GAMER LAWYER BILL CLINTON WITH GAMER LAWYER JOE BIDEN, THE VERY CREAATORS OF THE NAFTA HOAX THAT PUT MIDDE AMERICA ON THEIR BACKS ALSO PUT BLACKS IN PRISONS AND CREATED THE WALL STREET SOCIALISM STATE FOR BANKSTERS
WE KNOW WHAT THE BANKSTER REGIME OF LAWYER BARACK OBAMA, LAWYER ERIC HOLDER AND LAWYER JOE BIDEN DID FOR BANKSTERS 2008 AND ON.
THE BANKS STILL LOVE 'CREDIT CARD' JOE BIDEN AND PUMPED 3xs THE BRIBES INTO BIDEN THAN THEY DID TRUMPER.
Chris Hedges | Corporations OWN our GOVERNMET
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x6DiQGAU3I
Biden has mastered the art of deflecting criticism of his corruption and incompetence by using black women as human shields. It began with Kamala Harris, who was grossly unready to serve in the White House, but whose nomination made a ticket headed by an old white hack seem transformational and whose continued presence makes it all but impossible to remove or bypass Biden from an office that he is equally unfit to occupy on ethical and moral grounds. DANIEL GREENFIELD
DO NOT ASSUME THAT BIDEN'S CHOICE OF JACKSON HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH BLACK ANYTHING.
THE 8 YEAR BANKSTER REGIME OF GAMER LAWYERS BARACK OBAMA, ERIC HOLDER AND NAFTA JOE BIDEN NEVER DID A SINGLE THING FOR BLACK AMERICA.
THE DID, HOWEVER, WORK TIRELESSLY FOR CATCH AND RELEASE, ILLEGALS VOTING AND AMNESTY UNDER ANY HOOK AND CROOK GUISE.
OBOMB'S SUPREME COURT APPOINTEE SOTOMAYER, THE SELF-STYLED 'WISE LATINA' , IS A CARD CARRYING MEMBER OF THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY OF LA RAZA 'THE RACE'.
SOTOMAYER HAD A REPUTATION FOR BEING A BITCH ON THE BENCH, OF SERVING THE CORPORATE INTERESTS AND WORKING FOR THE DEMOCRAT'S NAFTA OPEN BORDERS AGENDA. SOTOMAYER VOTED AGAISNT E-VERIFY, WHICH IMPLEMENTED WOULD EFFECTIVELY END MEXICO'S INVASION.
THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS STILL DOING IT!
In January, alone, the Biden administration released more than 62,500 border crossers and illegal aliens into the U.S. interior. Border Patrol agents have blasted Biden’s policies, which they say have made illegal immigration close to unmanageable.
William J. Davis is a communications associate for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, a public interest law firm working to defend the rights and interests of the American people from the negative effects of mass migration.
Why is Biden protecting illegal alien drunk drivers?
The Biden administration has done a lot of damage to immigration enforcement in the U.S., but perhaps its most dangerous move has been its consistent refusal to deport criminal illegal aliens who commit crimes right here in the U.S.
The latest example of the Biden administration’s malfeasance came late last month when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) canceled a deportation request for an illegal alien who allegedly killed a teenager in a hit-and-run incident. Heriberto Fuerte-Padilla, an illegal alien from Mexico, was arrested in November 2020 after he allegedly drunkenly rammed his car into the car of 19-year-old Texas woman Adrienne Sophia Exum, killing her. Fuerte-Padilla then allegedly fled the scene before police officers caught up and apprehended him. After initially putting out a detainer for Fuerte-Padilla’s deportation, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) rescinded the detainer after Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas dramatically reduced the pool of illegal aliens eligible for deportations.
“To be arrested or deported, a migrant now must be a national security risk, a recent border jumper or a public safety risk,” a report from the Washington Times stated.
While most law-abiding Americans would likely consider drunk driving a “public safety risk,” Mayorkas has made clear that he sees things differently. Shortly after taking office last year, Mayorkas announced that many criminal illegal aliens living in the country no longer had to worry about being deported. The guidelines adopted by DHS under Mayorkas’ leadership give free passes to illegal aliens who commit crimes such as drunk driving and assault. Other illegal aliens living in Texas with drunk driving offenses are also getting a pass, according to the Washington Times’s report.
