Washington D.C. is scrambling to remove several advertisements which refer to Trump supporters as "trash."
The ad, which features a depiction of a MAGA hat wearer holding a 'project 2025' book and a caption that reads: "Keep DC trash free," has sparked significant backlash and prompted quick action from city officials.
Originally published via Armageddon Prose:
(continued from Pt. I, Pt. II, Pt. III, Pt. IV)
She also wants mass, nationwide PCR testing.
I want you to understand and appreciate, dear reader, that the sight of this woman, more than any other vomitous cretin in The Swamp, induces literal revulsion-based nausea. I power through it for the sake of uncovering truth, and for you.
Frankly — and I mean this sincerely — I support Trump’s idea of ending naturalized citizenship on account of this person alone, who immigrated to the United States from Shanghai at the age of eight and somehow passed the citizenship test despite her very evident disdain for basic civil liberties.
Might there be some decent naturalized citizens who end up wronged in the process? Maybe, but if it means getting this bitch shipped back to her CCP masters, it’s got to be done.
You want to make an omelet, you’re going to have to break some eggs.
Related: Help Get This Simple Fauci Prosecution Playbook to Trump, Please
The talking point all of these people are running with at the same time — which is how you can know this is a centralized marketing effort — is that the ultimate jump that bird flu will make to enable human-to-human transmission will come via “virus reassortment.”
Via PLOS One (emphasis added):
“Virus reassortment, or simply reassortment, is a process of genetic recombination that is exclusive to segmented RNA viruses in which co-infection of a host cell with multiple viruses may result in the shuffling of gene segments to generate progeny viruses with novel genome combinations. Reassortment has been observed in members of all segmented virus families, including, for example, Bluetongue virus, but reassortment is most prominently described for influenza viruses as a primary mechanism for interspecies transmission and the emergence of pandemic virus strains. For instance, reassortment accelerates the rate of acquisition of genetic markers that overcome adaptive host barriers faster than the slower process of incremental increase due to mutation alone. The emergence of new influenza genes in humans and their subsequent establishment to cause pandemics have been consistently linked with reassortment of novel and previously circulating viruses.”
Since all you need, after all, is a cell to infect and two viruses to smush together inside of it, repeated ad nauseam until you get the intended result, you can imagine how easily The Science™ can — and has — achieved virus reassortment in gain-of-function lab work.
Via ScienceDirect (emphasis added):
“Of particular interest and concern are reassortant viruses with increased pathogenicity compared to their parental viruses. In addition to the naturally occurring reassortant orthobunyaviruses, laboratory derived reassortant viruses have been generated between viruses in the California serogroup.”
Related: Funding Bill Includes Cash for a DOZEN Biolabs to ‘Research’/Engineer New Viruses
Time will tell if this prediction bears fruit: just like innocent pangolins in a Chinese wet market served as the scapegoat for COVID, it looks to me like “virus reassortment” is going to serve the same purpose for bird flu when whatever monstrosity the Public Health™ authorities cook up in a lab finally gets released and the pandemic starts in earnest.
Hear me now, quote me later.
Par for the course, Wen or Birx provide no evidence that viral reassortment will transform bird flu into the scourge they promise it will be — but then, the NPC rubes who lap this stuff up never needed any in the first place.
Happy New Year!
Ben Bartee is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs.
Follow his stuff via Substack. Also, keep tabs via Twitter.
Support always welcome via the digital tip jar.
Bitcoin public address: bc1qvq4hgnx3eu09e0m2kk5uanxnm8ljfmpefwhaw
Several Illinois school districts will be receiving millions in federal grant dollars to purchase electric school buses to replace gas-powered ones, Board of Education officials said.
The Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) announced on December 19 that it had been awarded a $19.9 million grant from a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiative “made possible by President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.”
Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
A federal appeals court has halted enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), an anti-money laundering measure requiring small businesses to disclose beneficial ownership information, drawing praise from America’s biggest small business lobby, which has panned the law as “burdensome” and battled it in court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued the ruling on Dec. 26, temporarily blocking compliance obligations under the CTA, which mandates that certain U.S.-based businesses submit detailed reports on their beneficial owners to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). Prior to the ruling, most businesses faced a Jan. 1, 2025, deadline to submit initial beneficial ownership information (BOI) reports to FinCEN. Businesses with more than 20 employees, $5 million in annual sales, and a U.S. office qualify for exemptions from CTA reporting requirements.
Supporters of the law, including the Treasury, argue that the reporting requirement is designed to boost transparency, deter illicit financial activities, and combat money laundering. They highlight the growing use of the United States as a haven for criminals who launder illicit funds by establishing entities, such as limited liability companies, under state laws without revealing their involvement.
