Support for voter ID laws has actually increased since 2018, when 67% said voters should be required to show photo identification such as a driver’s license before being allowed to vote.
Eighty-nine percent (89%) of Republicans support voter ID requirements, as do 60% of Democrats and 77% of voters not affiliated with either major party.
[….]
Democrats have claimed that voter ID laws discriminate against black voters and other minorities, but voters reject that claim by a nearly 2-to-1 margin. Sixty percent (60%) say laws requiring photo identification at the polls don’t discriminate, while 31% say voter ID laws do discriminate. Ten percent said they are not sure.
A majority of Democrats (51%) say voter ID laws are discriminatory, while 79% of Republicans and 67% of unaffiliated voters say requiring identification at the polls is not discriminatory.
Majorities of whites (74%), blacks (69%) and other minorities (82%) say voters should be required to show photo identification before being allowed to vote. Voters under 40 support voter ID laws more than do older voters….
POWERLINE has a great way of making important points concisely in their shorter articles. So I will grab their full article as I think it is important:
America’s institutions have gone mad, with organizations like Delta and Major League Baseball lining up to oppose sensible election integrity measures, in particular identification requirements that can help prevent voter fraud. Of course, if you pick up tickets at a major league will-call window, you will have to present identification. And no one can board a Delta flight without a driver’s license, passport or other ID. But no one has ever accused liberals of being consistent.
The Babylon Bee is, as InstaPundit puts it, America’s Paper of Record. The Bee takes seriously liberals’ claim that requiring identification is a civil rights violation: “Gun Shop Asks For ID In Clear Case Of 2nd Amendment Suppression.”
MACON, GA—In a clear case of targeted 2nd Amendment suppression, the clerk behind the counter at Yippee Kay Yay Firearms has asked a gun purchaser to show his identification.
“You don’t need to see my identification,” said store patron Willard VonCarlton, who was trying to purchase a shotgun and a revolver. “I’m an American! It’s my God-given right to own a firearm!”
The clerk was unmoved. “Yeah I get all that, I just need to verify you are the same guy written on this paperwork,” he said.
“RACISM!” said VonCarlton. “You assumed I have an ID just from looking at me? Stereotype much? How are you even sure I know how to get an ID?”
“I’ll tell you what this is– SUPPRESSION!” he continued. “You don’t want me to be able to defend myself! My 2nd Amendment will not be infringed! This is a HATE CRIME!”
That argument is at least as good as the ones Delta, MLB and others have made against the Georgia election integrity law. But gun buyers, unlike lefties, are generally sane. Thus:
According to witnesses, the clerk sighed and said: “Please, just show me your driver’s license, sir.”
“OK, fine.”
But leftists have never said “OK, fine” to anything.
JASON RILEY
Do Republicans win elections by preventing minorities from voting? The Left says yes, but the data says no. Jason Riley, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, settles the argument with hard evidence, separating fact from fiction.
LARRY ELDER (GEORGIA)
No evidence whatsoever that these are in fact voting suppression measures!
PRESIDENT Biden is just trying to clear up the mess the former occupant of the White House left…
I respond:
He cleaned up the former Prez’s issue by ripping up agreements….
The Biden administration said on Saturday [Feb 7th] it was immediately suspending Trump-era asylum agreements with El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.
As well as ending the “remain in Mexico” policy. Which is maybe why they will “reimplement” Trump’s policy’s to combat Trump’s policies??
LOL: Biden Accidentally Admits He Will Re-Establish TRUMP Border Policy as Crisis Spirals Out Of Control (TRENDING POLITICS)
The above bullet pointed story is one of many in the description of my upload….
I coble together some reminders that this crisis is all Biden’s doing.
