https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1546344529460174849?s=20&t=wTJXiI92m-j9jFRQH-JB8A
Judge Sentences 69-year-old Woman with Cancer, Pam Hemphill, to Prison for Protesting Stolen 2020 Election
DC judge sentences 69-year-old woman with cancer and no criminal history to two months in prison for peacefully protesting stolen 2020 election.
This is a horrible and tragic story and shows how evil our government and DC Court have become:
A 69-year-old woman with cancer is sentenced to two months in prison in a ruling never heard of.
Pam Hemphill, is another tragic example of injustice, after peacefully protesting the stolen election on January 6th. Pam is 69 years old, battling breast cancer, with no criminal background, and is a substance abuse counselor that helped many throughout her career.
Pam was arrested for trespassing. She pled to the charge with the assurances from her attorney that with her age, cancer diagnosis, and absolute lack of criminal history, that anything short of probation has never happened.
Judge Lamberth sentenced Pam to serve 60 days in Federal prison to begin July 12th (in a matter of days).
The reason?
Though Pam was contrite during sentencing, the judge was upset by a completely different J6 prisoner’s comments to the press after sentencing on a different matter, and held that against Pam despite her age, cancer diagnosis, and law-abiding history.
It is highly unethical to punish a defendant for the conduct of another.
Write, call, and urge the judge to reconsider sentence! (See info below)
Ms. Hemphill had every right in the world to protest the 2020 stolen election. The evidence behind the stolen election is insurmountable. The 2020 Election is one of the biggest crimes in world history. This is just horrible.
The media in the US is no longer a media, it is a filthy disinformation vehicle for the radical left destroying our country. This whole thing is really so disgusting. Here’s how the dishonest far-left Law and Order reported on Ms. Pam Hemphill’s arrest and sentencing.
A 69-year-old Idaho woman who was seen being walked down the steps of the U.S. Capitol after having breached the building—and encouraging other rioters to do the same—has been sentenced to two months behind bars.
Pam Hemphill, who had flown to Washington, D.C. from Idaho on Jan. 5 to support Donald Trump’s effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, had pushed through police lines three different times as the crowd outside the Capitol grew increasingly violent. She also encouraged her fellow rioters to push their way inside the building, and she was later seen inside the Rotunda itself.
Prosecutors say that when police offered to help her, Hemphill exaggerated her injuries in an effort to distract officers from more violent protestors.
The left called the actions of those protesting the stolen illegal forgetting that US citizens have a right to protest. They discount Antifa and the Fed’s efforts to damage the Capitol and incite the crowds. They label innocent Americans who went into the Capitol trespassers when most were invited in by the police. (The doors were opened from the inside.)
They ignore the millions of examples of election fraud and claim a senile man won the election when he didn’t. They then claim President Trump tried to overturn the election when he wanted it certified based on the law because if so, it never would have gone to corrupt and criminal actors behind the Joe Biden steal.
Please contact Judge Lamberth and encourage him to come to his senses on his sentencing of Ms. Hemphill.
Email here: Contact | District of Columbia | United States District Court (uscourts.gov)
Or call below:
Chambers: (202) 354-3380
Courtroom Deputy: (202) 354-3422
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/radical-judge-sentences-69-year-old-woman-pam-hemphill-prison-protesting-stolen-2020-election/
Twitter?
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1546361634347749376?s=20&t=wTJXiI92m-j9jFRQH-JB8A
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1546367753870770177?s=20&t=wTJXiI92m-j9jFRQH-JB8A
Neil Oliver, The Governing Class Discovers that People Owning Nothing Does Not Make Them Happy
July 9, 2022 | Sundance |
In his weekly monologue Neil Oliver gives his perspective on the changing of the guard at #10 Downing Street. Meet the potential new boss, same as the old boss etc. While drawing attention to the detached and aloof viewpoints of the self-installed ‘ruling class’, Oliver riffs one of the best lines from this week:
…“Two years ago, I gave scant thought to acronyms like WHO, UN, WEF. Now I watch them with the same attention I give to dogs that look like they might bite.”…
Damned if that isn’t the truth. WATCH:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/07/09/neil-oliver-the-governing-class-discovers-that-people-owning-nothing-does-not-make-them-happy/
Excellent long article from Sundance, spells put Bannon says
Elon Musk Terminates Twitter Purchase Deal, Citing Material Breach of Agreement by Company Refusing to Provide Access to Data
July 8, 2022 | sundance |
Elon Musk has notified Twitter and the SEC [SEE LETTER HERE] that he is exercising his “right to terminate the merger agreement and abandon the transaction contemplated” due to the social media company not providing transparent access to background data that would allow authentication of “monetized daily active users” (mDAUs)….
