Tuesday, December 28, 2021

You Bastards


A farewell message for the zealots who are destroying our cities, and the shortsighted, sanctimonious voters who keep them in power, making the departure from D.C. a necessity rather than a choice.


My status as a second-class citizen was brought home to me on a beautiful May afternoon, while working on my laptop at a local coffee shop. With that discovery came the recognition that I would have to move out of the city I had called home for nearly two decades. 

Eighteen years ago, I arrived in Washington, D.C. as a Republican political appointee, and fell in love with the capital’s cultural and historic attractions—often playing tour guide over the years for visiting friends and relatives. I moved out this summer in disgust, dismay, and anger. 

The café near my condo where I liked to sit outside on nice days lost in charm what it gained in trash and rodents when several derelicts installed themselves as a permanent feature of the adjacent sidewalk last year. The squatters become the de facto owners of that public space—a phenomenon that now extends throughout most of the city. 

My epiphany came this spring when I looked up from my Macbook and Americano to find a homeless man, sucking a bottle of cheap brandy and blaring music at top volume from his Bluetooth speaker, obviously delighted that he was disturbing the café customers and knowing that no one—least of all the enlightened coffee shop owners—would confront him. 

As I was deciding whether to leave, another homeless person farther away, a large and obviously mentally ill woman, took off her pants and began to wipe down her private parts with a newspaper, just steps from the curb with cars and buses rushing by. The police arrived shortly thereafter, conferred with the woman performing her toilette al fresco, and then departed after doing precisely nothing. Well, most likely they filled out some forms and filed some reports, which is what passes nowadays for doing something.

Washington, D.C. was not then, nor it is now, a completely lawless town. If I had invited some friends to enjoy a bottle of wine with me while sprawled on the sidewalk, the police would surely have threatened us with a ticket, at least, if we didn’t shut down our party. The cops know perfectly well that confronting middle-class white people won’t result in getting screamed at, spit on, or stabbed. So they are happy to pluck low-hanging fruit by enforcing the law against compliant people with jobs. The net effect is that the overlapping network of drug-addicts, schizophrenics and psychotics, petty criminals, and street people enjoy rights and privileges that are rigorously denied to the rest of us.

Laziness is not the only factor at work here. The radical leftists who run most of America’s cities want folks like me to get out, so they can populate their fiefdoms entirely with their two preferred types of citizens (or rather, clients): the uncivilized underclass, and an overcivilized cohort of submissive woke hipsters who provide reliable votes for the most left-wing candidates. Both types are willing to put up with filth and disorder in exchange for the particular benefits the ruling class confers on them. 

In the first case, Washington, D.C., like other leftist enclaves, subsidizes the underclass with generous social services (including jail) along with broad immunity for indolence, violence, petty larceny, and scams. The other category, the ostentatiously obedient weaklings, get the psychic thrill of living in fashionably rundown neighborhoods, while slavishly following every new diktat—from recycling and paper straws to vaccine boosters and mask mandates. 

This robotic obedience makes them feel morally superior, believe it or not. Other law-abiding taxpayers, despite their contributions to feeding the city’s rapacious appetite for revenue, are not welcome if they display any political independence, or impatience with street crime, aggressive panhandling, and dilapidated infrastructure. 

In response to my decision to move to a deep-red town about 90 minutes outside the city, many on the Right would urge me to bid good riddance to bad rubbish. And, yes, for most part I’m happy with my decision. Yet there is one massive fact that should not be overlooked: Washington, D.C.—including its monuments, museums, parks, and public architecture—belongs to us, the American people. It’s wrong, and it makes me angry, that while I loved being a local resident and amateur expert on the city’s many attractions, I could no longer tolerate living there. 

The great sorting now under way, with Republicans fleeing the blue coasts and major metropolises, doesn’t just mean giving up easy access to boutique shopping and fine dining. It also means relinquishing some of our nation’s great cultural institutions (many of which were bequeathed to the American people by philanthropists such as the Mellons, Carnegies, and Rockefellers). Allowing these landmarks to fall into the hands of people who despise America’s heritage is a crime that should not pass unremarked. 