Here are the linked stories:
Biden Called for the Border Surge, and Now He Owns It (TOWNHALL)
Mexican President Blames Biden For Border Crisis, Says He Created ‘Expectations’ (DAILY CALLER)
Biden Adviser Appears to Admit Biden Caused Border Crisis, Tells Spanish Speakers ‘Border NOT Closed’ By Accident (DAILY WIRE)
Biden Admin Says Migrant Surge A Response To ‘Hope’ (FOX)
All Democrats at Main Debate Agree Illegal Immigrants Should Get Health Care Coverage (REAL CLEAR POLITICS)
Tom Homan: Biden Created Border Crisis with Rush To ‘Undo Everything’ Trump Did on Border Security (FOX)
Migrant Surge At US-Mexico Border Is Worst In 20 Years, DHS Boss Says (NY POST)
LOL: Biden Accidentally Admits He Will Re-Establish TRUMP Border Policy as Crisis Spirals Out Of Control (TRENDING POLITICS)
After Border Patrol Release, Asylum-Seekers Test Positive for Covid In Brownsville, Texas(NBC)
108 Illegal Immigrants Released by Border Patrol in Texas Test Positive For Coronavirus, Officials Say (FOX)
DAVID HARRIS JR. expands on the facts mentioned above in the video:
According to the Democrats, anyone who uses the filibuster is a racist, If that is true then Democrats in the Senate. Last year alone the Democrats used the filibuster over 300 times. The KKK did not block anything. That must mean that the Democrats are much worse than KKK. I’m just kidding.
The reason that Democrats used the filibuster over 300 times is their ideology, not their racism.
Now, the Democrats want to kill the filibuster so that they will have a dictatorship in order to control the masses. The Democrats claim that slave owners were the people responsible for the filibuster.
But, that s a lie.
The filibuster was put in place in 1806, 55 years before the civil war. Slavery was the law of the land them. There was no need to put the filibuster in place due to slavery.
The filibuster is the only thing standing in the way for the Democrats to have total control of the government. That should scare you and it is a dangerous thing for them. What happens when the Republicans take control with no filibuster? They could make crossing our border a felony and anyone who aids them could be tried for aiding and abetting the illegal aliens. They could cut all funding for Planned Parenthood and other budget items.
Democrats used filibuster 327 times, compared to only once by GOP in 2020: Report
President Joe Biden has been increasingly critical of the Senate filibuster, calling it a Jim Crow relic and saying it has been widely abused despite Democrats using it over 300 times in 2020, compared to once by Republicans.
“After @POTUS @JoeBiden denounced the rampant abuse of the filibuster last year, we did some digging,” Fox News anchor John Roberts tweeted Friday. “Republicans used it once. Democrats used it 327 times.”
Remember when Kamala Harris said she would get rid of the filibuster to pass AOC’s socialist, job-killing Green New Deal. (See more at DAILY CALLER)
Harris said, “Here’s the thing. first of all, let me tell you, I think about this issue about this, my nieces are one-and-a-half and three-years old. When I look at those babies, and I think about what the world will be like in 20 years if we don’t act. I’m really afraid. And as it relates to those Republicans in Congress where I’ve now been for two and a half years, every one of those members needs to look at the babies, the grand babies in their life and then look in the mirror and ask themselves why have they failed to act?”
She continued, “On the issue of this climate crisis, I strongly believe this is a fight against powerful interests. and leaders need to lead. So lead, follow, or get out of the way. Get out of the way starting with Donald Trump. So yeah we need to work across the aisle. I’m going to tell you, I’ve been there two years and some months. I see no evidence of it. I kid you guys not. In the United States Congress, I was part of a committee hearing during which the underlying premise of the hearing was to debate whether science should be the basis of public policy. This on a matter that is about an existential threat to who we are as human beings.”
She added, “So again back to the United States Congress, here’s my point. if they fail to act as president of the United States, I am prepared to get rid of the filibuster to pass a Green New Deal.”
n his first national address, President Biden said a Philadelphia woman told him she “just wants the truth.” Well, breaking news, Ms. Philly, Joe Biden spent the last four decades of his career lying. In this episode, Larry highlights the many lies from the current President. From his civil rights record to plagiarizing speeches of past leaders, Biden is anything but a truth-teller. But hey! He ain’t Donald Trump, and as far as the media is concerned, that’s all that matters.