The only way Twitter, with 217 million users, could exist as a viable platform is if they had access to tech systems of incredible scale and performance, and those systems were essentially free or very cheap. The only entity that could possibly provide that level of capacity and scale is the United States Government – combined with a bottomless bank account. A public-private partnership.
If my hunch is correct, Elon Musk is poised to expose the well-kept secret that most social media platforms are operating on U.S. government tech infrastructure and indirect subsidy. Let that sink in.
The U.S. technology system, the assembled massive system of connected databases and server networks, is the operating infrastructure that offsets the cost of Twitter to run their own servers and database. The backbone of Twitter is the United States government.
And suddenly, the people who work in the backroom of Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop did not want Jack to sell.
Twitter is not making a decision to decline the generous offer by Elon Musk because of stewardship or fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. The financials of Twitter as a non-viable business model highlight the issue of money being irrelevant. Twitter does not and cannot make money. Growing Twitter only means growing an expense. Growing Twitter does not grow revenue enough to offset the increase in expense.
There is only one way for Twitter to exist as a viable entity, people are now starting to realize this.
What matters to the people behind Twitter, the people who are subsidizing the ability of Twitter to exist, is control over the global conversation.
Control of the conversation is priceless to the people who provide the backbone for Twitter.
Once people realize who is subsidizing Twitter, everything changes.
That’s the fight. (more)
One job…. “take the preexisting system and retool it so the weapons of government only targeted one side of the political continuum.”
Say cheers for subsidized data processing through the cloud. The only thing we ask in advance is for operational nodes to monitor and extract data that is within computing systems.
“Cheers”…
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/07/08/elon-musk-terminates-twitter-purchase-deal-citing-material-breach-of-agreement-by-company-refusing-to-provide-access-to-data/#more-235021
Dissent In WI Ballot Drop Box Victory Highlights Much Bigger Issue: Our Top Jurists Don’t Care About Election Integrity
BY: MARGOT CLEVELAND
JULY 11, 2022
PART 1 OF 4
The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Friday held that state election officials’ use of some 500-plus drop boxes during the 2020 general election violated Wisconsin law.
While thecourt’s decision represents a (partial, as we will soon see) victory for election integrity, the split 4-3 decision and the substance of the dissentreveal that having a fair electoral process no longer “transcends any individual partisan interest” — something less than two decades ago Jimmy Carter touted as a universal truth in the bipartisan Commission on Election Reform report “Building Confidence in U.S. Elections.”
In Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, the court declared that the Wisconsin Elections Commission, or “WEC,” had illegally authorized election officials to use ballot drop boxes. The high court further held the WEC exceeded its statutory authority when it declared that voters could hand off their ballots to third parties rather than personally deliver their own ballots to election officials. The WEC had authorized ballot drop boxes and third-party ballot delivery in two documents issued in 2020, one in the spring before the primary election and the second before the November 2020 general election.
In the first memo, the WEC stated, “[Ballot] drop boxes can be used for voters to return ballots but clerks should ensure they are secure, can be monitored for security purposes, and should be regularly emptied.” That memo also noted that “[a] family member or another person may … return the [absentee] ballot on behalf of a voter.”
Several months later, in the summer of 2020, the WEC issued a second document that encouraged “creative solutions” to allow for the use of ballot drop boxes. The second memo expressly provided that municipal clerks could allow drop boxes to remain “unstaffed,” and indicated that “[a]t a minimum, you should have a drop box at your primary municipal building, such as the village hall.” Based on the WEC’s guidance, election officials used some 528 drop boxes during the fall 2020 election. By the spring of 2021, some 570 drop boxes dotted the midwestern state.