Another illegal alien who is benefiting from the Biden administration’s relaxed rules is Jose Godoy Vasquez, an illegal alien from Guatemala who now lives in Texas. Vasquez has a lengthy criminal record, which includes convictions for drunk driving, drug possession, and domestic violence. Like Fuerte-Padilla, Vasquez initially had an ICE detainer on him, which was rescinded as a result of the policies implemented by Mayorkas after he took office. This means Vasquez will be able to continue to live in Texas once he’s released from prison in 2025, unless a new administration is elected and rescinds the White House’s current policies. The Washington Times’s report also noted Nay Thar, an illegal alien from Thailand who was previously convicted of drug possession and drunk driving. Thar was released from prison earlier this year, and will be allowed to continue to live in Texas because of the Biden administration’s guidelines.
Biden is doubling down on his radical anti-borders agenda even as polls make clear that the American people oppose these policies. Even some Americans who cast their ballots for Biden in the last presidential election now regret their votes, including Adrienne Sophia Exum’s mother, who recently expressed outrage over the administration’s refusal to deport her daughter’s alleged killer.
"By him not being deported, it’s like you telling me my daughter’s life didn’t mean anything,” she said in a recent Fox News interview.
It may sound harsh, but it’s certainly a reasonable conclusion to come to given the Biden administration’s stubborn refusal to hold criminal illegal aliens accountable. At the very least, it’s fair to say there is a startling lack of empathy from America’s leaders towards victims of illegal alien crime. We see this lack of empathy demonstrated not just in this administration’s refusal to deport illegal aliens convicted of drunk driving offenses, but in instances involving other crimes as well.
A recent investigation from the Immigration Reform Law Institute uncovered the story of Antonio Miranda-Cota, an illegal alien in Nevada who is currently serving a five year prison sentence for repeatedly bludgeoning his construction co-worker in the head with a claw-hammer, an act that nearly killed his victim. Miranda-Cota had previously been referred for deportation after two previous assaults, but was allowed to stay in the country, and was ultimately given a work visa by the Obama administration. Miranda-Cota’s victim survived the attack, but has lost his ability to work, and was not allowed to read a victim impact statement at Miranda-Cota’s sentencing.
These crimes evoke such outrage because of how preventable they are. The refusal of our political elites to enforce the law has led to a body count that continues to grow. The Biden administration’s radical moves to protect criminal illegal aliens will only create more victims and more suffering.
William J. Davis is a communications associate for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, a public interest law firm working to defend the rights and interests of the American people from the negative effects of mass migration.
Image: Pixnio / public domain
Biden’s Supreme Court Pick is a Racist Attack on the Constitution
It’s not about gender or race: it’s about power.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
When Biden announced that he would only consider black women for the Supreme Court, the vast majority of Americans rejected racial gatekeeping for the highest court in the land.
76% of Americans wanted him to consider all candidates regardless of their race and gender. Less than a quarter of the country wanted Biden to limit the nomination by race and gender. Even 54% of Democrats rejected Biden’s identity politics quotas and only 28% of non-whites were on board with his pledge to reject all other potential nominees based solely on their skin color.
After Biden’s announcement that he had chosen Ketanji Brown Jackson as his nominee, the majority of Americans continue to reject Biden’s racial determinism for the Supreme Court.
When asked to respond to a leading question by a Washington Post/ABC News poll as to whether, “having a black woman as a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court would be a good thing for the country, a bad thing for the country, or would make no difference?”, the majority, or 48%, correctly concluded that it would make no difference. 45%, a number largely made up of the 78% of Democrats, insisted that somehow Jackson’s race would transform the country.
The majority of Americans know better.
The boring truth about Ketanji Brown Jackson is that, like so many other judges, she’s just another Harvard grad, born with a silver spoon in her mouth, and raised by a prominent attorney. Much like Hollywood trying to make the same old movies and shows exciting by recasting the characters as black, Jackson is the same old judicial activist in a new color.