Mentioned Videos:
PBS: WATCH: Americans need the truth to beat COVID, Biden says
Washington Post: Plagiarism in Joe Biden’s 1988 presidential campaign
We’ve got a country to save!??!Support Larry Elder? Want to connect with Epoch Times and Larry Elder online for videos? YOUTUBE| ? RUMBLE ? Excerpts from his Radio Show are here on YOUTUBE | ? RUMBLE ? Follow Larry Elder on TWITTER? Follow Larry Elder on FACEBOOK? Follow Larry Elder on INSTAGRAM(Home of his “Robe Rage)
….The store he drove 25 miles out of his way to shoot up was the King Soopers market, known to locals as a “Jewish” store with a majority Jewish clientele because of its abundant supply of Kosher groceries.
The King Soopers website advertises the grocery chain as “Your One-Stop Shop For Kosher Groceries.” The store is also included on a Vaad Hakashrus of Denver list of stores that carry kosher items.
[….]
The Post Millennial Colorado shooter Ahmed Al-Issa reportedly had ISIS sympathies, an anonymous White House official said on Tuesday, according to Jack Posobiec.
Screenshots of Al-Issa’s social media pages have also been obtained by The Post Millennial‘s Ian Miles Cheong, prior to the page being deleted. The screenshots show that Al-Issa was a practicing Muslim, aruging against Islamophobia and for increased acceptance of refugees. Al-Issa also shared anti-Trump content….
NEW YORK (VINnews) — Investigative journalist Laura Loomer has revealed that Ahmad Al Aliwi Al-Issa, the terrorist who perpetrated Monday’s deadly attack in a Boulder, Colorado supermarket, was actually inspired by ISIS and targeted the supermarket, King Soopers, because it is kosher friendly. The supermarket keeps lots of kosher foods and is known as a place where Jews will be present to purchase such foods.
Despite this, none of the mainstream media outlets have emphasized this fact, even though King Soopers advertises itself on its website as “Your One-Stop Shop For Kosher Groceries.” Moreover this week marks the advent of the Passover festival and Jews around the world are crowding kosher stores shopping for groceries and supplies.
Al-Issa, a Syrian immigrant during the Obama years, pledged allegiance to ISIS before carrying out the attack. Previously he had expressed hatred for former President Donald Trump and his “anti-Islamic” immigration policies. However the timing of the attack demonstrates that it was no mere venting of Islamic fury but was meant to target Jews preparing for Passover. On a number of occasions Al-Issa also expressed his anti-Jewish sentiments.
Al-Issa allegedly had failed attempts at terror attacks previously. He had planned to target a Trump rally which took place prior to coronavirus in February 2020 at Colorado Springs but then decided to wait for the next rally in Denver scheduled for March of that year. However that rally was eventually cancelled due to COVID-19……
…..But as it is, Nasheed is trying desperately to shore up a failing narrative. The reality is that Ahmad Al Issa is a deeply religious Muslim with pro-ISIS sympathies. He complained bitterly about “Islamophobia,” hated Donald Trump with passionate intensity, and had scouted out churches and Trump rallies as possible targets for his jihad massacre.
All this makes it abundantly clear that not only is Ahmad Al Issa not a “white supremacist,” but he is a living manifestation of the effects of Leftism in America today. After migrating from Syria as a child during the Obama administration, he, and many others like him, has been inundated with relentless propaganda about how he is a victim of a racist and “Islamophobic” society that will never give him a fair shake, and is institutionally determined to make sure he will never succeed. He has been told that Trump hated Muslims and that his followers were precisely the people who were keeping him down and denying him access to the privilege that they themselves enjoyed at the expense of the “brown” people they despised.
The Democratic Party has been stoking this kind of resentment and feeding it to young people in schools, colleges and universities for years. Ahmad Al Issa is a product of their indoctrination. That in itself may be one reason why Leftist “journalists” and professional agitators such as Tariq Nasheed are so intent on driving home the point that this was a “white” shooter acting out of the hatred that is intrinsic to American culture: to deflect attention away from the fact that he is not a product of American culture at all, but of the Left’s subculture of hatred and resentment. If we had a sane political environment in the country today, that is the hateful subculture the Justice Department would be concerned about. Instead, even as Antifa continues to make the Great Northwest into a radioactive wasteland, this hateful subculture isn’t even on the radar screen. And Ahmad Al Issa isn’t going to put it there.