Opponents, including the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), argue that the law disproportionately impacts small businesses by saddling them with complex compliance requirements and significant administrative costs.
The case, Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland, originated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, where plaintiffs—a coalition of small businesses, the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, and the NFIB—filed suit against the U.S. Department of the Treasury and other federal officials. The plaintiffs contended that the CTA’s reporting requirements violate constitutional rights and place undue burdens on small businesses.
On Dec. 5, U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant issued a preliminary injunction blocking nationwide enforcement of the CTA, calling it “likely unconstitutional.” Mazzant characterized the CTA as a sweeping overreach of federal authority, undermining the longstanding state-regulated framework of corporate formation and dismantling the anonymity traditionally afforded to business owners, a feature he deemed integral to the federalist system.
“For good reason, Plaintiffs fear this flanking, quasi-Orwellian statute and its implications on our dual system of government,” Mazzant wrote.
The government promptly appealed Mazzant’s decision, and on Dec. 23, a motions panel of the Fifth Circuit temporarily stayed the district court’s injunction, allowing the law’s requirements to remain in effect pending further review.
Disagreeing with Mazzant’s finding of likely unconstitutionality, the motions panel wrote, “The government has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits in defending CTA’s constitutionality.”
The government contended that the CTA is justified under Congress’s authority related to foreign commerce, taxation, and foreign affairs, as well as the president’s powers in law enforcement and national security. While the Fifth Circuit’s motion panel declined to address these arguments in detail, it found that the government’s analysis under the commerce clause was sufficient to establish a likelihood of the success of the merits.
However, in a reversal of the ruling, the Fifth Circuit vacated the stay on Dec. 26, effectively reinstating the district court’s injunction and halting enforcement of the CTA. The appellate court emphasized the need to preserve the constitutional status quo while substantive arguments are reviewed by a merits panel of the Fifth Circuit in an expedited process.
The ruling marks a victory for small businesses and their advocates, who have long argued that the CTA’s mandates are overly broad and costly. Many small business owners contend they lack the resources to navigate the complex reporting requirements without risking penalties for noncompliance.
The Fifth Circuit’s decision to halt enforcement of the CTA was praised by Rob Smith, senior attorney of the NFIB’s small business legal center.
“The court’s reinstatement of the nationwide injunction is a welcome sigh of relief for small businesses,” Smith said in a statement. “Since being told earlier this week that they must urgently submit their [beneficial ownership information] BOI reports, our nation’s small businesses have experienced enormous chaos and confusion.”
Proponents of the CTA maintain that beneficial ownership reporting is crucial to closing loopholes exploited by criminal enterprises. The Treasury Department has defended the law as a vital tool in the fight against financial crimes.
“Unmasking shell corporations is the single most significant thing we can do to make our financial system inhospitable to corrupt actors,” said Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, according toa December 2023 fact sheet from the Treasury Department.
The Fifth Circuit has expedited the appeal, meaning that a final ruling on the CTA’s constitutionality could come as early as 2025. While legal challenges to the CTA unfold, the NFIB and other advocates continue to push for the repeal of the CTA through legislative efforts, such as the proposed Repealing Big Brother Overreach Act.
This case highlights the broader debate over balancing regulatory burdens with illicit finance and national security interests, with a decision having the potential to shape future policy on anti-money laundering regulations.
Authored by Julie Kelly via Declassified with Julie Kelly (subscribe here),
Few people worked harder over the past few years to put Donald Trump behind bars than Liz Cheney, the former (alleged) Republican congresswoman from Wyoming.
Seeking revenge for Trump’s longtime criticism of her father’s “weapons of mass destruction” lie, Cheney sought to settle a family score by imprisoning Trump over the events of January 6. “No one is above the law!,” Cheney, in her grating sanctimonious style, frequently insists.
Well, except for her.
It now appears Cheney is preparing to fight any federal and/or congressional probe into her demonstrably corrupt role as vice chairman of the January 6 Select Committee. Text messages obtained by Representative Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga), chair of a House subcommittee looking into the J6 committee, prove that Cheney colluded behind the scenes with star witness Cassidy Hutchinson, who dramatically changed her testimony after connecting with Cheney. The communications could represent witness tampering, subornation of perjury—every former White House official including the driver of the presidential vehicle on January 6 has refuted Hutchinson’s account of Trump’s behavior that day—and obstruction.
Based on the results of his ongoing inquiry, Loudermilk determined that “numerous federal laws were likely broken by Liz Cheney” and called for the FBI to investigate her.
Cheney immediately responded by playing the victim and, of course, by blaming Donald Trump. But the American people appear uninterested in Cheney’s excuses; a new Rasmussen poll shows strong public support, including three-quarters of Republicans, for an FBI investigation into the bitter and defeated nepobaby.
