criminal behavior and will embolden those animals who abuse children.

    And, in an insult to all women, the report was released on March 8 ‘in recognition of International Women’s Day,’ suggesting some sort of connection between women’s rights and the age of consent.

    While the report does not specifically call for decriminalizing sex between adults and minors and doesn’t define an age of sexual consent, it states that children have both the mental ability and legal right to make sexual decisions.

    We should note that while there is a difference between mature, sexually active older teenagers, and young children, these experts appear to simply reference all minors under age 18.

    Listed under Principle 16 – ‘Consensual Sexual Conduct,’ the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists, aided by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, wrote: “Sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law.” 

    If that is true, then how long before the UN and ‘global elites’ do in fact decriminalize adults having sex with children?

    Well, the commission answers that question when it added in its report, “In this context, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them.”

    According to Influencer Ian Miles Chong, “This has been the plan all along.”

    https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1647416022637629440

    The perverse findings which seem to open the door to normalize sex with minors appears in a report with the esoteric and convoluted title: “The 8 March Principles for a Human Rights-Based Approach to Criminal Law Proscribing Conduct Associated with Sex, Reproduction, Drug Use, HIV, Homelessness and Poverty.”

    The report is posted prominently on the Commission’s website.

    Its deranged conclusions also clash directly with the reality the UN Human Rights Commission reports on the ground in many countries.

    As noted by the UN’s own organization “Children and Armed Conflict:

    Sexual violence against children during conflict is one of the six grave violations identified and condemned by the UN Security Council .  The six grave violations form the basis of the Council’s architecture to monitor, report and respond to abuses suffered by children in times of war. Ending and preventing these violations is also the focus of the Special Representative’s work and advocacy.

    Sexual violence is increasingly a characteristic of conflict and is often perpetrated against girls and boys in a rule of law vacuum. In some instances sexual violence has been used as a tactic of war designed to humiliate a population or to force displacement.

    The UN group clearly states:

    Rape and other forms of sexual violence against children are human rights violations, and may amount to grave breaches of international humanitarian law. If committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population, sexual violence can constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

    So, which is it, UN? Where do you draw the line? If children can consent to sex, when is it a humanitarian or war crime and when is it just fine?

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Judge Judy Labels Trump Hush Money Case ‘Nonsense’

    By
    admin
    -
    2
    Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    A waste of time and taxpayer dollars…

    “Judge Judy” Sheindlin called Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s (D) hush money case against former President Trump “nonsense” in a recent interview.

    “You gotta twist yourself into a pretzel to figure out what the crime was. [Bragg] doesn’t like him — New York City didn’t like him for a while,” Sheindlin said of Trump in a “Who’s Talking to Chris Wallace?” interview streaming Friday on Max.

    “I would be happier, as someone who owns property in Manhattan, if the district attorney of New York County would take care of criminals who were making it impossible for citizens to walk in the streets and use the subway, to use his efforts to keep those people off the street, than to spend $5 million or $10 million of taxpayers’ money trying Donald Trump on this nonsense,” the longtime TV judge told Wallace.

    Watch:

    “I, as a taxpayer in this country, resent using the system for your own personal self-aggrandizement,” the “Judy Justice” personality said of Bragg.

    OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

    Asked by the CNN anchor what she thought of Trump, the 81-year-old former Manhattan Family Court judge replied, “I think he was a good businessman, a real estate guy. And he was certainly terrific on ‘The Apprentice.’”

    The celebrity judge’s comments come as the Manhattan DA seeks an extension of the restraining order against former President Donald Trump. (RELATED: Manhattan DA Seeks Extended Gag Order Against Trump Amid Death Threats To Bragg)

    They argue that Trump’s public statements have increased tensions and led to threats against Bragg and his team before Trump’s July 11 sentencing.

    The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records as part of a hush-money scheme to prevent porn star Stormy Daniels from speaking out about her alleged extramarital affair before the 2016 presidential election.

    Before Trump, no sitting or former president ever faced criminal charges. This is the lowest level felony in New York, any potential sentence will more than likely be served after the 2024 election.

    As The New York Times reports:

    The order, issued before Mr. Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial began in mid-April, bars him from attacking witnesses, jurors, court staff and relatives of the judge who presided over the trial, Juan M. Merchan.

    Mr. Trump’s lawyers have sought to have the order lifted since Mr. Trump’s conviction in late May. But in a 19-page filing on Friday, prosecutors argued that while Justice Merchan no longer needed to enforce the portion of the gag order relating to trial witnesses, he should keep in place the provisions protecting jurors, prosecutors, court staff and their families.