From the New York Metropolitan curator who wants to “destabilize” the Western canon to the San Francisco museum official who was forced to resignafter saying his organization would “definitely still continue to collect white artists,” America’s cultural institutions are almost uniformly controlled by fanatics pushing a political agenda.

Of course, D.C. still hosts Shakespearean theater and classical music, and the Smithsonian complex features world-class exhibitions of traditional paintingsand sculptures. But more and more America’s major libraries, concert halls, and museums have fallen to what Roger Kimball calls “timid ideological subservience” that celebrates the “aggressively repellent.” Nor is this relentless politicization limited to private institutions. The National Archives has added a trigger warning to the Declaration of Independence. With no local pushback, this will only get worse. 

I’m not sure what can be done at this point. Many conservative Republicans would not live in New York City even if you gave them the penthouse at Trump Tower. But for the zealots who are destroying our cities, and the short-sighted, sanctimonious voters who keep them in power—for those who made my departure from D.C. a necessity rather than a choice—I do have a farewell message: You bastards. 


Could Chesapeake Shores move to GAC Family?

 


We all know that 1 of Hallmark's shows, When Hope Calls, moved to GAC Family this year. But could more of Hallmark's properties move there also?

Earlier today, I started thinking that 1 of them could move there in 2022, and the perfect candidate would be Chesapeake Shores.

Hallmark only has 2 shows left, When Calls the Heart and Chesapeake Shores. The 1st is the network's most popular show, so that's not getting moved anywhere anytime soon. The 2nd, is the lowest rated.

I came across this last month on Spoiler TV:


When there's a report in place for filming, that means a new Season will definitely be filmed. Question is, where will it air?

So far, Hallmark hasn't said anything yet of Season 6.

I don't know anything yet, so here's an interesting look at the possibility of this show possibly moving in 2022.

Here's some good reasons as to why a move to GAC Family would be a good idea:

1, It's the lowest rated show on Hallmark.

Ratings for the previous Season

To tell the truth, I thought for sure that Hallmark was just going to dump this show because of the ratings. This year, it dumped Good Witch because of it's ratings. (Ironically, it was right after the last Season of that show introduced a gay couple out of thin air. 😂), so I thought it would happen here. Though, it COULD still happen, given how unimportant this show has been throughout it's whole run on Hallmark.

2, It's never been a huge hit for Hallmark.

While When calls the Heart and Good Witch were ratings hits, Chesapeake Shores has always been well, a quiet hit. Ratings were never really impressive, probably because of it always airing in summer when everyone is off somewhere else, and well, Hallmark has never really made this show a real importance when it comes to promotion. Plus, this show was off for 2 years, and there wasn't a huge deal made when it returned.

3, When Hope Calls was never a big hit, yet it was still picked up by GAC Family.

Not saying it'll 100% happen here, but it's something to think about.

4, Whatever direction Hallmark wants to go in when it comes to their year round content, it might not include keeping low rated shows around.

I have zero idea as to what Hallmark is planning on doing when it comes to anything. But if suddenly deciding to ditch 1 low rated show after not canceling anything for quite a few years, well. What's to say they won't want to do the same here eventually?

5, With so many Hallmark actors deciding to do movies on GAC Family, with more bound to come in 2022, what's to say that a good show like this isn't being considered by GAC in an event that Hallmark actually doesn't want the show anymore?

Here's the reasons why such a move would be benificial not just to the show but to GAC Family:

1, It's a sweet family show.

2, The network may need more content that's not just movies and reruns of old shows

3, A move like this would ensure that the show won't try to push a woke agenda.

Am I trying to say that I want this show to move? I, may be half and half there, but not having to worry about this show being the latest victim in Hallmark's woke direction WOULD be a nice thing!

To wrap this all up, there will be a Season 6. Though, will it actually be on Hallmark? Time will tell.


The Constitution isn't working

 


Article by John Kenneth White in The Hill


The Constitution isn't working

The U.S. Constitution is the sacred text of American government and civic life. But it’s time to face facts: The document, written in 1787, isn’t working. The signs are all around us. Just 38 percent of Americans in a recent Gallup poll expressed either a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the presidency, down from 48 percent in 2001. Congress, never high in the public’s estimation to begin with, fell from 26 percent to a mere 12 percent. The Supreme Court has also taken a hit, down from 50 percent to 36 percent during the same period.