Two voters filed suit challenging the WEC’s guidance, arguing the rules violated the Wisconsin election code. The voters prevailed at the trial court level and the WEC appealed, with the voters asking the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take the case immediately, bypassing the intermediate appellate court. The high court agreed and heard oral arguments in April 2022 and affirmed the lower court’s decision in favor of the voters on Friday.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s opinion methodically marched through the various legal issues, beginning with the question of whether the voters had standing to sue to challenge the WEC’s guidance. The court in Teigen concluded that the plaintiffs had standing to sue because they sufficiently alleged they had “suffered an injury in fact to their right to vote.”
In reaching this conclusion, the high court highlighted several points that large swaths of the country appear to have forgotten, writing: “Voters[] are entitled to have the elections in which they participate administered properly under the law.” It added that “allowing WEC to administer the 2022 elections in a manner other than that required by law causes doubts about the fairness of the elections and erodes voter confidence in the electoral process.”
Likewise, the court stressed, “Elections are one of the most important features of our Republic, and upholding the rules and procedures prescribed for elections, according to the laws enacted by the Legislature, reinforces the sanctity of the rule of law and reassures all Americans of the integrity of our elections.”
“If the right to vote is to have any meaning at all, elections must be conducted according to law,” the Wisconsin high court continued. In fact, “the right to vote presupposes the rule of law governs elections,” and “if elections are conducted outside of the law, the people have not conferred their consent on the government. Such elections are unlawful and their results are illegitimate.” And because “the Wisconsin voters, and all lawful voters, are injured when the institution charged with administering Wisconsin elections does not follow the law, leaving the results in question,” the Supreme Court concluded the voters had suffered an injury.
https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/11/dissent-in-wi-ballot-drop-box-victory-highlights-much-bigger-issue-our-top-jurists-dont-care-about-election-integrity/
…Our Top Jurists Don’t Care About Election Integrity
Part 2 of 4
The injury exists, moreover, the court explained, whether the illegal votes were cast in equal number for Trump or Biden, as “[e]lectoral outcomes obtained by unlawful procedures corrupt the institution of voting, degrading the very foundation of free government. Unlawful votes do not dilute lawful votes so much as they pollute them, which in turn pollutes the integrity of the results.”
After concluding the voters had standing to challenge the WEC’s guidance, the Wisconsin Supreme Court analyzed the relevant portions of the election code. Section 6.87(4)(b)1 provided that absentee ballots “shall be mailed by the elector, or delivered in person, to the municipal clerk issuing the ballot or ballots. The Teigen court noted that “the prepositional phrase ‘to the municipal clerk’ is key and must be given effect,” and that placing a ballot in a drop box is not delivering the ballot to a clerk, as a clerk is a person, and a drop box is an inanimate object.
The court also concluded that Section 6.855 of the election code confirmed the illegality of ballot drop boxes. That section establishes requirements for “alternative absentee ballot sites” — requirements that the ballot drop boxes failed to satisfy. And because the Wisconsin election code fails to otherwise authorize the use of ballot boxes, the court concluded they were illegal. The use of such illegal drop boxes, the court stressed, “weakens the people’s faith that the election produced an outcome reflective of their will.”
The Teigen court further held that because Section 6.87(4)(b)1 requires absentee ballots to “be mailed by the elector, or delivered in person,” it is illegal for “[a] family member or another person” to return the absentee ballot, as the WEC advised in the guidance it issued before the 2020 election.
Steps Forward
In its Friday’s decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court took two steps forward in addressing some of the significant defects in the state’s electoral system seen in the 2020 election. Declaring illegal the state-wide use of drop boxes and ruling it illegal for third parties to return the ballots of voters ensures that future elections in the battleground state will not be scarred with the same violations of election law.
