My View Of Cheney. Unconstitutional and Absurd. Money Can Be Defeated. Are You Dumb Enough To Believe Biden? More Shenanigans.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I have not commented on self-righteous Cheney. She voted over 90% for Trump's policies.  She never complained at Hillary's response to her defeat, nor did she stand up to the application of a double standard of laws or the destruction caused by radicals etc.  

Trump was emotional about losing an election he should have won and might have had the Democrats not engaged in so many pre-election activities meant to both defeat him and /or throw doubt. We know mail in ballots are not secure or reliable.  

Voting is a sacred right and if people cannot take one day of their life every other year and stand in a line  and produce evidence of who they are then they should vacate to China.

I am  delighted Cheney is gone and when she runs for the president we will have another opportunity to defeat her "principled" hypocrisy.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

So this is what America has come to.  Discriminate against alleged discrimination. MLK is turning over in his grave. This s so blatantly unconstitutional  it is beyond comprehension except that militants from outside and within want to destroy our nation.

+++

Minnesota Public Schools Changes Rules To Lay Off White Teachers Before Minorities

By Philip Caldwell

Minnesota Public Schools reached an agreement with its teachers' union to institute a policy that will discriminate against white teachers during layoffs, according to a report from Alpha News.

The agreement, which the union reached in March following a two-week strike, upends the seniority-based layoff system under which teachers who have been employed the least amount of time are the first to be fired. Under the new rules, if a minority teacher is set to be laid off, the district will instead fire the next least senior teacher who is white.

"If [laying off] a teacher who is a member of a population underrepresented among licensed teachers in the site, the district shall excess the next least senior teacher, who is not a member of an underrepresented population," reads the agreement, which goes into effect next spring.

The justification for the racial discrimination is to "remedy the continuing effects of past discrimination," according to the school district.

Minnesota Public Schools' policy is the latest example of teachers' efforts to institute policies favoring minority teachers in hiring and compensation in order to achieve racial equity. Staff at New York City's elite Dalton School in 2020 demanded the administration pay off black faculty's student debt, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

The Minnesota policy also favors minorities when the district reinstates teachers. "The District shall deprioritize the more senior teacher, who is not a member of an underrepresented population, in order to recall a teacher who is a member of a population underrepresented among licensed teachers," the agreement reads.

James Dickey, senior trial counsel at the Upper Midwest Law Center, told Alpha News the policy is racially discriminatory and unconstitutional.

"The [collective bargaining agreement] … openly discriminates against white teachers based only on the color of their skin, and not their seniority or merit," Dickey said. "Minneapolis teachers and taxpayers who oppose government-sponsored racism like this should stand up against it."

A good candidate should be able to turn their opponent's fund raising against them by convincing voters their vote does not count because the money barons have already cancelled your vote and bought the election.

++++++++++++++++++++ 

Money has proven to be everything at election time but I do not believe that, necessarily, need be the case. Particularly is this so when you have an advantage with respect to the issues..

Most American voters do not want open borders, drugs killing their children, police being defunded, communism being taught to school kids and matters of sex and choice taught to infants.  Nor do they believe inflation is good, running deficits is sound and the mass media is trustworthy. We The People are fed up and any candidate that can't take that message and run with it deserves to be defeated.

+++

Wave of Blue Money Overwhelms U.S. Senate Races

Some analysts are crediting the Democrats’ outsized fundraising in 2022 to June’s Dobbs v. Jackson abortion decision from the Supreme Court.

Blake Masters of Arizona trails badly in the race to raise money for his Senate bid against Senator Kelly. 

Democratic Senate candidates hold large fundraising advantages over Republicans as they begin to build an edge in the race to control the upper chamber this November, with some crediting the wave of blue money to June’s Dobbs v. Jackson abortion decision from the Supreme Court.

In Ohio, the Republican nominee, J.D. Vance, is trailing the Democratic nominee, Congressman Tim Ryan, in the fiscal race, with about $625,000 in his coffers compared to Mr. Ryan’s more than $3.5 million.

The GOP nominee in next-door neighbor Pennsylvania, Mehmet Oz, is trailing Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman, a Democrat, in funds as well — $1.1 million to $5.5 million.

A survey of competitive Senate races shows that Democrats enjoy big financial advantages in North Carolina, Georgia, and Nevada as well. The exception is Wisconsin, where Senator Johnson, the incumbent, has more than double his Democratic challenger’s funds.

The starkest example of the Democratic financial advantage is in Arizona, where Senator Kelly has about 16 times as much money as his opponent, venture capitalist Blake Masters. Mr. Kelly enjoys a war chest just shy of $25 million, while Mr. Masters has about $1.5 million

A data scientist at Decision Desk HQ who is a professor at Washington University at St. Louis, Liberty Vittert, says the wave of Democratic money is “pushing our current projections that the Democrats are going to win the Senate.”