    Article Published With The Permission of American Liberty News

    Woke Former Twitter Censorship Czar Says ‘Misgendering’ Can’t be Allowed

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    12
    Secretary of Health Dr. Rachel Levine answering questions from the press. As states across the country begin to reopen and nearly half are seeing COVID-19 cases rise, Governor Tom Wolf announced Friday that Pennsylvania is not one of them. ...Today at a daily COVID briefing with Health Secretary Dr. Rachel Levine, he noted another milestone: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention proprietary data for states indicates that we are one of just three states that has had a downward trajectory of COVID- 19 cases for more than 42 days. The other two states are Montana and Hawaii. JUNE 17, 2020 - HARRISBURG, PA.

    ANALYSIS – This is how the world ends, not with a bang, but a ‘misgendering.’  

    A recent podcast interview with the ex-Twitter censorship czar provides insight into the warped woke ‘logic’ behind insanely dangerous leftist censorship.

    The illuminating comments were made by the former head of trust and safety at Twitter to defend the company’s earlier choice to suspend the Babylon Bee, a Christian satire outlet, for ‘misgendering’ a public official.

    Misgendering is the new made-up woke term that refers to someone not calling someone else by their own totally made-up preferred gender identity. 

    And to the Left, this simple choice is a horrific act of brutality against a  ‘vulnerable community’ and cannot be tolerated under any circumstances – “full stop.”

    In the interview Yoel Roth stated:

    “So let’s start from a premise that it’s fu**ed up. But then again let’s look at what Twitter’s written policies are, Twitter’s written policies prohibit misgendering, full stop. And the Babylon Bee, in the name of satire, misgendered Admiral Rachel Levine.”

    Oh, the horror…

    As Fox News reported:

    Ex-Twitter safety chief Yoel Roth slammed conservative Twitter accounts during a discussion with journalist Kara Swisher that was later released on her Thursday podcast. 

    The Babylon Bee (The Bee) was suspended from Twitter after it made a joke at the expense of transgender Health and Human Services assistant secretary Dr. Rachel Levine, who identifies as a female. 

    The Bee had published a satirical piece congratulating the government official for being dubbed its “Man of the Year” for 2022.

    While letting him know that she did not agree with Twitter’s choice to suspend The Bee, Swisher invited Roth to explain his company’s course of action at the time.

    “It’s interesting to think about what the competing tensions around that are. I want to start by acknowledging that the targeting and the victimization of the trans community on Twitter is very real, very life-threatening, and extraordinarily serious,” Roth claimed. 

    “We have seen from a number of Twitter accounts, including LibsOfTikTok notably, that there are orchestrated campaigns that particularly are singling out a group that is already particularly vulnerable within society.”

    He went on to say, “Not only is it not funny, but it is dangerous, and it does contribute to an environment that makes people unsafe in the world.”

    The former Twitter official then went on to shield himself behind Twitter’s regulations, suggesting that his team was merely enforcing the rules on the books.

    Well, not only are Roth’s comments outrageous nonsense, they are dangerous to all our freedoms.

    It is a scientific fact that biological men and women cannot change sex. Despite every painful effort,  they can only change their appearance. 

    Biology and chromosomes can’t be transformed, even if genitals and breasts can be mutilated, and supplemented by a lifetime regimen of drugs and hormone injections. 

    Of course, clothing, accessories, and behavior can also be adjusted and modified.

    But, these are all essentially cosmetic, even when some are horribly invasive, changes.

    Calling a biological man a man is simply scientific fact. 

    It is even more accurate when the man has not undergone any sexual transition procedures, but simply ‘identifies’ as a woman.

    The same applies to women ‘identifying’ as men.

    But banning ‘misgendering’ isn’t enough, Twitter’s Terms of Service continues the insanity by prohibiting ‘deadnaming’ transgender individuals. 

    ‘Deadnaming’ is another newly made up woke term that refers to simply calling someone by the name they were known by prior to their deciding to identify with the opposite sex.

    In the case of Rachel Levine, that means calling him Richard, his name for the majority of his male life.

    Notice I just ‘misgendered,’ and ‘deadnamed’ Levine.

    While on a personal level some of us may choose to accept the preferred gender identity, pronouns, or new name of a ‘transgender’ individual, out of courtesy or whatever other reason, that choice should not be dictated by Big Tech, or anyone else. 

    And doing so has created a dangerous new logic that the right of a ‘transgender’ individual to demand everyone use his or her gender identity, or new name, absolutely trumps all our rights to our own beliefs and our constitutional right to free speech. 

    And that is the most dangerous thing of all 

    Please note that new ‘Chief Twit’ Elon Musk has reinstated Twitter accounts, such as Babylon Bee, previously suspended for policy violations, Twitter’s terms of service still lay out the old rules about misgendering.

    Musk needs to quickly,  but carefully, change those rules. How he does that will set a new standard for how these issues should be dealt with by other platforms, and society in general. GAND

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    1...38394041Page 39 of 41
    © Great America News Desk 2022