Biden, who had twice blocked and filibustered the nomination of Judge Janice Rogers, a well-qualified black female judge nominated by the Bush administration, over her pro-Constitution views, and his political and media allies who are even now waging a concerted war against Justice Clarence Thomas, the only currently serving black justice whose nomination they had tried to block, are cynically tokenizing Jackson’s nomination as a shining new beacon of racial progress. As if having a black female justice will accomplish something historic that having multiple black male justices and female justices of other races had failed to achieve.
We do know why Biden picked Jackson and it wasn’t because of her gender or race. While Biden will no doubt enjoy occasionally leaning in to sniff her hair as he shows her around, the real litmus test wasn’t to be found in her skin color or in an examination of her chromosomes.
Biden picked Jackson for the same reason that he fought to keep Judge Janice Rogers off the Court of Appeals which would potentially have put her on a pathway to the Supreme Court.
As legal scholar Jonathan Turley notes, leftists wanted a nominee “willing to expand the meaning of the Constitution without constitutional amendments”.
The choice had come down to Judge J. Michelle Childs, who had the backing of not only Democrats, but some Republicans, and of Senator Manchin, because she is a moderate, and Ketanji Brown Jackson who has a history of constitutional violations and abusive power grabs.
Demand Justice, the radical leftist Soros group, which had boasted of “bullying” Justice Breyer off the bench, had ordered Biden to nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson instead of Childs.
Biden met with both Childs and Jackson and what he truly wanted to know was whether they would be loyal to the Constitution, or to him, and to the radical leftists standing behind him who want to transform America by perverting the Constitution into a mandate for unlimited power.
As Turley again notes, “Biden stressed that his nominee must follow a ‘living constitution’ approach, including a broad view of ‘unenumerated rights.’ When asked if she supported such an approach, Childs answered "no." Jackson, in contrast, has been far more obscure and conflicted in her response.”
When it comes to Supreme Court nominees, anything other than a “no” is really a “yes”.
Will a Justice Jackson change the Supreme Court and the country? Yes, but not because of her race. Race is the least interesting thing about Jackson and yet it’s what we will hear the most about because it is a convenient distraction from her radical and secretive judicial philosophy.
With little in the way of written materials and responses to big picture constitutional questions that have her playing dumb, Jackson is an anti-constitutional trojan horse flying the false flag of identity politics. As if nominating a Harvard grad who happens to be a black woman, as opposed to a white man, is some sort of great step forward for the wretched of the earth.
Biden is not using his court nomination, which his Soros backers at Demand Justice secured by, in their own words, “bullying” a liberal Jewish justice off the Supreme Court, to uphold identity politics. He has militantly opposed at least one black female justice, and was able to choose between two black female judges, nominating the one that fits a radical leftist agenda.
Biden clearly doesn’t believe his own rhetoric about the Supreme Court being in dire need of a black female judge. The only ones dumb enough to believe it are MSNBC viewers who gobble up the black nationalist ravings of Ibram X. Kendi and Ta-Nehisi Coates and cheer Black Lives Matter mobs as they burn down cities every time a drug dealer gets rightfully shot by police.
But identity politics covers up a multitude of sins. Just ask Black Lives Matter, which was able to operate a $60 million fund on terms that would have seen a neighborhood bodega shut down in minutes. Even white Antifa rioters were able to terrorize Portland for a year because they claimed to be attacking police officers and federal officials in the name of racial justice.
Biden has mastered the art of deflecting criticism of his corruption and incompetence by using black women as human shields. It began with Kamala Harris, who was grossly unready to serve in the White House, but whose nomination made a ticket headed by an old white hack seem transformational and whose continued presence makes it all but impossible to remove or bypass Biden from an office that he is equally unfit to occupy on ethical and moral grounds.
The only reason Biden picked Jackson is because he believes that she will be loyal to him, not to the Constitution and to her oath of office. He also expects to sweep away any objections to her radicalism by having his media accuse critics of racism and sexism. And once Jackson taints the Supreme Court with her corrupt presence on the bench, any opposition to her views by the rest of that body, including by Justice Thomas, will also be denounced as sexist racism.
Or occasionally racist sexism, just to shake things up.
Much like Justice Sotomayor, the original “Wise Latina”, whose gender and Southern European ancestry somehow endowed her with a wisdom that transcended her poor legal reasoning, Jackson’s “lived experience” will be used to claim that she possesses insights on account of the combination of her gender and race that we ought to submit to in place of the actual law.