Ms. Vitteret says money used to be king in American elections, but that’s not the case any more, citing President Trump’s 2016 win as evidence. She is, however, doubtful that the current slate of GOP nominees will be able to replicate Mr. Trump’s success, saying “you just can’t draw parallels.”

Nationally, the Democratic and Republican senatorial committees have raised similar amounts of money — $163 million and $173 million, respectively — according to August Federal Elections Commission data.

Republicans, however, spent much more of their money battling it out in competitive primaries, often between Trump-supporting and Trump-opposing candidates. The GOP’s Senate arm only has about $28.5 million left, whereas Democrats have more than $52.5 million still on hand.

Each senatorial committee’s funds represent a modest increase from the 2018 midterms, when both partisan committees raised around $150 million. According to Ms. Vittert, the trends show that Republicans aren’t raising less money than usual, but rather that Democratic candidates are raising more than expected.

She credits the Dobbs v. Jackson decision for the swing in the Democrats’ direction, noting that their chances of retaining the Senate and maintaining their edge in the generic ballot polling average, which measures popular partisan support, have improved since the ruling in late June.

On June 24, the day the ruling was handed down, Real Clear Politics’ average of generic ballot polling, which incorporates dozens of polls, showed Republicans leading 44.7 percent to 41.3 percent.

In the past month and a half, the gap has closed to a virtual tie, with Real Clear Politics reporting an average of 44.3 percent support for Republicans and 44.2 percent support for Democrats.

“Dems are slowly consolidating their lead in the states where they’re leading,” Ms. Vittert said. “There’s no doubt that a huge amount of the fundraising that Dems have done is off Roe v. Wade.”

In the battle for the House, the fundraising has not been as lopsided, with the Democratic and Republican congressional committees raising $239 million and $215 million, respectively.

As it stands now, the GOP is still favored to take the lower chamber, with most forecasts expecting them to control about 230 seats after the November elections.

Weaponization of politics will end our "united" States because it is divisive and appeals to the heart not the head. It washes away most reasoning.

And:

The new tax bill that is going to reduce inflation and not effect kitchen table Joe and his family is a lie.  It is a lie because Biden is a proven liar and history is against everything he is saying.

+++

IRS Hiring Spree Is Biggest Expansion of Police State in American History

By David Harsanyi 



Police state is here. Thousands of irs. With guns???   Surely a joke

The Democrats’ new reconciliation bill isn’t just going to be the largest-ever expansion of a government agency. It’s going to be the largest expansion of the domestic police state in American history.

Only a statist could believe that a federal government, which already collects $4.1 trillion every year—or $12,300 for every citizen—supposedly needs 80 battalions of new IRS cops.

The average American has less reason to be concerned about cops with guns—though the IRS is looking for special agents who can “carry a firearm and be willing to use deadly force, if necessary”—than they do bureaucrats armed with pens who are authorized to sift through their lives.

If you pay your taxes you have nothing to worry about, Democrats claim. But most law-abiding citizens know they have something to fear from a state agency that doesn’t concern itself with your due process, has no regard for your privacy, and is empowered to target anyone it wants without any genuine oversight.

And, please, spare us this nonsense about the IRS expansion focusing exclusively on “high earners.”

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre promised that the IRS wouldn’t engage in new audits of anyone making under $400,000—a claim she has no authority to make and could not possibly predict even if she did.

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., also said that the bill was passed to stop an “epidemic of tax cheating amongst the millionaires and billionaires” and promised that “audit rates won’t increase for anyone making under $400K.”

This is a lie. Nothing in the bill that Democrats passed through the Senate limits audits. Murphy, along with every other Democrat in the Senate, voted against a Republican amendment that would have prevented new agents from auditing individuals and small businesses with less than $400,000 of taxable income.

Not long ago, Democrats passed the American Rescue Plan Act—which had as much to do with rescuing as the Inflation Reduction Act has to do with reducing inflation—and changed tax code so that mobile payment apps like Venmo and Cash App were now required to report transactions totaling $600 or more per year to the IRS. Does that sound like a party aiming fire exclusively at high-earning Americans?

Indeed, poor and middle-class Americans are far more likely to do their own taxes, and thus more prone to making mistakes. In 2021, those making $25,000 or less (often the young and elderly) were audited at a rate five times higher than everyone else.

The wealthier you are, the more likely it is that you can hire lawyers and accountants to work within the system. There aren’t enough millionaires and billionaires in the world to keep a potential new 87,000 IRS employees busy.

There are other overlooked aspects of the Democrats’ IRS expansion. The bill, for instance, strengthens the federal public-sector union monopoly that funds Democrats’ political aspirations.

IRS and Treasury Department employees spent 353,820 hours engaged in union activism—their PAC gives every cent to the Democrats—in 2019. One can imagine what another 87,000 employees would do for that effort. In the real world, laundering taxpayer funds through unions and using them on political campaigns is called racketeering.