NATIONAL FILE however has a blockbuster in my opinion:
(CLICK TO ENLARGE)
Photographs taken during President Joe Biden’s poorly received Thursday press conference reveal that he used a “cheat sheet” with the names and faces of the reporters pre-selected to receive an answer from him in response to certain questions. The cue cards also contained talking points for him to repeat during the press conference, such as his plans for infrastructure spending.
Talking points such as “The United States now ranks 13th globally in infrastructure quality — down from 5th place in 2002,” and, “China spends 3 times more on infrastructure than U.S.” could be seen on the cue cards held in the hands of the President.
Another piece of paper contained the names and headshots of reporters present at the press conference, with some names circled to indicate which ones would be allowed to receive a response from the President…..
Armstrong and Getty read from and discuss a bit an article in the WALL STREET JOURNAL entitled: The Myth Of American Inequality. See more via my post titled, “Wealth Inequality in America – Critiques On Inequality” (The below video was the update to that post)
Taxes and transfers in the U.S. put its income distribution in line with its large developed peers.
America is the world’s most prosperous large country, but critics often attempt to tarnish that title by claiming income is distributed less equally in the U.S. than in other developed countries. These critics point to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which ranks the U.S. as the least equal of the seven largest developed countries. American progressives often weaponize statistics like these to urge greater redistribution. But the OECD income-distribution comparison is biased because the U.S. underreports its income transfers in comparison to other nations. When the data are adjusted to account for all government programs that transfer income, the U.S. is shown to have an income distribution that aligns closely with its peers.
The OECD measures inequality by determining a country’s “Gini coefficient,” or the proportion of all income that would have to be redistributed to achieve perfect equality. A nation’s Gini coefficient would be 0 if every household had the same amount of disposable income, and it would approach 1 if a single household had all of the disposable income. The current OECD comparison, portrayed by the blue bars in the nearby chart, shows Gini coefficients for the world’s most-developed large countries, ranging from 0.29 in Germany to 0.39 in the U.S.
But there are variations in how each nation reports income. The U.S. deviates significantly from the norm by excluding several large government transfers to low-income households. Inexplicably, the Census Bureau excludes Medicare and Medicaid, which redistribute more than $760 billion a year to the bottom 40% of American households. The data also exclude 93 other federal redistribution programs that annually transfer some $520 billion to low-income households. These include the Children’s Health Insurance Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children. States and localities directly fund another $310 billion in redistribution programs also excluded from the Census Bureau’s submission.
This means current OECD comparisons omit about $1.6 trillion in annual redistributions to low-income Americans—close to 80% of their total redistribution receipts. This significantly skews the U.S. Gini coefficient. The correct Gini should be 0.32—not 0.39. That puts the U.S. income distribution in the middle of the seven largest developed nations.
Gini scores for other countries in the OECD ranking also might shift with better data: The OECD doesn’t publish transfers by income level for other countries. But the change in income distribution for other countries would likely be less drastic. The poorest fifth of U.S. households receive 84.2% of their disposable income from taxpayer-funded transfers, and the second quintile gets 57.8%. U.S. transfer payments constitute 28.5% of Americans’ disposable income—almost double the 15% reported by the Census Bureau. That’s a bigger share than in all large developed countries other than France, which redistributes 33.1% of its disposable income.
The U.S. also has the most progressive income taxes of its peer group. The top 10% of U.S. households earn about 33.5% of all income, but they pay 45.1% of income taxes, including Social Security and Medicare taxes. Their share of all income-related taxes is 1.35 times as large as their share of income. In Germany, the top 10% pay 1.07 times their share of earnings. The top 10% of French pay 1.1 times their share.
If the top earners pay smaller shares of income taxes in other countries, everybody else pays more. The bottom 90% of German earners pay a share of their nation’s taxes on income 77% larger than that paid by the bottom 90% of Americans. The bottom 90% in France pay nearly double the share their American counterparts pay. Even in Sweden—the supposed progressive utopia—the top 10% of earners pay only 5.9% of gross domestic product in income-related taxes, 22% less than their American peers. The bottom 90% of Swedes pay 16.3% of GDP in taxes on income, 77% more than in the U.S.
