Election Season – a license to misinform by Tom Reynolds
In what seems like a daily occurrence, more and more laws are being proposed that would require citizens to have a permit or license, pass a test, and perhaps even be covered by liability insurance in order to buy / sell / touch a gun or ammunition.
What if the need for a permit / license/ insurance were applied to exercising your 1st Amendment rights? Or better yet, what if politicians were required to get a permit / license / insurance before exercising their 1st Amendment rights?
With the election season upon us, we are in the silly season of outlandish statements to be printed as facts, as long as the statements are made by those on the left. Some examples of this ‘misinformation.’
The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is letting Texas start arresting and deporting people who enter the country illegally, by refusing to block a new Texas law. The justices, in a 6-3 decision, rejected the Biden Administration’s request to keep the Texas law on hold while a legal fight goes forward at a lower court.
The three liberal judges on SCOTUS dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent that the court “invites further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement.”
The COURT “invites further chaos and crisis?”
Will the left-wing media report that the chaos and crisis is already there, created by President Biden, and Texas is only trying to get the chaos under control. Or will it report Sotomayor’s dissent as if it were fact?
A leftist SCOTUS’ justice made a political rather than a constitutional decision? Say it aint so!
Anthony Ornato was a career Secret Service official who had been detailed to a security position in the White House. In his January 28th, 2022 transcribed interview with the January 6 House Select Committee, Ornato told investigators that he overheard White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows push Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser to request as many National Guard troops as she needed to protect the city. Ornato also testified that President Trump had suggested 10,000 would be needed to keep the peace at the public rallies and protests scheduled for January 6, 2021.
AFTER Ornato’s testimony under oaty, the January 6 House Select Committee had claimed they had “no evidence” to support claims the White House had communicated its desire for 10,000 National Guard troops.
The Federalist reported on March 8th that the Committee suppressed Ornato’s interview from public release, until now.
Will the NY Times and others report this or let their erroneous original anti-Trump reporting stand? Does a bear… Which is what the NY Times reporting does.
By the way, after Ornato’s first interview - in an amazing coincidence - critical stories and even conspiracy theories about Ornato began appearing in media sources such as the NY Times. Could there have been committee leaks about Ornato’s interview and a concerted effort formed to discredit him in advance of his interview being made public? Say it aint so!
On February 16, in a case brought by NY Attorney General Letitia James, New York State Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron ordered Donald Trump to pay $355 million of “disgorgement” penalties. The basis for imposing these extraordinary penalties was Trump’s supposed “fraud” of exaggerating the value of some of his properties on financial statements submitted to a bank. No one had been damaged by Trump’s conduct, and the bank in question had neither complained nor sought any relief.
This judicial decision brought about an “oops” moment.
Prominent investors immediately signaled their intent to halt their business in New York following the Trump verdict. Real estate mogul Grant Cardone announced that his firm Cardone Capital would no longer underwrite New York real estate. Shark Tank star Kevin O’Leary vowed to no longer invest in the state as a result of the verdict. Their basic thinking is that if the Attorney General can target a politically-disfavored individual like Trump, how could any person doing business in New York think they are safe from similar legal abuse?
Recognizing the problem, Governor Kathy Hochul went on a radio talk show on February 18 in an effort to reassure the New York business community. She claimed that Trump’s case was an “extraordinary, unusual circumstance,” and therefore “law-abiding and rule-following New Yorkers . . . have nothing to worry about because they’re very different than Donald Trump and his behavior.”
If you believe that smelly pile of ‘misinformation’, Hochul also has a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
And in further evidence Hochul was ‘misinforming,’ ten days later, AG James dropped her latest politicized case. The new target is JBS USA Food Company Holdings — the U.S. subsidiary of the world’s largest producer of beef.
What did JBS do?
JBS had committed itself to Climate Change’s Net Zero by 2040. AG James is suing them because: “The JBS Group, however, has had no viable plan to meet its commitment to be “Net Zero by 2040.”
Well, since James is after those with an unrealistic Net Zero plan…
In 2019, New York State adopted a Climate Act which committed the State to “net zero” emissions by 2050, and in 2022 adopted a Scoping Plan laying out how it was going to get there. The Scoping Plan has been called completely delusional and deceptive, and does not come remotely close to setting forth a realistic way to get to net zero. So, when is the AG going to bring a case against New York State under the same Executive Law 63(12) that was used against Trump and JBS?
When is Hell freezing over?
Batten-down-the-hatches defenders of the 2nd Amendment. With the silly season now open for political speech without a license, expect more ‘misinformation’ about gun owners being extremist, gun toting, militarized crazies waiting breathlessly to use their high capacity ‘assault rifles’ to defend ourselves against misunderstood criminals who only turned to crime because our bourgeoisie society failed them.