The Teigen decision further advanced the important principle that it is the legislature charged with establishing the rules that govern elections, and “only the legislature may permit absentee voting via ballot drop boxes. WEC cannot.” That second point proves equally significant given the widespread disregard for the rules established by legislative bodies throughout the country in the 2020 election.
The steps forward, however, were but half-steps, as Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley’s concurrence, which Justices Annette Kingsland Ziegler and Patience Drake Roggensack joined, showed. The three-justice concurrence authored by Grassl Bradley chastised the court for its 2020 ruling in Trump v. Biden that the WEC’s “advice” held the force of law and that “this ‘advice’ is ‘the rulebook’ for elections — nevermind what the statutes enacted by the legislature say.”
In Trump v. Biden, Trump had sought to challenge the outcome of the 2020 election based on four violations of state election law. Specifically, Trump challenged the Wisconsin election tally, claiming that “clerks improperly completed missing information on absentee ballot envelopes related to witness addresses;” “in-person absentee voters did not submit written applications for an absentee ballot;” and “voters who were not indefinitely confined claimed ‘indefinitely confined’ status for the purposes of obtaining an absentee ballot without having to show a photo identification.” Trump also challenged the collection of some 17,271 absentee ballots at events held throughout Madison called “Democracy in the Park,” in violation of Section 6.87(4)(b)1’s mandate that the ballots “be mailed by the elector, or delivered in person.”
Although the Trump campaign brought these election challenges soon after the November 2020 election, the Wisconsin Supreme Court at first refused to consider the case without proceedings below, and then on December 14, 2020, ruled that “laches” precluded Trump from litigating the violations of election law. “Laches,” as the court in Trump v. Biden wrote, “is founded on the notion that equity aids the vigilant, and not those who sleep on their rights to the detriment of the opposing party.”
https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/11/dissent-in-wi-ballot-drop-box-victory-highlights-much-bigger-issue-our-top-jurists-dont-care-about-election-integrity/
…Our Top Jurists Don’t Care About Election Integrity
Part 3 of 4
Grassl Bradley, Ziegler, and Roggensack dissented from the majority’s refusal in that case to address the legal issues by hiding behind the doctrine of “laches.” In her dissent, which the other two justices joined, Grassl Bradley wrote:
“Whether election officials complied with Wisconsin law in administering the November 3, 2020 election is of fundamental importance to the voters, who should be able to rely on the advice they are given when casting their ballots. Rather than fulfilling its duty to say what the law is, a majority of this court unconstitutionally converts the Wisconsin Elections Commission’s mere advice into governing ‘law,’ thereby supplanting the actual election laws enacted by the people’s elected representatives in the legislature and defying the will of Wisconsin’s citizens. When the state’s highest court refuses to uphold the law, and stands by while an unelected body of six commissioners rewrites it, our system of representative government is subverted.”
While Friday’s decision in Teigen seemed to reclaim for the legislative branch the authority to regulate elections, the Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to overrule Trump v. Biden, leaving it controlling precedent for future elections. Grassl Bradley called out her fellow justices in a concurrence in Teigen for both the court’s original decision in Trump v. Biden and its failure to overturn that bad precedent.
And Steps Back
Grassl Bradley’s concurrence confirms that while Teigen represents a victory for election integrity, it is but a partial victory, because the WEC need only issue new and different guidance for future elections which, even if in clear violation of the Wisconsin election code, will control in an election dispute — potentially even determining the outcome of the election.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s refusal to overturn Trump v. Biden, however, is nowhere near as devastating to the future of election integrity as is the fact that three of the state’s high court justices don’t give a whit about the integrity of the vote.
As I wrote a few months past, “[L]ess than two decades ago Americans so universally believed that election integrity mattered that when the bipartisan Commission on Election Reform issued its 100-plus page report, ‘Building Confidence in U.S. Elections,’ the twin goals of election integrity and voting access received equal treatment. While Co-Chairs Democrat Jimmy Carter and Republican Jim Baker explained that not all members of the Commission ‘necessarily support every word or recommendation,’ all members, they stressed, ‘endorsed the judgments and general policy thrust of the report in its entirety.’”