The good news is that Americans aren’t buying it. Polls show that the people are rejecting the racial determinism that is being used to trade away our rights for racial privileges. As the Supreme Court prepares to consider the unconstitutional racial discrimination of affirmative action, most Americans have once again come to believe in a color-blind legal system.
Americans know that what really matters isn’t gender or race, it’s equal rights under the law.
Biden’s selection process and his nomination have been an insult to the very idea of equal rights. Even if he installs his insult on the Supreme Court, it will never change the Constitution.
MORE VIVA LA RAZA SUPREMACY?
The confirmation process of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court is an opportunity for the GOP
Last month, Joe Biden pledged to nominate "the first Black woman ever to the United States Supreme Court."
This followed Justice Stephen Breyer’s announcement that he was retiring at the end of the current term, 28 years after being appointed by President Clinton.
This could be construed as an insult to the candidate because the implication is that she wasn’t necessarily the best choice, merely the best among a double-restricted group (Blacks, women) that amounts to a little over 9 percent of the entire population male and female population of all races, and half that number subtracting the under-18s component. In other words, 4.5%.
Ideally, any self-respecting candidate should have rejected the offer because of the inherent condescension of the criteria.
However, last week Joe Biden nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the federal appeals court to replace Justice Breyer.
The Biden administration probably sees this as a win-win situation.
They think a confirmation may be an antidote to Biden’s rapidly declining popularity among blacks. If the nominee is rejected, for example, the Republicans can be branded as racist, which can rile up their base for the mid-terms. They can push the narrative of white supremacist Republicans preventing the first black woman from becoming a Supreme Court Justice. In their minds this would help them during the mid-terms, perhaps with their black voters.
With the Senate divided 50-50 between the parties, Democrats have just the votes to confirm Jackson, if they back her unanimously. Vice President Harris still has the deciding vote should there be a tie.
But the Republicans now have two very valid reasons to oppose Judge Jackson’s confirmation.
The first is that the selection criteria made the nomination was unconstitutional and the second is Jackson’s mixed record.
We plunge deeper.
The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
The 19th Amendment to the Constitution states:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
In 1978, in the Regents of University of California v. Bakke case, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of racial "quotas" for its selection process is unconstitutional.
Biden’s public declaration to restrict his nomination to a specific demographic group only, i.e. women of color, violates above the tenets of the Constitution, and it is also an act of discrimination against all those who are not women of color, hence it is immoral.
They can assert that a constitutional appointment cannot occur by violating the Constitution.
One could argue that this alone should be enough to disqualify Jackson.
Now for Jackson’s record.
Breitbart reported Jackson has a mixed record on immigration — twice striking down President Donald Trump’s border controls but also upholding that federal agencies have broad authority to build a wall along the United States-Mexico border and ruling in favor of regulations to tighten up asylum rules.
Vox reported that Jackson supported a left-wing judicial activist organization Demand Justice and issued several narrow rulings against the Trump administration, including its immigration policies.
Jackson also ruled in 2019 that former Trump White House counsel Don McGahn had to testify as part of the House’s inquiry into Russian election interference, declaring in her ruling that: “Presidents are not kings.”
Jackson may be part of the woke cults while handling immigration-related cases. Jackson in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, used the term “noncitizen” or “undocumented non-citizens” rather than the terms “alien” or “illegal aliens” that are regularly used in court and in federal statutes.
Jackson served as vice chairperson of the United States Sentencing Commission, where she was involved in reducing sentences for drug offenders.
The commission retroactively reduced sentences for crack cocaine offenses back in 2011 causing reduced sentences for 12,000 incarcerated individuals and making an estimated 1,800 inmates eligible for immediate release. The commission also cut sentences for most federal drug offenders during her last year as a commissioner.
Should Jackson be first questioned about her acceptance of the nomination as a diversity hire and asked to condemn Biden's act of discrimination? The risk is she may flip it over and use it to lecture the questioner about the history of racism and make it defining moment.
Based on her past record, the GOP must, while asking questions, cite the perils of illegal immigrationm particularly to Black Americans on the lowest rungs of the job ladder, and the crimes that are committed by unvetted illegal border crossers. She must be asked about Biden secretly transporting illegals to various parts of the country in the dead of night. It would be a real triumph to find victims who suffered due to crimes of illegal immigrants. Many, of course, are Black.
