We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   PoliticsA Real American President: Donald Trump

Previous 10 Next 10 
From: DMaA7/21/2021 6:19:56 PM
1 Recommendation   of 329741
They can warn all they want, just don't stand in my way.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Woody_Nickels who wrote (291843)7/21/2021 6:20:07 PM
From: kckip
2 Recommendations   of 329741
Natural sleep supplement. I use it occasionally....when I have a string of poor sleep nights, so I do wonder if it is effective....
BUT, when I do use it my dreams are usually more intense, so that seems to indicate (to me anyway) that it is working and I am getting to deep (REM) sleep. I typically go with the smaller dose (recommended dose 2-5 mg) because it can make me feel groggy in the am, but once I am up and functional that goes away. All FWIW, of course, might help. <g>

Edit: Horseshoe Bend looks like a great place to stop for R&R. If you don't make it that far, there is Massacre Rocks State Park on the Salmon R between Idaho Falls and Twin Fall...and several others further northwest before you split of towards Boise.

If I remember correctly, you are visiting parks on this tour, and it sounds like Glacier might be the first stop? Glacier is a scenic and hiking park unless you plan to stick around for a week or so - we have great photos of a young mtn goat licking spilled soda off parking lot asphalt on the Going to the Sun highway <g>. We saw several grizzly's, the day before we left <g>. Yellowstone will give you plenty of wildlife to photograph <g>

My native stomping grounds, so I have to blather about them <g>

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Woody_Nickels who wrote (291849)7/21/2021 6:21:11 PM
From: DMaA
1 Recommendation   of 329741
Opps, meant to reply that to you.

A Real American President: Donald Trump Message Board - Msg: 33407428 (

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Woody_Nickels7/21/2021 6:56:50 PM
1 Recommendation   of 329741
Biden Admin pushes Radical CRT book for Schools Reopening

Whiteness is the source of all evil!

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Woody_Nickels who wrote (291853)7/21/2021 7:13:27 PM
From: Woody_Nickels
1 Recommendation   of 329741
Biden should be careful. Whiteness is also the source of most all taxes.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Honey_Bee who wrote (291847)7/21/2021 7:28:18 PM
From: FJB
6 Recommendations   of 329741
BREAKING: Judge Orders California to Include Larry Elder on Recall Election Ballot


AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez
Late Wednesday afternoon, attorney Harmeet K. Dhillon announced that a California judge has ordered Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber to include Republican Larry Elder on the final ballot for the September 14 gubernatorial recall election.

The ruling applies to two concurrent suits brought against Weber to remedy the fact that Elder was left off Monday’s preliminary list of candidate names. Dhillon and her colleague attorney Mark Meuser represented California voter Betty Chu while Larry Elder was represented by attorney Steve Baric:

The hearing in the Larry Elder and voter Betty Tom Chu matters (my firm represents the latter) may be seen here:

— Harmeet K. Dhillon (@pnjaban) July 21, 2021

The judge opened the hearing “with a tentative ruling that the tax return disclosure requirement doesn’t seem to apply to recall elections,” tweeted Dhillon, “and if it did, Larry Elder substantially complied with it.”

Related: Larry Elder Comes Out Swinging, “We Will See Them in Court

It was noted that Elder provided the secretary of state’s office with more than 300 pages of both personal and corporate financial documents when he submitted his candidate papers. His attorneys argued that the redaction portion of the election statute is there to protect the candidate’s privacy. So why does the state care how it was redacted or not?

“The court’s tentative [ruling] covers the matter [for Betty Chu] and [Elder] will respond if necessary,” said Dhillon, citing Meuser. Meanwhile, the State’s lawyer argued that the recall election should be run the same way as other elections. The judge did not agree and issued the inclusion order:

Judge orders California to include Larry Elder on the ballot in California recall election. Says tax returns were never required in the first place for a recall as opposed to a primary election.

— Harmeet K. Dhillon (@pnjaban) July 21, 2021

The ruling means Larry Elder’s name will be included on the final candidate list later today and the final list will then be sent to the printer as per state law. The election to recall California’s Governor Gavin Newsom will be held on September 14.

For everyone–except the secretary of state, her lawyer, and the Democrats–this order is a win. It’s definitely a win for The Sage of South Central who has the constitutional right to be on the ballot and for California voters, who have the right to have qualified candidates to choose from in September.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Honey_Bee who wrote (291847)7/21/2021 7:32:09 PM
From: FJB
1 Recommendation   of 329741
Court Strikes Down Calif. Law Mandating Transgender Pronouns

BY TYLER O'NEIL JUL 21, 2021 4:09 PM ET

Share Tweet

(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
On Friday, a California appeals court struck down part of Senate Bill 219 (enacted in 2017), which required staffers in elder care facilities to use the preferred pronouns of transgender residents or patients. The court ruled that the transgender mandate, codified in Health and Safety Code section 1439.51, violates the free speech rights of elder care staff. The court rejected a challenge to another aspect of the law, however.

“Content-based laws are presumptively unconstitutional and are subject to strict scrutiny,” Judge Elena Duarte wrote for herself and two other judges in Taking Offense v. California (2021). “The pronoun provision at issue here tests the limits of the government’s authority to restrict pure speech that, while potentially offensive or harassing to the listener, does not necessarily create a hostile environment.”

Duarte ruled that while California has a compelling state interest in preventing discrimination at elder care facilities, the transgender pronoun mandate did not use the least restrictive means to achieve that end.

Duarte cited the Supreme Court’s pivotal ruling in NIFLA v. Becerra (2018), in which the State of California attempted to force crisis pregnancy centers (many of which are pro-life) to advertise abortion. Then-Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) argued that this compelled pro-abortion speech did not really violate the First Amendment because it involved applying professional standards in a health care setting.