Even these numbers understate how progressive the total tax burden is in America. The U.S. has no value-added tax and collects only 35.8% of all tax revenues from non-income-tax sources, the smallest share of any OECD country. Most developed countries have large VATs and collect a far larger share of their state revenue through regressive levies.
When all transfer payments and taxes are counted, the U.S. redistributes a larger share of its disposable income than any country other than France. Relative to the share of income they earn, the share of income taxes paid by America’s high earners is greater than the share of income taxes paid by their peers in any other OECD country. The progressive dream of an America with massive income redistribution and a highly progressive tax system has already come true. To make America even more like Europe, these dreamers will have to redefine middle-income Americans as “rich” and then double their taxes.
Armstrong and Getty read from and discuss a bit an article in the WALL STREET JOURNAL entitled: The myth of American inequality (https://tinyurl.com/ymy5rjz9). Unfortunately the article is behind a pay-wall… but PECKFORD 42 has it for reading.
(UPDATED April 2014 and Today: 12-27-2020)
The below video is a “pop-culture” challenge to an economic principle that if the free-markets are left to choose (free contractual trade for services between people in the supply-and-demand market) would allow the most people to succeed as the innate abilities of people and the market can bare:
Prager University notes that “INEQUALITY IS GOOD”
What if everything you’ve heard about income inequality is wrong? What if it’s actually a good thing for there to be people who are rich and people who aren’t? John Tamny, editor of RealClearMarkets, clarifies one of the big misunderstandings of our time.
If you want a quick dealing with this instead of the more thoughtful look below, here is one excellent quickie:
Politicians and reporters often rail about “the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.” In fact, the incomes of poor and middle-income Americans are up 32% since the government began keeping track several decades ago (The Distribution of Household Income [CBO] – PDF). Yes, that increase is adjusted for inflation. Another misleading claim, says Stossel, is the idea that the U.S. “no longer has economic mobility.” But a paper in The Quarterly Journal of Economics found that most people born to the richest fifth of Americans fall out of that bracket within 20 years. (Table 2)) Likewise, most born to the poorest fifth climb to a higher quintile. Some climb all the way to the top.
AEIhas a good critique of the video challenge at the top, I will follow this by a video response by Lee Doren:
A video titled “Wealth Inequality in America” has gone viral on the Internet, it’s up to almost four million views on YouTube. It’s not clear who produced it, and it’s not clear what solution is being proposed to the “problem” of wealth inequality identified in the video. What is clear is that it’s another fallacious, static analysis of wealth distribution that focuses only on abstract, statistical brackets at a given point in time, while completely disregarding the most important point: what is happening to actual flesh-and-blood human beings whose income and wealth change all the time and who are moving among the various abstract statistical brackets from year to year.
In the video above titled “What Wasn’t Said in ‘Wealth Inequality In America,’” Steve Horwitz responds to the Wealth Inequality video and reminds us that the most important issue is not what abstract statistical bracket people fall into in a given year, but rather the degree of income or wealth mobility from year to year. It’s an important point, and one that’s completely overlooked in the viral video.
Thomas Sowell has discussed extensively the issues of static versus dynamic analysis of wealth and income distributions, and income and wealth mobility, and here are some of his quotes as an antidote to the limited, static “analysis” of wealth inequality presented in the viral video:
1. Comparing the top income bracket with the bottom income bracket over a period of years tells you nothing about what is happening to the actual flesh-and-blood human beings who are moving between brackets during those years. Following trends among income brackets over the years creates the illusion of following people over time. But the only way to follow people is to follow people. Source
2. Sports statistics are kept in a much more rational way than statistics about political issues. Have you ever seen statistics on what percentage of the home runs over the years have been hit by batters hitting in the .320s versus batters hitting in the .280s or the .340s? Not very likely. Such statistics would make no sense, because different batters are in these brackets from one year to the next. You wouldn’t be comparing people, you would be comparing abstractions and mistaking those abstractions for people.