Also, based on her record, the GOP must cite the opioid epidemic and expound in detail the catastrophic consequences that drug intake has had on families and especially the very young. She must then be asked about her work on the Sentencing Commission that led to the sentence reduction and release of drug offenders. Perhap they should find victims who suffered due to this release program and interview them or present a video of them during the hearings.
The real opportunity for the GOP is grilling Jackson on her position on key issues such as guns, immigration, drug offenses, vaccine mandates, lockdowns, abortion, BLM, censorship, Big Tech and many more burning issues.
We all remember the sub-human disgraceful display of the Democrats during the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. But the Republicans will never stoop to those levels, and some see that as their weakness, i.e., their lacking of the killer instinct to give it as much as they get. Others see this morality as the only thing that distinguishes them from the Democrats.
Jackson, if confirmed will not alter the Supreme Court’s general trajectory. Her political and ideological proclivities seem identical to those of outgoing Justice Stephen Breyer.
Unless something out of the ordinary occurs, Jackson’s confirmation seems certain. Even if Sens. Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin or any other Democrat do not vote for her, Republican Senators such as Mitt Romney along with Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Lindsey Graham, who previously broke Republican ranks to vote for Jackson’s confirmation to the D.C. Circuit, are most likely to vote for her.
If nothing else, the GOP should see this as a great campaign opportunity for the midterms. They will have the national stage to demonstrate their commitment to issues such as border security, immigration control, freedom of expression, protecting the vulnerable from drug abuse, freedom of choice and expression, anti-wokeness, anti-vax mandates, and so much more.
Let's hope the opportunity is seized.
Addendum: Here's a fun fact: Ketan happens to be a male Indian name, and the word 'ji' is added as a matter of respect. Hence Ketanji is what a shop owner who hails from the same state as India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi may be affectionately called.
Joe Biden SCOTUS Nominee Refuses to Use ‘Illegal Alien,’ Opts for ‘Noncitizen’
President Joe Biden’s nominee to replace Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, apparently refuses to use the term “illegal alien” in her court opinions, opting instead for “noncitizen.”
In a handful of immigration-related cases that Jackson has ruled on U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, she has made a note to employ the term “noncitizen” or “undocumented non-citizens” rather than the terms “alien” or “illegal aliens” that are regularly used in court and in federal statutes.
For instance, in Make the Road New York v. McAleenan, Jackson wrote a footnote in her ruling stating:
The Court uses the term “undocumented non-citizens” throughout this Memorandum Opinion to refer to persons born abroad—the federal immigration statutes call them “aliens”—who are deemed “inadmissible” under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(6)(C) or 1182(a)(7) because they have not received authorization to come into, or remain, in the United States. [Emphasis added]
Likewise, in Kiakombua v. Wolf, Jackson notes that “this Memorandum Opinion employs the term ‘noncitizen’ in lieu of the term ‘alien’ to refer to ‘any person who is not a citizen or national of the United States.'”
Ketanji Brown Jackson, nominated to be a U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit, is sworn in before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on pending judicial nominations, Wednesday, April 28, 2021, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Kevin Lamarque/Pool via AP)
Dan Stein, head of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), said in a statement that Jackson’s “refusal at times to use the term ‘alien’ in the context of interpreting immigration law — a term of longstanding and legally correct usage — indicates a willingness to allow politics and political pressure to influence her judgment.”
“This is of concern to us, as we believe it is up to courts to use the language of the statutory law in decisions interpreting that law,” Stein said.
As Breitbart News reported, Jackson has a mixed record on immigration — twice striking down former President Donald Trump’s border controls but also upholding that federal agencies have broad authority to build a wall along the United States-Mexico border and ruling in favor of regulations to tighten up asylum rules.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here.
Biden’s Supreme Court Pick Faces Array of Ethics Questions
A conflict of interest could trigger recusal from landmark affirmative action case
Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson will face ethics questions about her ties to left-wing public relations professionals, and a conflict of interest that could trigger her recusal from a landmark affirmative action case.