One reason often cited for the failing Constitution are the people who inhabit its carefully crafted institutions. In Congress, serious legislators are scarce, as many members aim for viral recognition on social media. Freshman Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.)  freely admitted, “I have built my staff around comms [communication], not legislation.” Cawthorn is hardly alone: Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) represent a new breed of legislators who seek recognition and are largely uninterested in passing actual laws.

Disappointing presidents have become the norm. George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump failed to bring the country together, with Trump leaving office amplifying spurious claims of election fraud that led to the insurrection on Jan. 6. Although it is early in the Biden presidency, voter disenchantment is already clear, and the unity he promised in his inaugural address seems as elusive as ever. In the 19th century, James Bryce famously remarked that great men do not become presidents. Indeed, great presidents such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt are the exception, not the rule. 

Today, many see the courts not as arbiters of justice but inhabited by what Justice Amy Coney Barrett unsuccessfully tried to refute as “a bunch of partisan hacks.” Sixty-one percent of American adults surveyed by Quinnipiac now believe the decisions of the Supreme Court are motivated by politics; just 32 percent think its judgments are based on dispassionate readings of the law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor describes today’s court as “fractured.” She’s right.

But the Constitution’s failures go much deeper. The framers designed the presidency to execute laws, not make them. But the vagaries of congressional legislation have given the president the power to make laws through executive orders. The result is a roller coaster from one president to the next. Donald Trump loved signing executive orders, putting his Sharpie on 220 of them. Thus far, Joe Biden has signed 76 orders, with progressive Democrats urging even more. Trump enjoyed reversing Barack Obama’s executive orders; Biden feels the same way about Trump’s. 

Meanwhile, Congress is failing to protect its constitutional prerogatives. Instead of reserving to itself the right to declare war, Congress has surrendered war-making to the president — something the framers assiduously sought to avoid.

When Trump egregiously ignored his oath to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution on Jan. 6, the prescribed constitutional remedy of impeachment and conviction failed. Rather than asserting its constitutional rights, Congress has surrendered them to extreme partisanship. In the House, congressional Republicans are willingly forfeiting Congress’s subpoena powers in the Jan. 6 investigation but seek to reassert them if they are rewarded with congressional control in 2023. In the Senate, the filibuster is no longer the rare instrument designed to halt legislation and foster debate. Instead, the 60-vote threshold has become the default mechanism to stop all legislation without a word.

When George Washington supposedly was asked by Thomas Jefferson why the Senate was created, he responded, “Why did you just now pour your coffee into that saucer, before drinking?” Jefferson answered, “To cool it.” Washington responded, “Even so, we pour our legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.” The Senate was designed to cool legislation, not kill it. 

As partisanship grips the nation, more turn to the Supreme Court to revoke actions that either party finds offensive. During the past 20 years, the Supreme Court has waded into numerous political controversies. In 2000, a conservative majority in Bush v. Gore found that George W. Bush’s constitutional right to equal protection under the law overrode Florida’s Supreme Court ruling that all ballots be hand counted.

However, the Supreme Court declared that its decision only applied to George W. Bush while ordinary citizens in poorer areas, whose inferior voting machines inaccurately count their votes, would have no jurisdiction. Since then, judicial partisanship has escalated, with the conservative Court keeping the 2021 Texas abortion law in place. In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor concluded, “The Court thus betrays not only the citizens of Texas, but also our constitutional system of government.” 

It won't be enough merely to reform the filibuster, add more justices to the Supreme Court, change presidents or surrender presidential powers to Congress. A document written in 1787 is inadequate for the 21st century. The Electoral College is poised to create more misfires, with popular vote winners not becoming president, as has happened twice already this century. Territorial expansion has resulted in 16 percent of the U.S. population controlling half the seats in the U.S. Senate.

The Dakotas are but one example. When the two states were admitted to the Union in 1888, Republicans deliberately split the territory in two, thereby creating four new senators, not two. Meanwhile, the “strict constructionists” of the Supreme Court resort to determining the original intent of a document written 234 years ago rather than understanding that it was a beginning, not an ending point. 

