Now in France, if you notice the rot, then you’re a nut.
You’ll recall that earlier this year Should Have Been President Marine Le Pen was charged with crimes for verbally protesting the destruction of Western Civilization. Her docketing somehow failed to stem the violent tide she was Tweeting about.
No mind. It’s her mind that matters. She’s been ordered to undergo a psych eval…
Marine Le Pen, the leader of the French far right has been left shocked and furious after a court ordered her to be examined by a psychiatrist to determine if she “is capable of understanding remarks and answering questions”.
Le Pen, who is head of the former National Front party – now National Rally (Rassemblement National) revealed on Twitter her shock and anger at being ordered to undertake a psychiatric assessment.
The unusual summoning is in relation to Le Pen having tweeted out gruesome propaganda images from terror group Isis that showed the bodies of people having been executed by the so-called Islamic State.
In March Le Pen was charged with circulating “violent messages that incite terrorism or pornography or seriously harm human dignity” and that can be viewed by a minor.
And as part of their investigation it appears magistrates in Nanterre near Paris have ordered Le Pen to visit a psychiatrist for an expert assessment.
I’m confident that all of America’s ardent supporters of free speech are already on this indignation. (I’ll withhold holding my breath).
Marine est la saine. Vous avez élu le mauvais candidat.
Now industry groups are pushing Congress to pass a national privacy bill that would block states from implementing their own standards.
Privacy advocates are skeptical of the industry proposals and concerned that internet giants will co-opt the process in order to get protections that are weaker than the California standard implemented across the country.
“They do not want effective oversight. They do not want regulation of their business practices, which is really urgently needed,” Jeff Chester, the executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD), told The Hill. “They’re going to work behind the scenes to shape legislation that will not protect Americans from having all of their information regularly gathered and used by these digital giants.”
“They see federal law as an opportunity to preempt stronger rules,” he added.
Next week, executives from Google, Apple, AT&T and other major technology and telecommunications companies will testify before the Senate Commerce Committee as the panel’s Republican chairman, Sen. John Thune (S.D.), prepares to introduce a new privacy law.
I noted this potential probability back in April in a TPC column:
His other motive was the afore-mentioned collusion. A dirty little secret of the political world is that large corporations are absolutely, head over heels, in love with government regulation. State mandates price out competition, prevent startup challenges, foster monopolies, and raise profits. One of “your” political heroes hinted around this fact; Zuck nodded along sheepishly.
And preempt stronger rules. One will note that its the giant tech companies that are invited to speak to Congress, the same companies with a history of privacy violation, spying, and selling to the highest bidder. I imagine the law, as they want it, is already drafted. Just a matter of bribes now.
“Out of deference to the critics, I want to comment on … what the bill will not do. First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S.500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.”
-Ted “Chappaquiddick” Kennedy (LIAR-MA) lying about the Immigration Act of 1965
No need to address Killer Teddy’s third lie. Or those lies told by others. Now, addressing in English lies told in English would be lost on 67 million “Americans.”
Nearly half of the residents in the nation’s five biggest cities do not speak English at home, choosing instead their native language, according to the latest Census Bureau data that details the impact of a decade of soft immigration policies.
Overall, a record 67 million do not speak English at home, said the bureau. That is nearly double in 27 years.
In its just-released analysis of the Census data, the Center for Immigration Studies said, “As a share of the population, 21.8 percent of U.S. residents speak a foreign language at home — roughly double the 11 percent in 1980.”
The Center added, “In America’s five largest cities, 48 percent of residents now speak a language other than English at home. In New York City and Houston it is 49 percent; in Los Angeles it is 59 percent; in Chicago it is 36 percent; and in Phoenix it is 38 percent.”
No. No changes whatsoever.
As you make your way through any one of our modern Towers of Babel, please pause a moment to thank Kennedy, Celler, etc. for all the tasty ethnic food. (And why do I always hear, in my mind, “tasty ethnic food” spoken with a lisp?)
Not that one’s coming, but what difference would a Blue Wave really make in DC?
The current Red Tide is failure enough. Even as agencies scramble to waste the leftovers from the last piecemeal, half-a$$ “budget,” the Senate, allegedly governed by conservative Republicans, prepares the next stroke of insanity.
The Senate is racing to avoid the third government shutdown of the year ahead of a looming end-of-the-month deadline.
Senators on Tuesday voted 93-7 to pass a sweeping $854 billion spending bill that includes funding for the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor and Education, which make up the lion’s share of total government spending.
Six Republican senators — Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Mike Lee (Utah), Rand Paul (Ky.), David Perdue (Ga.), Ben Sasse (Neb.) and Pat Toomey (Pa.) — joined Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in voting against the bill, which also includes a short-term stopgap bill to fund the rest of the government through Dec. 7 and prevent a shutdown that would start Oct. 1.
Some of them are upset … at what they’re doing.
Ah well, at least we’re getting a $pace Force.
Many thanks to the
New York Times Washington Post Freedom of the Press Foundation for exposing this anti-1A corruption.
Today, we are revealing—for the first time—the Justice Department’s rules for targeting journalists with secret FISA court orders. The documents were obtained as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by Freedom of the Press Foundation and Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.
While civil liberties advocates have long suspected secret FISA court orders may be used (and abused) to conduct surveillance on journalists, the government—to our knowledge—has never acknowledged they have ever even contemplated doing so before the release of these documents today.