Jackson, whom President Joe Biden nominated Friday, has come under fire following a report that she retained PR gurus with deep ties in Democratic politics to assist with her prospective nomination. And Jackson's service on one of Harvard University's governing boards will prompt questions as to recusing herself from a lawsuit accusing the university of bias against Asians in admissions, which the High Court will hear this fall.
Republicans are still fine-tuning a response to Jackson's nomination. Beyond the ethics items, the nationwide spike in violent crime could play a major role in Republican maneuvering around her nomination. Jackson has deep experience in the criminal justice system as a former trial court judge and commissioner on the U.S. Sentencing Commission, a panel that offers guidance on criminal penalties.
Just hours before Biden officially nominated Jackson, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) sent a letter to Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan pressing for details about Jackson's work with PR operatives Robert Raben and TJ Ducklo. Raben and Ducklo are Democratic loyalists who, according to a Feb. 16 Politico Report, helped ward off attacks on Jackson and connected reporters with the judge's allies during the selection process.
"It would be unusual, if not unique, for a candidate to enlist political communicators to assume this role," Grassley's letter reads.
Grassley is the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee and Srinivasan is chief judge of Jackson's court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
It's typical for judges jockeying for the Supreme Court to mobilize a volunteer network of ex-colleagues and former clerks to background reporters, lobby decision makers, and assist with nomination logistics. Those personnel, given their working relationship with the judge, are best positioned to speak to the judge's body of work, their personal characteristics, and their likely profile as a justice.
PR professionals from partisan Washington, D.C., outfits lack that kind of subject matter expertise and knowledge about the prospective nominee. As such, Republicans want to better understand what Raben and Ducklo were doing on Jackson's behalf, particularly if they seeded negative stories about her rivals in the press. One of Jackson's ex-law clerks edited Wikipedia entries for the judge's two main rivals early in the selection process, according to Politico. The edits meant to paint both contenders as more moderate than Jackson, seen as a progressive stalwart.
Grassley's letter also asks whether Raben and Ducklo coordinated with the D.C. Circuit's media relations office. Ducklo, a former White House press aide, resigned in February 2021 following reports that he threatened a female reporter.
Apart from the messaging dust up, Jackson will also face ethics and recusal questions related to a lawsuit that alleges that Harvard discriminates against Asian students in admissions. The High Court will hear that case later this year, and the plaintiffs are urging the justices to ban consideration of race in college admissions altogether.
Jackson serves on Harvard's Board of Overseers, one of the university's two governing boards. The board plays "an integral role in the governance of the university," through quality control, strategic advice, and external assessments of various departments, according to Harvard's website.
Recusal decisions are ultimately up to the justices themselves, who are not formally bound by an ethics code. Jackson may be able to distance herself from the controversy, such that she could participate, if she played no role in crafting or advising on admissions practices as an overseer. Recusal is also appropriate where there is reason to question a justice's partiality, but such arguments are often entangled with partisan agendas.
Solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar, the Biden administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, obtained special authorization from the White House counsel and a senior Justice Department official to participate in the Harvard case despite a conflict of interest. Prelogar is a former university employee, having taught a class at Harvard Law School on appellate advocacy. Ethics rules required Prelogar to recuse from the case absent a waiver, and an oversight group is pressing for more information about the administration's decision to grant one.
The Harvard lawsuit will also supply Republican lawmakers with ample questions for the judge. The plaintiffs, an anti-affirmative action group called Students for Fair Admissions, used Harvard's own internal data to show Asian applicants inexplicably score lower than all other racial groups on the university's subjective personal evaluation. The personal score is one of four domains the university weighs in the admissions process.
The plaintiffs say the scoring outcomes reveal a pervasive "model minority" bias against Asians at Harvard. They also note Harvard's office of institutional research flagged the personal scoring disparity almost a decade ago, but the admissions office made no changes to its policy.
Those facts and many others offer Republican senators numerous avenues to pursue, given Jackson's leadership role at Harvard.
Exclusive: Texas DPS, Military Warn Border Personnel of Possible Retaliation from Mexican Gulf Cartel
The Texas Military Department and Department of Public Safety officials issued a warning to law enforcement officers and soldiers working along the state’s border with Mexico. The warnings of possible retaliation from members of the Gulf Cartel follow the arrest in recent days of a key leader.