Thomas Jefferson once remarked, “I hold it that a little rebellion every now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms are in the physical.” Let’s face facts: The Constitution isn’t working. It’s time for a little rebellion.

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/587431-the-constitution-isnt-working 


Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


X22, On the Fringe, and more-Dec 28

 





Evening. Here's tonight's news:


An Airborne Vaccine?

Will Omicron crowd out the Beta & Delta variants and act like an airborne vaccine, albeit a naturally occurring one?


COVID-19 has ebbed and flowed. Originally, we were warned it could be a Black Death-style disaster; it turned out to be more like a very serious influenza season, with perhaps two or three times the mortality of a normal flu, mostly concentrated among the elderly—a nontrivial social cost, but still a manageable situation. 

At various times, it also appeared that we were out of the woods. The grim experience of New York in early 2020 was not repeated in most of the rest of the country. Rather, the initial wave came and went far less dramatically, with the vast majority of people either not getting infected or not becoming seriously ill. 

But COVID has a way of making a mockery of predictions. Because, after a brief reprieve, it resumed: first in the summer of 2020 in the South, and then, later, nationwide.

At the end of 2020, vaccines came online. These novel vaccines appeared to be working, as cases soon declined. Of course, the decline in cases could have also just been a coincidental event based on the natural rise and fall of cases in every pandemic. By early summer 2021, though, things had gone so well—whether because of vaccines, natural immunity, or a combination of both—that Joe Biden more or less declared victory over the coronavirus

Then, in spite of widespread vaccine uptake, the Delta surge arrived. We were told vaccines prevented death and disease at high rates, but the totals of mortality with Delta exceeded those of earlier waves. Statistical tricks made this appear to be a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” but that was only because estimates included cases from earlier in 2021, when fewer people were vaccinated, and many were catching the earlier (and deadlier) Beta variant. 

None of the data really squared with the claims of vaccine efficacy. One would expect at least some significant downturn in cases, and certainly in death and hospitalization, if the vaccine were truly 95 percent effective and something like 75 percent of adults had the vaccine. It turned out the vaccines lost efficacy quickly and barely put a dent in the spread of Delta. The vaccine promoters (and mandaters) overpromised and under delivered, and continue to do so.

Then came Omicron. Appearing first in South Africa, it apparently spread far and wide, eventually displacing Delta there and now also in the United States, where it currently makes up 78 percent of COVID cases. New York recently recorded the highest number of COVID cases ever

But in South Africa, something peculiar happened. Deaths did not riseHospitalizations occurred at significantly lower rates than in earlier waves. Most people had cold symptoms. This data is easily verified. Similarly in the UK, as cases have increased, deaths have remained flat, perhaps soon to decline as Omicron crowds out the last of Delta. 

In other words, Omicron’s appearance is part of the normal and expected evolution of viruses: one towards greater transmissibility and lower mortality, a process called antigenic drift. A similar mutated strain apparently wiped out the Spanish flu bug.

Even as it appears monoclonal antibody treatments developed to mitigate earlier waves of COVID may not prove useful in treating the Omicron variant, the push to keep the old vaccines developed to combat earlier strains of COVID continues. This is not really logical. If the antibodies developed to fight the earlier virus once it appears do not work as treatments, why would a similar process to create such antibodies through vaccines work in the pre-treatment? 

Of course, there is a lot of money in these vaccines. And there is a strong antipathy to admitting mistakes of approach and imagination among the medical establishment. Even without addressing the question of vaccine risks, vaccines should, at the very least, actually do something useful

Vaccines don’t appear to do much to stop the spread; in Denmark, the rates of Omicron infection appear about the same among the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. There is some evidence, in fact, that prior illness or receiving the vaccines makes it more likely that someone will get Omicron.

The push for vaccines is becoming more draconian, even as the blessing of an apparently much safer COVID variant is upon us. Getting Omicron may involve some discomfort, but so do vaccines, and Omicron appears an order of magnitude less deadly than the earlier strains. Some studies say it is 30 to 40times less likely to cause hospitalization and death than earlier variants. 