But, in politics and in commentaries on political issues, people talk incessantly about how “the top one percent” of income earners are getting more money or how the “bottom 20 percent” are falling behind. Yet the turnover in income brackets over a decade is at least as great as the turnover in batting average brackets. Source
3. Only by focusing on the income brackets, instead of the actual people moving between those brackets, have the intelligentsia been able to verbally create a “problem” for which a “solution” is necessary. They have created a powerful vision of “classes” with “disparities” and “inequities” in income, caused by “barriers” created by “society.” But the routine rise of millions of people out of the lowest quintile over time makes a mockery of the “barriers” assumed by many, if not most, of the intelligentsia.” Source
4. Most people are not even surprised any more when they hear about someone who came here from Korea or Vietnam with very little money, and very little knowledge of English, who nevertheless persevered and rose in American society. Nor are we surprised when their children excel in school and go on to professional careers. Yet, in utter disregard of such plain facts, so-called “social scientists” do studies which conclude that America is no longer a land of opportunity, and that upward mobility is a “myth.” Source
5.Most working Americans who were initially in the bottom 20 percent of income-earners, rise out of that bottom 20 percent. More of them end up in the top 20 percent than remain in the bottom 20 percent. People who were initially in the bottom 20 percent in income have had the highest rate of increase in their incomes, while those who were initially in the top 20 percent have had the lowest. This is the direct opposite of the pattern found when following income brackets over time, rather than following individual people. Source
6.Most of the media publicize what is happening to the statistical brackets — especially that “top one percent” — rather than what is happening to individual people. Source
Lee Doren has a passion for public speaking, being the youngest speaker to lecture for the Ronald Reagan Political Lecture Series at Oberlin College. He has given speeches in Annapolis, Maryland on the Bill of Rights and at the U.S. Capitol for the 9/12 March on Washington. He has been invited to lecture at The Cato Institute, The Institute for Energy Research, the Young Britons’ Foundation in the United Kingdom, the State Policy Network and Lehigh University. He has also provided commentary for Fox News, CNN, Reuters, PBS and Air America.
I would recommend the following articles for further reading:
(This portion can also be found in the “Rich Get Richer/Poor Get Poorer” Mantra.) Larry Elder notes when this “widening” happened the most:
Here are some myth busting to help the layman researcher get more facts to respond to the pop-politics we run-across in our social media lifestyle. Investors Business Dailymakes some key points that are hard to ignore:
…But it turns out that the rich actually got poorer under President Bush, and the income gap has been climbing under Obama.
What’s more, the biggest increase in income inequality over the past three decades took place when Democrat Bill Clinton was in the White House.
The wealthiest 5% of U.S. households saw incomes fall 7% after inflation in Bush’s eight years in office, according to an IBD analysis of Census Bureau data. A widely used household income inequality measure, the Gini index, was essentially flat over that span. Another inequality gauge, the Theil index, showed a decline.
In contrast, the Gini index rose — slightly — in Obama’s first two years. Another Census measure of inequality shows it’s climbed 5.7% since he took office.
Meanwhile, during Clinton’s eight years, the wealthiest 5% of American households saw their incomes jump 45% vs. 26% under Reagan. The Gini index shot up 6.7% under Clinton, more than any other president since 1980…
[….]
As University of Michigan economist Mark Perry notes, while the income gap has grown since 1979, almost the entire increase occurred before the mid-1990s: “There is absolutely no statistical support for the commonly held view that income inequality has been rising recently.”
A similar analysis found that income inequality has fallen among individuals since the early 1990s, but risen among households due to factors such as more marriages of people with similar education levels and earnings potential.
Others argue that income mobility matters more than equality.
One study found that more than half of the families who started in the lowest income bracket in 1996 had moved to a higher one by 2005. At the other end of the spectrum, more than 57% of families fell out of the top 1%.
…The left says current levels of income inequality echo the late 1920s and the Gilded Age. They’ve zeroed in on the richest 1%, citing Census Bureau data showing these top earners “grabbing” more income than the bottom 90%.
But the census stats are misleading.
For one, they are a snapshot of income distribution at a single point in time. Yet income is not static. It changes over time. Low-paying jobs from early adulthood give way to better-paying jobs later in life.