The Texas Military Department (TMD) command staff and officials with the Texas Department of Public Safety issued a warning to the National Guard soldiers and DPS troopers working the border security mission about possible retaliation from the Matamoros faction of the Gulf Cartel, Operation Lone Star, according to information obtained by Breitbart Texas. The warnings follow the arrest of Alfredo “El Contador” Cardenas, the head of the Gulf Cartel organization in Matamoros, Tamaulipas, and Obed Pena, on Saturday, as first reported by Breitbart Texas.
TMD Director of Communications Colonel Rita M. Holton responded to an inquiry from Breitbart about the non-specific threat warning and said, “We assess threats against our entire force daily, and as those threats evolve, so do our force protection measures.”
Officials stated the threats were not made specifically against the TMD or DPS troopers.
Texas DPS spokesman Lt. Chris Olivarez told Breitbart, “There are no specific threats against our personnel. We are advising our troops to remain vigilant.”
The FBI advised Texas law enforcement and military officials they were concerned about “possible retaliation against U.S. law enforcement” following the arrest of Cardenas in Mexico, TMD document reviewed by Breitbart states.
“Factions of this cartel in Starr County have already been shooting across the river at Border Patrol Agents and at National Guard security posts,” the document continued. “We are already expecting greater frustration and more shootings by the CDG faction that controls all of the smugglings in the three Starr County zones.”
Earlier this month, Breitbart reported that cartel gunmen fired on Border Patrol agents attempting to stop a human smuggling attempt near Fronton, Texas. One month earlier, gunmen fired at agents and struck a Border Patrol vehicle as the agents attempted to arrest a migrant in the same area.
“Our Texas service members are well-trained to conduct operations in the face of danger and are well equipped to support this mission,” Col. Holton concluded. “We are always ready and always there to serve our state when called upon and we will continue to answer the call to secure the Texas-Mexico border.”
Bob Price serves as associate editor and senior news contributor for the Breitbart Texas-Border team. He is an original member of the Breitbart Texas team. Price is a regular panelist on Fox 26 Houston’s What’s Your Point? Sunday-morning talk show. Follow him on Twitter @BobPriceBBTX and Face
Meth disguised as onions in California drug bust
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKoLpXYdk_E&list=WL&index=14
Donald Trump: Democrats Claim Ukraine’s Borders ‘Sacred’ While Destroying Our Own
Democrats have rushed to declare Ukraine’s borders sacred while destroying our own borders, former President Donald Trump said Saturday.
“What has happened in Ukraine is a catastrophic disaster. But it isn’t really that interesting that so many Democrat politicians in Washington, they seem to be rushing to microphones to declare that Ukraine’s borders are sacred,” he told the audience during remarks given at CPAC in Orlando, Florida.
Trump continued:
They want to say their borders are sacred, and we feel for Ukraine in so many ways, but Ukraine’s sovereignty must be defended at all costs, they say, even while they’re destroying our own borders and surrendering our own sovereignty. We have a border that’s a catastrophe. We have people coming into our country that we don’t want. They will not be good for our country.
Meanwhile, House Democrats have joined with several open borders organizations, some of which are financially tied to billionaire George Soros, in working to stop the surveilling of illegal aliens who crossed the border into the United States, Breitbart News exclusively reported Wednesday.
Per the article:
In a letter drafted by Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Chuy Garcia (D-IL), and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), the House Democrats go after the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency’s Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP) that monitors and tracks nearly 151,000 border crossers and illegal aliens released into the U.S. interior while awaiting their immigration court hearings.
However, Trump noted on Saturday, “The most important duty of every elected lawmaker is to protect and defend America, and that begins with protecting and defending America’s borders.”
He said under Joe Biden’s leadership, “we’re losing our country,” adding the Biden administration “spent months obsessing over how to stop an invasion of a foreign country, thousands of miles away.”
“You can’t defend western civilization if you would not be able to defend your own civilization. And that means we need borders that work, elections that are fair and free and not rigged, and crime that must be immediately stopped in our cities,” he commented.
Meanwhile, Ukraine’s Defense Minister, Oleksii Reznikov, recently said officials gave 18,000 submachine guns and ammunition to civilians and militia members after Russian leader Vladimir Putin ordered the invasion of country on Thursday.
No comments:
Post a Comment