We know prior infection with other strains appears to provide durable immunity against reinfection and at least some immunity as between the Beta and Delta strains. Will that work for Omicron? Perhaps yes and perhaps no. The inefficacy of earlier (Beta and Delta) infection to prevent Omicron may apply both ways, leaving those who come down with Omicron theoretically vulnerable to earlier strains. 

But, as with Delta, Omicron may wipe out other strains of the coronavirus, even if the antibodies created in response to it do not attack it directly. This phenomenon is known as viral interference. If Omicron were to interfere with and outcompete the other strains, the mechanism may prove immaterial, if its rapid growth and spread deprive the older, more dangerous strains of COVID of a host. The population-wide effect would provide significant protection for everyone. Something like this—the emergence of a new, less deadly strain of the virus—is what ultimately stopped the Spanish flu. The virus persisted in this weakened, endemic state, but never repeated the mortality numbers of 1918.

In other words, if Omicron were to crowd out the Beta and Delta variants due to its high infectiousness for a very modest cost in terms of disease outcomes, Omicron would be like an airborne vaccine, albeit a naturally occurring one. And it would deliver substantially larger and faster benefits than the expensive and controversial mRNA vaccine campaigns currently underway. 

While the actual effects and course of the disease appears orthogonal to the attitudes of public policy makers, the true elimination of cases, hospitalization, and death would make their push for continued masking and mandatory vaccination less and less tenable. 

This would truly be a Christmas miracle.


13 Happenings In 2021 That I Never Would Have Believed 5 Years Ago

Events happened this year that would have been believed impossible not long ago, with new lows and technological advances.



The world seemed to get closer to spinning out of its orbit in 2021. If you’d told me five years ago that men would be treated as women, criminals would not be prosecuted, and censorship would be widespread, I wouldn’t have believed you.

What were once considered the most basic, scientific truths (such as that you’re born with your sex and can’t change it) have broken down. Governments are no longer serving their primary function of providing security and protecting borders.

There are many more. As I reflected on the past year, here are just some of the many things that happened in 2021 that I never would have believed possible if someone had foretold them to me just five years ago.

1. Men As Women

The trend that most would have shocked my grandparents is transgenderism. Men are now competing with women in sports and being housed with women in prison. In 2021, President Biden appointed a man as a four-star admiral and proclaimed this was the “first” “female” “four-star officer.” 

2. Blocking Puberty

A second shocker is that parents are enabling young children to try to change genders with dangerous surgeries and puberty blockers. Many public schools have a policy of not telling parents if their son or daughter has adopted a transgender identity at school.

3. Drafting Women

Third, the United States narrowly avoided a draft for women, which was supported by many elected officials in the “conservative” party.

4. Not Prosecuting Crime

In many U.S. cities, serious crimes are not being prosecuted and crime has surged, with a dozen cities breaking annual homicide records.

5. Massive Illegal Immigration

Millions of immigrants have crossed illegally into the United States this year, in record numbers. The Biden administration also considered paying $450,000 in reparations to illegal immigrant families separated at the border.

6. Widespread Censorship

The former president of the United States is still banned from Facebook and Twitter. Big Tech censors debate on the most important topics of the day. Comedians can’t make jokes.

7. Parents Labeled Terrorists

Parents were labeled “domestic terrorists” by the Biden Justice Department for showing up at school board meetings with complaints. Schools aren’t telling parents what they teach and politicians are denying the obvious – young children are being taught, using public funds and institutions, that their country is racist.

8. President’s Mental Abilities Doubted

President Biden misspeaks regularly, to the point that many commentators doubt he’s really the one running the country. 

9. Asking Athletes for Advice

People turn to athletes and actors more and more for their advice and opinions as many other societal leaders seem to have abdicated their duties to lead.

10. Record Debt and Inflation

With record U.S. national debt, the money supply increased by more than a third in 18 months. The United States is experiencing the worst inflation in 40 years. Energy prices are up, and one of the bigger events of the year was in May, when the main pipeline carrying gasoline to the East Coast was shut down due to a cyberattack.