And income groups in America are not fixed. There’s no caste system here, really no such thing even as a middle “class.” The poor aren’t stuck in poverty. And the rich don’t enjoy lifetime membership in an exclusive club.
A 2007 Treasury Department study bears this out. Nearly 58% of U.S. households in the lowest-income quintile in 1996 moved to a higher level by 2005. The reverse also held true. Of those households that were in the top 1% in income in 1996, more than 57% dropped to a lower-income group by 2005.
Every day in America, the poor join the ranks of the rich, and the rich fall out of comfort.
So even if income equality is increasing, it does not mean income mobility is decreasing. There is still a great deal of movement in and out of the richest and poorest groups in America.
We know that the suspect is in custody. He was injured. They have not released any details about who he was, but we did see footage of a White man. He was wearing shorts. No shoes, no shirt. He seemed to be bleeding down his leg and he was handcuffed.
TWITTER THREAD: Here are all the idiotic leftists who immediately jumped to politicize the tragic Boulder shooting to push their narrative, only for it all to fall apart when it turns out the shooter is muslim…
Colorado authorities released the identity of the alleged Boulder supermarket shooter on Tuesday morning. Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa, 21, is accused of opening fire and killing 10 people during the Monday massacre.
Boulder Police named the Arvada, Colorado, resident as the injured suspect seen in video following the deadly mass shooting Monday at a King Soopers supermarket. The man allegedly opened fire on customers and killed a Boulder police officer, 51-year-old Eric Talley, during the shooting. The deceased victims range in age from 20 years old to 65 years old. A law enforcement press release identified his full name as Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa. A Facebook page appearing to be that of the suspect features posts with quotes from the Islamic Prophet Muhammad….
This guy knows all the victimhood buttons to push. Yet while the establishment media will take it all as proof that he is not a jihadi, what about the ISIS sympathies?
Yeah…. what about those?
According to a White House source, Al-Issa “had “ISIS sympathies.” (GELLER REPORT)
(Eye on the bouncing ball… don’t lose track of this story over time)
I have been busy and so I cannot post here or at my Rumble (https://tinyurl.com/t2yuse3k) as often as I would like. But I wanted to post a truncated and reshuffled appearance of John Solomon on the Sean Hannity Radio Show. The most important portion is the January 12th, 2017, mention of James Comey self-refuting actions/intel briefings (Mark: 0.00 to 2:53).
Larry Elder updates an earlier story about the Manhattan Beach Mayor possibly giving back land acquired through eminent domain from a black family 97 years ago. Here is a story on the matter:
RE: “Bruce’s Beach compensation,” The Beach Reporter, 2/25/21
There is so much “fiction” fanning the flames of the Bruce’s Beach legend and emotions. Last week’s letter to the editor stated the Bruces were 1) “driven out,” 2) “under-compensated,” and 3) “restricted from buying elsewhere in MB.” The facts found by MB’s multi-ethnicity commission on Bruce’s Beach are:
1) the NAACP lawyer representing the Bruce family stated the Bruce’s were “willing to sell the property …for a fair price at any time;”
2) the LA Times documented how the families were “over-compensated,” not under-compensated. Further, MB residents were up in arms against the MB Board of Trustees for giving excessive payments to the families;
3) the majority of Black families impacted bought and relocated elsewhere in MB. And, other Black families stayed in MB, too.
Maybe for effect, the writer of the letter concluded, “the park is a monument to racial hatred … because white supremacists won.” Wow! I concluded, from reading/researching subject, that prejudice played a key role in the eminent domain action and can/should be realized. However, this park should not be a monument for that. Remember, many White families owned 25 of the 30 parcels in the eminent domain action and were impacted. Lastly, the location now is a park and two blocks away from the beach. So, it is NOT a Beach and should not be named “… Beach.” It should have a “park” name. Maybe “Reflection Park.” That could suggest giving serious thought to our lives, other people and more.
Democrat Congressman Vicente Gonzalez noted that Joe Biden’s border policies will be “catastrophic for our party, for our country,” when he appeared on CNN on 3/1/2021.
Rep. Henry Cuellar, who represents a district on the U.S.-Mexico border, says he has a lot of tough questions for the Biden administration on immigration policy.