Yet now, not even 20 years later, three justices of a state’s highest court can issue a dissent that not once gives even lip service to the goal of election integrity. Rather, the dissent blindly focuses solely on what it perceives as the only good: “increased voting.” Justice Ann Walsh Bradley’s dissent is emblematic of this distorted view of our “sacred right to vote.”
The majority opinion “erects yet another barrier for voters to exercise this ‘sacred right,’” with its holding having “the practical effect of making it more difficult to exercise it,” Walsh Bradley wrote, further claiming that the majority seeks to “make it harder to vote” “whenever it has been presented with the opportunity.”
In Walsh Bradley’s view, “a ballot drop box is a simple and perfectly legal solution to make voting easier.” Besides begging the question of the legality of a “ballot drop box,” its “simplicity” in “making voting easier,” ignores that “making voting easier” is not a societal good if it comes at the cost of secure elections the citizenry can trust. The country as a whole used to understand that, as evidenced by the Carter Commission’s report. Electoral systems must “aim both to increase voter participation and to assure the integrity of the electoral system,” the report stressed. And the formula recommended by the bipartisan committee would “result in both more integrity and more access.”
https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/11/dissent-in-wi-ballot-drop-box-victory-highlights-much-bigger-issue-our-top-jurists-dont-care-about-election-integrity/
Part 4 of 4
Among other issues discussed in the Carter Commission’s election-confidence report was the use of absentee ballots. Initially, the Commission questioned whether mail-in voting would even increase access, writing, “there is no evidence that it significantly expands participation in federal elections.” However, even assuming mail-in ballots increased access, the bipartisan group warned that vote-by-mail is “likely to increase the risks of fraud,” with absentee balloting “vulnerable to abuse in several ways,” such as when “blank ballots [are] mailed to the wrong address or to large residential buildings,” as they “might get intercepted.” In fact, the committee noted that “absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud,” pointing to a “notorious” case involving Miami’s mayoral election. “States therefore should reduce the risks of fraud and abuse in absentee voting by prohibiting ‘third-party’ organizations, candidates, and political party activists from handling absentee ballots. States also should make sure that absentee ballots received by election officials before Election Day are kept secure until they are opened and counted.”…
The state legislature, in adopting rules to govern absentee voting, further stressed “that the privilege of voting by absentee ballot must be carefully regulated to prevent the potential for fraud or abuse; to prevent overzealous solicitation of absent electors who may prefer not to participate in an election; to prevent undue influence on an absent elector to vote for or against a candidate or to cast a particular vote in a referendum; or other similar abuses.” Wisconsin lawmakers then declared that “ballots cast in contravention of the procedures specified in those provisions may not be counted,” and that “ballots counted in contravention of the procedures specified in those provisions may not be included in the certified result of any election.”
The WEC’s approval of drop boxes not only ignored the legislatively mandated rules for absentee voting but exponentially increased the risk of voter fraud that exists when absentee ballots are returned by the U.S. Postal Service or personally delivered to an election clerk. Whereas an individual returning numerous absentee ballots to a clerk or mailing them together in one lot would raise suspicions, and be susceptible to discovery, with unmanned drop boxes, there is no similar check on the behavior. Further, drop boxes provide a perfect target for those who may wish to intercept votes, with the contents entirely consisting of ballots.
Yet three Wisconsin Supreme Court justices ignored not merely the state’s legislative mandateand the increased risk of fraud, but also discarded any concern for election integrity. The dissents in Teigen likewise ignore another fundamental that underlies free and fair elections also highlighted by the Carter Commission: the necessity that the right to vote be “privately exercised.” Allowing third parties to collect and return ballots violates the ideal of the private ballot….
The dissent in Teigen also condemned a third premise underlying the Carter Commission’s bipartisan report, further revealing the dangerous divide our country now faces. In “Building Confidence in U.S. Elections,” Democrats and Republicans both unanimously endorsed two related fundamental principles: “First, ‘elections are the heart of democracy’ and ‘if elections are defective, the entire democratic system is at risk.’ Second, and a corollary to the first: confidence in elections matters equally, and in fact ‘is central to our nation’s democracy.’”