11. Covid Restrictions Continue and Some Increase

Initially sold as “two weeks to slow the spread,” lockdowns, mask, and vaccine mandates continue two years since COVID-19 started. Some U.S. cities such as Los Angeles, New York, and Washington D.C. are now segregating people from public places to penalize their independent assessment of their medical risks.

12. Major Scientific Advances Not Celebrated

Every year brings some surprises and new scientific advances, but this year, living in a time of such great division in society, these breakthroughs were not universally celebrated.

Surely the greatest impact of science this year was the widespread rollout of COVID-19 vaccines. Thankfully, the vaccines have saved countless lives. But many had hoped they would mean life could return to normal; instead, lockdowns and mask mandates continue and vaccines have become yet another point of division, with the vaccinated pitted against the unvaccinated.

A huge portion of the world’s population has been willing to get the jab and trust relatively new Messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines, but some have been doubtful and resisted coercion and mandates as they have made their own judgments about natural immunity and risk. According to the Centers for Disease Control, “mRNA vaccines are newly available to the public. However, researchers have been studying and working with mRNA vaccines for decades.”

Doubts have been sown because the vaccines don’t completely prevent infection or transmission, but also because the public has lost faith in science as it was politicized by scientists, the administration, bureaucrats, the media, and Big Tech – from discussion of the origins of COVID to its treatment and prevention.

Surely we could at least joyfully celebrate science when the long-time human dream of private space travel became more of a reality in 2021? Three billionaires made expeditions to this frontier. It was a massive milestone, but was criticized by some as a waste of money and an ego trip.

13. Losing Our Lead

While traveling to space sure sounds sci-fi, the United States is losing its lead in science. China continued its advances toward surpassing the United States in technology, surprising U.S. officials by launching a supersonic missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. The missile circled the earth once and barely missed its target.

It “approached its target traveling at least five times the speed of sound — a capability no country has previously demonstrated,” according to The Financial Times. The Pentagon is unsure how “China overcame the constraints of physics by firing countermeasures from a vehicle travelling at hypersonic speeds.”

China may also be behind some of the Unidentified Flying Objects seen by U.S. military pilots over the past two decades, according to a long-awaited Pentagon report this year, which could not explain the origin of the UFOs.

Even with all this bad news, our nation has so much to be grateful for. But looking at the societal chaos and dystopian scientific advances, it’s no wonder some think the end is nigh. For now, we can hope that Republican wins last November show that many Americans will vote for change in the next election.

And maybe we should celebrate those billionaires escaping Earth after all.


Is the Whitmer ‘Kidnapping’ Case About to be Tossed?

At this point, perhaps the Justice Department should pray that the judge rules in favor of the defense and dismisses the case before the FBI is further embarrassed—and exposed.


The U.S. Department of Justice received an unwelcome Christmas gift from defense attorneys representing five men charged with conspiring to “kidnap” Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer in 2020: a motion to dismiss the case.

The Christmas Day filing is the latest blow to the government’s scandal-ridden prosecution; defense counsel is building a convincing argument that the FBI used undercover agents and informants to entrap their clients in a wide-ranging scheme that resulted in bad press for Donald Trump as early voting was underway in the key swing state last year. What began as random social media chatter to oppose lockdown policies quickly morphed into a dangerous plan to abduct Whitmer as soon as the FBI took over.

A Michigan judge delayed the trial, now set for March 8, so defense attorneys could investigate the misconduct of FBI special agents handling at least a dozen government informants involved in the caper.

As I reported last week, the lead prosecutor recently informed the judge that three of the FBI’s top agents involved in the case will not take the stand as government witnesses. Richard Trask, the FBI special agent who signed the initial criminal complaint against six men facing federal charges—one man pleaded guilty and is cooperating with authorities—was removed from the case and fired by the FBI after he physically assaulted his wife last summer in a drunken rage following a swingers party at a hotel near their home.

The agents who managed the day-to-day activity of the case’s lead informant also will not testify. FBI agent Jayson Chambers ran a security consulting business on the side; an anonymous Twitter account claiming to represent his firm, Exeintel, dropped hints of pending arrests in the Whitmer case, calling into question his motives as a lead investigator. His partner, FBI agent Henrik Impola, has been accused of committing perjury in a separate case.