None of this is to say that everyone who works for the IRS is corrupt or power-hungry or an ideologue. The unassailable rules of giant bureaucracies, however, are that they always experience mission creep, they always do enough to justify their funding, and sooner or later, their leaders become political operatives.

With that said, it’s worth remembering that the IRS doesn’t simply collect taxes. It enforces speech codes. This is what empowered former IRS official Lois Lerner to target conservative groups—”crazies and “a–holes”—who used words like “tea party” or “patriots” in their names.

But, even at the time, leftists at The New York Times editorial board praised the IRS for going after conservative groups because they did not “primarily” engage in “social welfare,” and so did not deserve an exemption under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code.

Has anything in the evolution of the Democratic Party given you confidence that such power would not be abused or that an engorged IRS would be immune from political pressure?

Wrestling with an insanely complex tax code—nearly 8 million words—costs Americans billions every year. Rather than flattening and simplifying this astonishingly convoluted code, which not only would have saved citizens but the government money, Democrats decided we needed up to another 87,000 people to enforce it.

+++++++++++++++++

More shenanigans?
+++

Merrick Garland, the Washington Post and the Nuclear Story

If the threat is genuine, why didn’t the Justice Department treat it that way?

By James Freeman 

If papers in former President Donald Trump’s home represented such a grave threat to national security, why did the Justice Department take so long to act on it? Among the implausible details of this disturbing story has been that after a Justice official and several FBI agents visited Mar-a-Lago in early June, Justice waited several days before merely requesting that a stronger lock be placed on the door of a storage room and then waited roughly two months before seeking a warrant. Now a new report makes the theory of a significant security threat even harder to credit.

Attorney General Merrick Garland deliberated for weeks over whether to approve the application for a warrant to search former President Donald Trump’s Florida home, people familiar with the matter said, a sign of his cautious approach that will be tested over the coming months.

The decision had been the subject of weeks of meetings between senior Justice Department and FBI officials, the people said. The warrant allowed agents last Monday to seize classified information and other presidential material from Mar-a-Lago.

Weeks of meetings strongly suggest a gray area, not a clear and present danger. Mr. Garland’s long period of pondering is completely incompatible with a news report that has been widely circulated since last week. In a story published on Thursday and updated on Friday, Devlin Barrett, Josh Dawsey, Perry Stein and Shane Harris reported for the Washington Post:

Classified documents relating to nuclear weapons were among the items FBI agents sought in a search of former president Donald Trump’s Florida residence on Monday, according to people familiar with the investigation.

Experts in classified information said the unusual search underscores deep concern among government officials about the types of information they thought could be located at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club and potentially in danger of falling into the wrong hands.

Their concern was so deep that they had to kick the issue around at meetings for much of the summer before trying to do anything about it? The Post report continued:

The people who described some of the material that agents were seeking spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.

If the history of anonymous sources speaking to the Washington Post about FBI national-security investigations related to Mr. Trump is any guide, the sources might also have sought anonymity because what they were saying was highly misleading. But maybe this time we should believe them. In its recent story the Post suggested that the world’s most dangerous documents might be vulnerable:

Material about nuclear weapons is especially sensitive and usually restricted to a small number of government officials, experts said. Publicizing details about U.S. weapons could provide an intelligence road map to adversaries seeking to build ways of countering those systems. And other countries might view exposing their nuclear secrets as a threat, experts said.

One former Justice Department official, who in the past oversaw investigations of leaks of classified information, said the type of top-secret information described by the people familiar with the probe would probably cause authorities to try to move as quickly as possible to recover sensitive documents that could cause grave harm to U.S. security.

“If that is true, it would suggest that material residing unlawfully at Mar-a-Lago may have been classified at the highest classification level,” said David Laufman, the former chief of the Justice Department’s counterintelligence section, which investigates leaks of classified information. “If the FBI and the Department of Justice believed there were top secret materials still at Mar-a-Lago, that would lend itself to greater ‘hair-on-fire’ motivation to recover that material as quickly as possible.”

For exactly how many weeks was Mr. Garland’s hair on fire before he signed off on seeking the warrant?

The Washington Post for its part has been on fire with a flurry of atomic stories. On Friday the Post published a podcast called “The nuclear documents.” Various other Post offerings built off the original report, including an “analysis” piece from Philip Bump headlined, “Event venues (like Trump’s Mar-a-Lago) are not good places to store nuclear secrets.” Is anyone arguing that they are?

This week the Post published still more “analysis,” this time from Timothy O’Brien of Bloomberg who raises the possibility that Mr. Trump concluded “he could sell himself — or, possibly, state secrets” for big money. Mr. O’Brien claims that Mr. Trump has suffered business setbacks and then adds;

That’s a lot of financial pressure, especially for someone already prone to be a money-grubber. It should also raise alarms for any rational observer concerned that Trump might have been inspired to use the powers and access to records that his presidency provided to rake in lucre by peddling classified information after he left the White House.

How are we supposed to take any of this seriously if Justice didn’t?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++