On this second point, the commission expanded: “Democracy is endangered when people believe that their votes do not matter or are not counted correctly,” and, “Little can undermine democracy more than a widespread belief among the people that elections are neither fair nor legitimate.”
The three dissenting Supreme Court justices in Teigen, however, condemned the majority for, what it claimed was, their “blithely and erroneously seek[ing] to sow distrust in the administration of our elections…” However, as the Carter Commission made clear in its report, it is the lack of adequate safeguards that breeds distrust.
The growing distrust in elections made “election reform” urgent, according to the Commission. Yet, “the 2005 report reveals that every concern the commission identified as threatening the legitimacy of elections played out in November 2020,” with the decision in Teigen exposing the massive problems with absentee voting that occurred in the last presidential contest…
https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/11/dissent-in-wi-ballot-drop-box-victory-highlights-much-bigger-issue-our-top-jurists-dont-care-about-election-integrity/
Excusing Misbehavior Is Bad For Kids And Schools, But That’s What Biden Admin Wants To Do For ‘Equity’
BY: WILL FLANDERS
JULY 11, 2022
In the latest example of doubling down on bad policies, the Biden administration is currently seeking to restore Obama-era federal guidance that had severe consequences for student safety. According to recent reports, the policies under consideration would investigate schools based on their rates of discipline of students with disabilities and those from racial minority backgrounds. In the past, these investigations have led to the threats of federal lawsuits against school districts, and mandated a focus on reducing the rates of suspension for disabled and minority students.
All of these policies are based on the woke narrative surrounding “disparate impacts.” Under this theory, even a policy that, on its face, is entirely race-neutral, is adjudged to be racist if it affects individuals from different races or backgrounds at different rates. This narrative has come to the forefront not only in education, but also in policing with countless headlines noting that minorities are arrested and incarcerated at higher rates for a wide variety of crimes.
What is not allowed to be discussed is whether this is a result of true racism, or of differences in behavior that are correlated along race lines. Even though it is politically incorrect, most of the evidence points to the latter. The reality is that on objective measures where there is little or no possibility of racial bias, racial disparities still exist in the rates of anti-social behavior.
For instance, research has found that African Americans are far more likely than their white peers to report having been in a fight at school, and more likely to face mandatory discipline where there is little room for discretion on the part of teachers and principals. There are many explanations for why this could be the case. The most likely is differences in poverty among white and minority students, which correlates very well with student discipline disparities. Indeed, extensive research has found that poverty rates are predictive of misbehavior regardless of student race. But whatever the reason, ignoring misbehavior is likely to lead to greater harm to the students it is designed to protect.
My research on the implementation of similar policies in Wisconsin has found that students report feeling less safe in schools as rates of suspension for minority students decline. Districts that implement kinder, gentler discipline policies see test scores decline over time. Across the country, teachers complain that students who have engaged in behaviors that warrant a suspension are being given more lenient punishment in the name of keeping numbers down. Some have even attributed the mass shooting at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School to a school system that turned a blind eye to the eventual killer’s behavior one too many times.
This lack of support for teachers is causing some of them to leave the classroom entirely. Given that majority-minority districts are some of the most in need of effective educators, this is especially problematic. Indeed, because America has many majority-minority schools, the students who bear the brunt of this policy failure are other minority students who are focusing on their schooling and want to succeed.
In the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic and school shutdowns, the achievement gap between white and minority students has only expanded. Parents who lacked the resources to supplement their children’s educations during the era of at-home “learning” are desperate for schools to help their kids make up for lost time. This makes fighting back against this discipline guidance from the Biden administration all the more critical. Students who want to learn deserve the chance to be in safe, non-disruptive classrooms where they can gain knowledge. The alternative where chaos reigns in the name of political correctness is unconscionable.
(Didn’t Parkland shooting occur because of this very policy?)
https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/11/excusing-misbehavior-is-bad-for-kids-and-schools-but-thats-what-biden-admin-wants-to-do-for-equity/