“The government does not plan to call Impola, Chambers, or Trask as witnesses,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Birge notified the court on December 17. “[The] government requests the Court exclude evidence relating to Exeintel, the unfounded allegations against SA Impola, and Richard Trask’s domestic assault charges or alleged social media posts.” 

Now the judge will consider defense counsel’s latest motion to drop the kidnapping conspiracy charges against Adam Fox, Barry Croft, Kaleb Franks, Dan Harris, and Brandon Caserta; in the April 2021 superseding indictment, which defense attorneys cite in the motion, the Justice Department described the defendants as domestic terrorists who attempted “to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.”

But the real conspiracy—as court documents, testimony, and communications between FBI handlers and their informants show—was concocted by federal operatives working inside and outside the FBI Detroit field office. 

“In this Case, the undisputed evidence, as demonstrated in forty-four pages of statements already submitted to the Court, establishes that government agents and informants concocted, hatched, and pushed this ‘kidnapping plan’ from the beginning, doing so against defendants who explicitly repudiated the plan,” the five defense attorneys wrote in the December 25 motion. “When the government was faced with evidence showing that the defendants had no interest in a kidnapping plot, it refused to accept failure and continued to push its plan.”

The FBI funded and organized two “militia” conferences in the summer of 2020 to lure would-be kidnappers; handled all expenses so indigent defendants could attend surveillance and training excursions, which were photographed by the government to use as evidence; and paid cash to numerous informants, including at least $50,000 to the lead informant, known as “Big Dan” to the unwitting suspects.

A footnote in the 20-page filing explained how “Big Dan” and other informants acted as the monetary pass-through between the FBI and the Whitmer defendants. “The government was not going to be deterred by the fact that the defendants did not have the money to travel throughout the Midwest in order to play along with the CHSs and undercover agents. CHS Dan, while often claiming poverty, always had the resources to drive, feed, and house others whom he hoped to pull into the government plan. Another CHS convinced many that he would finance operations through a 501(c)(3) charity and would even provide debit cards to others, drawing on his accounts. So while the defendants had no interest in profit . . . the government’s exploitation of its virtually unlimited resources, poured into its investigation, further underscores entrapment as a matter of law.” This included informants’ picking up the tab for food, lodging, and gas among other expenses.

Defense attorneys cited several examples of exchanges where defendants pushed back on suggestions to kidnap Whitmer; at one point, “Big Dan” raised the idea of putting a “round of bullets” into a window at Whitmer’s cottage, the location of the would-be abduction, and suggested they “mail the casings to the news.” The agents and informants, according to defense attorneys, “continued to push to shape a kidnapping plan, even trying to elevate it to murder.”

And it isn’t just FBI agents causing headaches for the government. Stephen Robeson, a convicted felon and longtime FBI informant who planned several kidnapping-related outings including a militia conference in Ohio, recently pleaded guilty to illegally purchasing and possessing a sniper rifle in 2020. The government offered Robeson a sweetheart deal—time served on a felony charge with a potential 10-year prison term, two years probation, and $100 fine—and he will be sentenced in February, a month before the Whitmer trial is scheduled to begin.

The Justice Department won’t confirm whether Robeson will testify; given his central role in the plot and criminal history, including statutory rape, and the misconduct of his FBI handlers, it’s hard to see how Robeson’s testimony would help the government’s case.

Prosecutors, meanwhile, insist the suggestion that the FBI was responsible for the Whitmer kidnapping plot is a factless fantasy peddled by the same people who claim January 6 was an inside job. “The conspiracy theory that the FBI instigated the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol to entrap otherwise law-abiding citizens has been actively promoted by certain media outlets,” the government sneered in a recent motion, referring to Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

And therein lies the government’s biggest headache of all. If a trial showcases all the ways in which the FBI orchestrated the Whitmer kidnapping plan from start to finish—and the defense features the lowlife agents and informants who made it possible—the public will demand a similar reckoning about the FBI’s role in January 6.