Recommended: University’s Transgender Pronoun Policy May Have Violated the First Amendment, Court Rules

While the current attorney general, Rob Bonta, does not appear to have resurrected the “professional speech” arguments of his predecessor, he did argue that forcing elder care staff to use a transgender person’s preferred pronouns did not constitute government compelled speech. The court rejected this argument.

“The law compels long-term care facility staff to alter the message they would prefer to convey, either by hosting a message as required by the resident or by refraining from using pronouns at all,” Judge Duarte wrote. “Generally, the free speech clause protects a wide variety of speech a listener may find offensive, including insulting speech based on race, national origin, or religious beliefs.”

Just as NIFLA involved a case of government compelling pro-life pregnancy centers to endorse abortion, so this law requires elder care staff who may disagree with transgender identity to nonetheless endorse a transgender patient’s gender identity. “If an employee’s speech repeatedly and willfully misgenders a long-term care facility resident, the speech is criminalized,” Duarte explained.

While Bonta argued that staff who disagree with transgender identity may simply remain silent, the judge ruled that “for purposes of the First Amendment, there is no difference between a law compelling an employee to utter a resident’s preferred pronoun and prohibiting an employee from uttering a pronoun the resident does not prefer.”

“We recognize that misgendering may be disrespectful, discourteous, and insulting, and used as an inartful way to express an ideological disagreement with another person’s expressed gender identity. But the First Amendment does not protect only speech that inoffensively and artfully articulates a person’s point of view,” Judge Duarte ruled.

The judge ruled that the pronoun provision in the law “restricts more speech than is necessary to achieve the government’s compelling interest in eliminating discrimination, including harassment, on the basis of sex. Rather than prohibiting conduct and speech amounting to actionable harassment or discrimination as those terms are legally defined, the law criminalizes even occasional, isolated, off-hand instances of willful misgendering– provided there has been at least one prior instance–without requiring that such occasional instances of misgendering amount to harassing or discriminatory conduct.”

While the judges reached the right conclusion on free speech grounds, they expressed far too much deference for transgender orthodoxy in the ruling. Duarte described disagreement with transgender orthodoxy as “disagreement with the concept that a person’s gender identity may be different from the sex the person was assigned at birth.” Such a definition overlooks the fact that biological sex is not a matter of “assignment” at birth but a matter of chromosomes dating back to the moment of conception, a DNA blueprint that determines biology throughout life. Those who oppose transgender orthodoxy do not disagree with claims about gender identity — they merely disagree with the absurd suggestion that gender identity erases or somehow supersedes biological sex.

Even so, the judges rightly noted that transgenderism and transgender pronouns are a controversial topic on which the government has no business compelling a form of orthodoxy.

As the Supreme Court wrote in West Virginia v. Barnette (1943), “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: FJB who wrote (291833)7/21/2021 7:32:45 PM
From: Sr K
1 Recommendation   of 329741
From Jim Jordan at 1:03

"then I'm gonna answer that"

The beginning of a real answer, or for the Speaker to be replaced.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: FJB7/21/2021 7:34:19 PM
2 Recommendations   of 329741
Pennsylvania decertifies county voting system following private company audit promoted by pro-Trump state senators

By Eugene Scott

Today at 5:32 p.m. EDT

Pennsylvania’s acting secretary of state has decertified a county’s voting system for future elections after it was subjected to a review by a private company in an effort promoted by a group of state senators supporting former president Donald Trump’s baseless claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 election.

Acting secretary of state Veronica W. Degraffenreid said in a statement Wednesday that Wake TSI’s examination of the Fulton County ballots earlier this year violated the state’s election code.

Pennsylvania is the second state where officials have decertified election equipment because of questionable audits requested by Republicans. Arizona’s Maricopa County said in June that it will replace voting equipment that was turned over to a private contractor for a Republican-commissioned review of the 2020 election.

Trump backers in multiple states are trying to launch post-election audits in an effort to overturn President Biden’s election victory.

According to a statement from Degraffenreid’s office, Fulton County officials allowed Wake TSI, of West Chester, Pa., “to access certain key components of its certified system, including the county’s election database, results files, and Windows systems logs. The county officials also allowed the company to use a system imaging tool to take complete hard drive images of these computers and other digital equipment.”

The statement called Wake TSI “a company with no knowledge or expertise in election technology.”

“These actions were taken in a manner that was not transparent or bipartisan,” Degraffenreid wrote in a letter to county officials. “As a result of the access granted to Wake TSI, Fulton County’s certified system has been compromised and neither Fulton County; the vendor, Dominion Voting Systems; nor the Department of State can verify that the impacted components of Fulton County’s leased voting system are safe to use in future elections.”

Neither Wake TSI executives nor Fulton County officials immediately responded to requests for comment.

A group of GOP state senators had asked three counties, including Fulton — a rural county on the Maryland border that overwhelmingly backed Trump in 2020 — to participate in their voluntary audit. Fulton is the only county known to have agreed.

‘It was like this rogue thing’: How the push by Trump allies to undermine the 2020 results through ballot reviews started quietly in Pennsylvania

According to a county document obtained by The Washington Post, Wake TSI was “contracted” to a nonprofit group run by Sidney Powell, a pro-Trump lawyer. Wake TSI submitted a draft report in February saying the election had been “well run” and “conducted in a diligent and effective manner,” county documents show.

However, before the final version was posted to the county website, it was revised. The new version included this statement: “This does not indicate that there were no issues with the election, just that they were not the fault of the County Election Commission or County Election Director,” it read, before flagging potential problems with the county voting machines and other aspects of the election.

Rosalind S. Helderman contributed to this report.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3)

From: Tom Clarke7/21/2021 7:41:18 PM
1 Recommendation   of 329741
edit - already posted

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10