“Pay Their Way Out of Jail”

Posted on by
Reply

Illinois has a law, signed into that status by Progressive-Democrat Governor JB Pritzker, that will allow folks accused of any of a broad array of felonies, including kidnapping, armed robbery, second degree murder, drug induced homicide, aggravated DUI, threatening a public official, and aggravated fleeing and eluding to walk free pending trial under the law’s cashless bail component. This component takes effect next January.

The problem with this cashless bail foolishness of Illinois—with any jurisdiction’s cashless bail policy—is made crystalline by Pritzker’s reaction to one State’s Attorney’s lawsuit against Pritzker and his Attorney General, Kwame Raoul.

Kankakee County State’s Attorney Jim Rowe has filed a lawsuit in his county’s circuit court against the governor and state attorney general, arguing that the SAFE-T law violates the state constitution.
Pritzker’s office criticized the lawsuit, calling it a “weak attempt to protect the status quo that lets murderers and abusers pay their way out of jail.”

Pay their way out of jail. Pritzker wants to let murderers and abusers out of jail for free, instead. (And he completely ignored the premise that his policy violates the State’s constitution. Apparently, Pritzker cares not a fig for his State’s supreme law.)

Who’s in Charge of our Defense Policy?

Posted on by
Reply

And why have these obstructionists not been fired?

In a pre-taped interview shown Sunday, the interviewer asked President Joe Biden (D) whether the US would defend the Republic of China (the politically correct interviewer referred to “Taiwan”), and Biden said, “Yes.”

Yes, if in fact there was an unprecedented attack[.]

The interviewer pressed Biden.

Interviewer: So unlike Ukraine, to be clear, sir, US Forces, US men and women would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion?
Biden: Yes.

When the interview aired, CBS

interrupted with a voiceover saying a White House official said after interview that “US policy has not changed” and the government will not officially say whether US troops would intervene in Taiwan[.]

This is the fourth time in just a few months that Biden’s subordinates have countermanded Biden’s open, direct remarks on matters of American foreign policy.

This is a clear illustration of the weakness of, and the division within, the Biden administration, and our enemies are taking advantage.

Saul Alinsky Lives

Posted on by
Reply

And the Progressive-Democrat administration can’t handle it. Regarding some governors transporting illegal aliens to Progressive-Democrat-run cities and homes (the way President Joe Biden (D) has been doing all over our nation, I add), Power Line noted this:

Governors Abbott and DeSantis have put several of Alinsky’s rules in play Among them:

  • Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.
  • Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
  • A good tactic is one your people enjoy.
  • Keep the pressure on.
  • The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
  • Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

A Politico “person familiar” with White House thinking had this:

Oh no. This is a dangerous situation. How can we fix it?

Biden had this, through his Press Secretary:

It’s really just disrespectful to humanity. It doesn’t afford them any dignity what they’re doing, when you’re abandoning families and children in a place where they were told they were going to get housing and a place where they were told they were going to get jobs. … It’s just cruel.

Disrespectful and cruel to transport illegal aliens from the Biden-created shambles and squalor of our southern border and transport them to welcoming sanctuary cities like New York City and Chicago—never minding the despicable racism and xenophobia of those cities’ mayors who say these brown-skinned foreigners aren’t welcome in those cities after all.

Disrespectful and cruel to take the illegal aliens from the squalor the Biden administration has made of our southern border and transport them to the lap of luxury that is Martha’s Vineyard.

Sure.

And we’ve seen the hysteria that includes threats of criminal charges since this sort of thing is legal only when Progressive-Democrats do it.

“Dereliction of Duty”

Posted on by
Reply

After a second busload of illegal aliens were delivered to Vice President Kamala Harris’ (D) residence so that she could see to their care as her duty as Border Tsar would seem to require of her, Harris objected [ellipsis in the original].

I think it is the height of irresponsibility…frankly, a dereliction of duty, when you are an elected leader, to play those kinds of games with human life.

Indeed it is. The derelictions of duty are two. One is elected official Harris’ (D) refusal to visit our southern border to see with her own eyes (or to publicly avert them) the disaster in progress there, despite her being the Border Tsar since shortly after her ascension to office.

The other is elected official President Joe Biden’s (D) refusal to do anything about that illegal alien disaster in parallel with his own utter refusal to visit our southern border to see with his own eyes—or to avert them—that disaster.

A Tacit Admission?

Posted on by
Reply

Attorney General Merrick Garland (D) has filed his appeal (to the 11th Circuit) of the Federal district judge’s order blocking the DoJ from using certain documents seized in the DoJ’s Mar-a-Lago raid in its criminal investigation. That order parallels the judge’s appointment of a Special Master to oversee and sort through all of the seized documents. Garland’s appeal reads, in pertinent part,

Although the government believes the district court fundamentally erred in appointing a special master and granting injunctive relief, the government seeks to stay only the portions of the order causing the most serious and immediate harm to the government and the public by (1) restricting the government’s review and use of records bearing classification markings and (2) requiring the government to disclose those records for a special-master review process[.]

[R]estricting the government’s review and use of records bearing classification markings.

Garland no longer is willy-nilly calling the documents classified. Might this be his tacit admission that the documents aren’t actually classified?

Why does Garland not want them “disclosed” to the Special Master? The judge’s order here was for more than mere disclosure, too; she ordered the documents delivered to the Special Master for the explicit purpose of the Master’s assessment of whether they are classified. Why is Garland so terrified of an independent review, instead of his “trust me” position?

A tacit switch: the judge ordered the documents turned over to the Master, but Garland’s appeal refers only to disclosing the docs to the Master. Is Garland planning on continuing to refuse to turn them over if the Circuit court rejects his appeal of disclosure?