At this point, perhaps the Justice Department should pray that the judge rules in favor of the defense and dismisses the case before the FBI is further embarrassed—and exposed.


Russian court orders oldest civil rights group Memorial to shut

 

Russia's Supreme Court has ordered the closure of International Memorial, Russia's oldest human rights group.

Memorial worked to recover the memory of the millions of innocent people executed, imprisoned or persecuted in the Soviet era.

Formally it has been "liquidated" for failing to mark a number of social media posts with its official status as a "foreign agent".

That designation was given in 2016 for receiving funding from abroad.

But in court the prosecutor labelled Memorial a "public threat", accusing the group of being in the pay of the West to focus attention on Soviet crimes instead of highlighting a "glorious past".  


Founded in 1989, Memorial became a symbol of a country opening up to the world - and to itself - as Russia began examining the darkest chapters of its past. Its closure is a stark symbol of how the country has turned back in on itself under President Vladimir Putin, rejecting criticism - even of history - as a hostile act.

There were shouts of "shame!" from those in court as the decision was read out.

The ruling also shines a light on the rise in repression in modern-day Russia, where Memorial's own human rights wing now lists more than 400 political prisoners, and independent groups and media are increasingly blacklisted as "foreign agents".

In court, lawyers for Memorial argued that the group's work was beneficial for the "health of the nation". They declared Memorial a friend of Russia, not its enemy, and called the case for liquidation absurd and "Orwellian".

Among the sites the group failed to mark with its "foreign agent" status was the vast database of victims of political repression that it has assembled over three decades of work.

The team argued that any mistakes had been corrected and that shutting down a prominent and respected organisation over such technical errors was disproportionate.

In a statement later on Tuesday, International Memorial said it would challenge the ruling and find legitimate ways to continue its work. Russians needed an honest reflection of their past and no-one would succeed in "liquidating" that need, it added.  


The justice ministry argued that a group's social significance could be no excuse for breaking the law. But the prosecution's closing speech pointed to a deeper motivation for this case.

"International Memorial… is almost entirely focused on distorting historic memory, first and foremost about the Great Fatherland War [World War Two]," Alexei Zhafyarov told the court, accusing the group of creating a false image of the USSR as a "terrorist" state.

Vladimir Putin has placed great store on the Soviet victory over the Nazis in World War Two, part of his hankering for the old days of superpower status - a far more attractive focus for many Russians than the parallel history of secret courts, prison camps and firing squads.

"Why should we, descendants of the victors, be ashamed and repent, rather than take pride in our glorious past? Memorial is probably paid by someone for that," the prosecutor claimed in court.  


"They chose us because we are strong and prominent, and because we irritate them," Memorial board member Oleg Orlov recently told the BBC about the move to shutter an organisation he has been with from the start.

"The authorities these days are politicising history, but we say things they don't like. We talk about the difficult pages of the past and that annoys them," he said  

The organisation has faced pressure for many years, but that pressure intensified as Russia was swept by a fiercely patriotic wave following the annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014.

Memorial's walls were smeared with graffiti, its work smeared on state TV as subversive, and in 2016 it was listed as a "foreign agent" - a slur eerily reminiscent of Stalinist times when those marked as "enemies of the people" were persecuted and purged.

Just this October, when a crowd gathered at Memorial's Moscow headquarters to watch Mr Jones, a film about the Stalin-era famine that killed millions in Ukraine, a nationalist mob burst in and rushed on stage calling the audience "fascists" and yelling: "Hands off our history".

Sister organisation Memorial Human Rights Centre, which works to document modern-day political repression and rights violations, is also facing closure for alleged violations of the foreign agents law. A ruling in its own case is expected this week.

Memorial says it will challenge the decisions, including in the European Court of Human Rights.

Oleg Orlov believes the case against both is intended as a warning: "The attack on us is meant as a strong signal to all civil society in Russia. They're saying: 'Look! If we can do this with them, then it's no problem to liquidate all you lot too,'" he told the BBC.

"The time has come to purge the field for good."  


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59808624  





Memorial is not an organisation nor even a social movement. Memorial is the need of Russia's citizens for the truth about their tragic past, and the fate of many millions of people

Statement by International Memorial