There once was a General named Clapper,
By trade a clandestine wiretapper,
But he joined the Steele Hoax,
Now his rep is a joke,
And his life is going down the crapper.

There once was a G-man named Comey,
Who didn’t see Steele was a phony,
He said: “Hilary is Ok!,
It’s the Donald who must pay!”
Cause he couldn’t tell shit from baloney.

There once was a lawyer named Page,
Who was lovely but not very sage,
Her texts to her man,
Only helped get him canned,
As they wallowed in impotent rage.

Boiled down:

Hoaxers: “Trump, you can’t be POTUS even tho you just somehow won the election. No, no, no.”

DJT: “Hahahaha. Watch me. Losers!”

Hoaxers:

Hoaxers then proceed to do a whole bunch of things to try to make actual reality -in which DJT is POTUS- match up to their “reality” in which he can’t be.

That’s was IMPOSSIBLE to achieve in Fall & Winter 2016-2017.

But they tried anyway.

It’s a non-rational conspiracy.

Non-rational conspiracy is rare. It’s usually confined to a very small number of people because it’s based on actual mental illness & a few other factors, like coercion &/or psychological pressure. Think Manson Family.

But it can be based on group psychoses or shared psychological stress rather than outright mental illness. Large suicide pacts are an extreme example, like the Jim Jones incident. John Brown’s raid could be seen in this light too. And perhaps the Gunpowder Plot in Britain.

Supreme Court picks - age analysis

I thought I'd take a look & see what I think about whether DJT in his current term and/or JD Vance (assuming he takes it next) or whoever might next be POTUS after DJT will have many SCOTUS picks.

Here's how it shapes up - just based on age.

The "average" age that a Justice retires (either from a voluntary retirement or a death) is about 78/79, but that's based on historical data and the Justices in modern times retire at later ages for a number of reasons.

So, I looked at the actual last ten Justices to retire and/or die (which yielded two slightly different groups as 2 have retired but not yet died so there's no # for their death age to use.)

If you average the ages of the last 10 retirement ages, you get 82.3 years of age, & if you average the last 10 death ages (many of which are after retirement), you get 87.9 years of age. So, taking that range, how many years before the current Justices likely leave the Court, one way or the other?

Excellent reporting by @ProfMJCleveland about how the DC federal judges are not impartial when it comes to DJT/his administration, much less giving them the deference due the duly elected co-equal branch of govt - & admitted to CJ Roberts at the judicial conference this Spring.👇🏻

https://twitter.com/profmjcleveland/status/1945451735691952173

I remain of the view that ALL judges who were in the DC federal courthouse on J6 were in fact affected by that event & it is impossible for them to be impartial in such cases as they are required to be by law. This was outrageously evident when a bunch attended DJT’s arraignment.

I would extend that to any judge in that courthouse who handled a J6 case. They are hopelessly tainted by those cases.

They should all recuse themselves or Congress should legislate that any judge in those 2 groups is barred from handling any case involving the administration.

So you understand:

1. No tax money goes to Planned Parenthood for abortions directly. That has been prohibited by law for many years.

2. Congress does not “fund” Planned Parenthood directly for the other services it provides either.

3. Rather, Planned Parenthood receives Medicaid payments for non-abortion services rendered to people who are on Medicaid, just like other medical care providers.

4. Planned Parenthood in addition to abortions provides the following services:

birth control, STD testing and treatment, pregnancy testing and options counseling, emergency contraception, “gender-affirming” care, Pap tests, breast exams, and vaccinations.

5. The “funding” cut off by the OBBB are these payments thru Medicaid.

So the issue in the litigation is going to be whether Congress can constitutionally cut Planned Parenthood out of the Medicaid Program in the way that the OBBB does it.

The same kind of problem would arise if a different Congress passed a law saying religious medical providers who are in the Medicaid program could not receive Medicaid payments for medical services they provide because they also provide religious instruction or counseling to their patients.

Medicaid is an entitlement program created by the Congress. The payments it makes are not like grants or other forms of federal funding, which the Congress controls directly.

When Congress spends money on something that is available to the public generally as an entitlement, you run into the questions of whether it can then cut some people out, which can turn on the reason for the cut, because the Constitution prevents the Congress from making laws that violate certain rights, including religion and viewpoint.

So there’s a genuine issue in this Planned Parenthood case. But it requires a lot more analysis than the Mass. district judge has given it.

DHS needs to circulate a memo to all state governments to make all their state officials & judges aware that ICE officers DO NOT need a “judicial” warrant to arrest immigrants in a public place. An immigration warrant issued by ICE is all that is required under federal law.

If state officials interfere with arrests based on those warrants, they are unlawfully interfering with federally agents under 18 USC 111. If they do so with “physical contact” with the agent, it’s a felony.

(These non-judicial warrants don’t permit entry into a home.)

So, for example, in the Brad Lander situation, he’s wrong that the agents have to show a judicial warrant to make the arrest; & holding on to the arrestee to prevent the agents from making it is a federal offense, at least a misdemeanor.