The FISA court rules below are entirely separate from—and much less stringent—than the rules for obtaining subpoenas, court orders, and warrants against journalists as laid out in the Justice Department’s “media guidelines,” which former Attorney General Eric Holder strengthened in 2015 after several scandals involving surveillance of journalists during the Obama era.
When using the legal authorities named in the “media guidelines,” the Justice Department (DOJ) must go through a fairly stringent multi-part test (e.g. certifying that the information is critical to an investigation, that it can’t be obtained by other means, and that the DOJ exhausted all other avenues before doing so) before targeting a journalist with surveillance. They must also get approval from the Attorney General.
With the FISA court rules, there is no multi-part test that we know of. The DOJ only must follow its regular FISA court procedures (which can be less strict than getting a warrant in a criminal case) and get additional approval from the Attorney General or Assistant Attorney General. FISA court orders are also inherently secret, and targets are almost never informed that they exist.
The MSM will be slow to mention any of this if ever they do. They know about it but don’t care. They also know about the new declassifications (and the rejected “deal”) – they know about that and they’re panicking. Soon is now.
Russians, long oppressed by communism, seek a return to an honest and gentlemanly tradition: dueling:
The Russian Liberal Democratic party has drafted a bill allowing for official duels and detailing rules for such combat. The move comes after the head of the National Guard challenged an opposition figure to a fight over slander.
The motion, prepared and drafted by MP Sergey Ivanov states that a duel between Russian citizens should be possible – although it should by no means be deemed a normal way of settling scores.
“In recent times there is a tendency among civil servants to challenge citizens who express opinions that differ from the official point of view to duels. In order to systemize the main reasons of such challenges and the rules of actual duels we propose this bill,” the lawmaker wrote in the note attached with the draft.
The Russians are a different breed. I’m astounded that it’s the officials seeking to challenge the people. But it could easily go the other way – there. Here, there’s a reason our “leaders” are scared to death of such a prospect. It’s why they have routinely denied citizens the right to trial by combat. No, they’re headed in the opposite direction and taking us with them. Here’s a preview, from Venezuela, of what the future in America, with socialism for all and a “living wage,” will look like:
Nearly 40 percent of all Venezuelan stores have closed —some of them perhaps permanently —after the government of President Nicolas Maduro increased the minimum salary by nearly 3,500 percent in one fell swoop, according the National Council of Commerce and Services of Venezuela.
Many of the companies, which had been barely surviving the gradual collapse of the economy, saw the salary increase and other changes announced last month as the fatal blow in a series of policies that have been gradually strangling their businesses.
“These decisions are leading many business people to say, ‘No, I can’t do it any more,'” said Maria Carolina Uzcategui, president of the council.
The problem is that Venezuelan companies are being forced to sell at prices far below cost just as employee salaries are increasing 60 times, Uzcategui said.
What’s more, the regime has banned stores from increasing their prices to cover the salary increases, arguing that it is not necessary.
That’s literally a page from Atlas Shrugged. And it’s a page, a popular one, in the American socialist playbook.
If you’re young and love the West, consider the East.
The Fake News “Resistance” now, after decades of atrophy, seeks to protect the Constitution. Or something. Whatever it is, they’re aiming to protect against The Trump. Oddly, said Trump is the last vestige of hope for possibly restoring any semblance of Constitutional order. If he fails, then it’s over and we might as well let it go. “It” being the old Republic, now more of memory than an institution.
Trump. Trump. Trump. Russia. Russia. Russia. Fake news, impeachment, and indictment.
My old friend, Ken Starr says a sitting President can, in fact, be indicted for crimes.
“I think the president can be indicted,” said Starr, who led the investigation into former President Bill Clinton‘s sexual misconduct with Monica Lewinsky. “But that is not the position of the Justice Department traditionally.”
“The basic point is we do not have an authoritative resolution on the issue,” he said, noting it “cannot happen, as I see it, under Justice Department policy that’s enforceable on [Special Counsel] Bob Mueller.”
“No one is above the law,” he said. “And so in my judgment the president can in fact be indicted.”
I respect my friend’s learned judgment – as to his theory. But he seems a little caught up in the past. We are in a new and different place, legally. He’s probably correct – in theory – the president could be indicted.
However, a sitting president could now use (“legally”) something like the following to preempt any criminal proceeding:
Paper indictments do not stop AGM-114’s. NRO.
Do you like the new legal/political landscape? You know, if we’re honest, you voted yourselves into this imperial place. Pleased? If not, then say five “Hail Constitutions,” go forth, and vote no more, my children.
That, or hope Trump has a cool head and an iron constitution (not one of paper). Trust the plan?
Yesterday it was The Goldman. Today this. Is what it is.
The United States threatened Monday to arrest and sanction judges and other officials of the International Criminal Court if it moves to charge any American who served in Afghanistan with war crimes.
White House National Security Advisor John Bolton called the Hague-based rights body “unaccountable” and “outright dangerous” to the United States, Israel and other allies, and said any probe of US service members would be “an utterly unfounded, unjustifiable investigation.”
“If the court comes after us, Israel or other US allies, we will not sit quietly,” Bolton said.
He said the US was prepared to slap financial sanctions and criminal charges on officials of the court if they proceed against any Americans.
Clinton’s unratified signature on the Rome deal was a mistake. The ICC, “child of Nuremberg”, allows for no due process. And it decides “law” on what basis? How the winds shift? No thanks.
However, I doubt any deterrent or reprising criminal charges will be necessary. The court can likely be ignored with relative safety. If that fails, we have the Marines.