If Trump’s Department of Justice decides to proceed, Cheney undoubtedly will seek immunity protections in an attempt to keep records away from federal investigators; members of Congress are entitled to immunity under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, which shields lawmakers from criminal liability related to their legislative duties.
Cheney’s sycophants are already signaling that is the route she will take. During recent interviews, Rep. Jamie Raskin, a close pal of Cheney’s and fellow “NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW” squawker, warned the clause can prevent the FBI from accessing her communications.
Pressed by reporter Hugo Lowell during a recent podcast, Raskin pooh-poohed accusations that Cheney potentially broke the law. “That hardly is a crime in the United States,” Raskin said about Cheney’s secret collaboration with Hutchinson. “In any event, she’s completely protected by the Speech and (sic) Debate Clause, which protects all of us in our legislative capacities both in terms of our direct legislative action and in doing the investigative research that needs to be done in order to legislate and to act as legislators in a comprehensive way.”
Raskin said the same during a separate interview with CBS News. “They’ve been talking about going after Liz Cheney simply for doing her legislative work in a way that is completely covered by the Speech and (sic) Debate Clause. It is not a crime for someone to go out and find witnesses to a violent insurrection.”
Now, that is really rich coming from Raskin and potentially from Cheney. As members of the J6 committee, both were instrumental in stripping privilege sought by Trump and his inner circle including his attorneys, which resulted in the production of presidential records to the Trump-hating partisans on the committee and testimony by White House officials who are usually protected by executive privilege.
But Cheney also urged the Supreme Court to act quickly in denying Donald Trump’s claims of presidential immunity from prosecution after Special Counsel Jack Smith indicted Trump in August 2023 on four counts for his alleged role in “conspiring” to overturn the results of the 2020 election, representing the first time in history a former president faced a criminal federal indictment.
Despite the unprecedented nature of the question and troubling long term consequences for the country, Cheney acted as if the matter was a no brainer and accused anyone opposed as being, of course, a Kremlin stooge.
A few days before the court held oral arguments in Trump v US, the landmark immunity case, Cheney published an op-ed in the New York Times urging justices to move with haste. “If delay prevents this Trump case from being tried this year, the public may never hear critical and historic (sic) evidence developed before the grand jury, and our system may never hold the man most responsible for Jan. 6 to account,” Cheney wrote on April 22, 2024.
She further lamented how Trump tried to “delay” proceedings before her House committee by seeking privilege protections in court. “I know how Mr. Trump’s delay tactics work. Our committee had to spend months litigating his privilege claims…before we could gain access to White House records.” (This is untrue since Joe Biden repeatedly and quickly denied Trump’s privilege requests and Judge Tanya Chutkan, who later presided over Smith’s J6 indictment, also expedited the matter ultimately forcing the national archives to turn over presidential material that usually takes years to litigate.)
So, according to Cheney’s logic, any assertion of executive privilege—a legitimate legal argument with decades of recent case law behind it—represents a “delay tactic.” Should be fun to watch Cheney explain her hypocrisy once the privilege tables are turned.
Further, the lawfare Cheney supported against Trump and his congressional allies could very well come back to bite her. A pair of recent court decisions have narrowed Speech or Debate Clause protections including those that appear tied to legislative functions.
The day after the Mar-a-Lago raid in August 2022, FBI agents seized the cell phone of Rep. Scott Perry, who was traveling with his family at the time. The FBI then sought court-approved access to thousands of records contained on his device as part of the DOJ’s investigation into Trump for Jan 6.
Perry invoked the Speech or Debate Clause in asking a D.C. judge to prevent the DOJ from obtaining roughly 2,000 messages and emails the Pennsylvania congressman said were related to official legislative business, namely, the certification of the 2020 election. But Beryl Howell, the former chief judge of the D.C. district court and unabashed Trump-hating partisan, denied almost all of Perry’s claims.
Judge Howell in January 2023:
Rep. Perry contends that he is entitled to withhold as privileged under the Clause 2,219 responsive records spanning his communications not only with fellow congressional Members and staff, but also with private individuals and officials with no formal role or function in the United States Congress, including officials with the Trump campaign, the White House, Office of the President, and the Pennsylvania State Legislature. He articulates a broad reach of the non-disclosure aspect of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege to block access in a criminal investigation to any communications he had with any person in any capacity when “he was engaged in information gathering that is ‘part of, in connection with, or in aide of a legitimate legislative act’ . . . even where it is an informal effort undertaken by an individual Member of Congress or their staff. This astonishing view of the scope of the legislative privilege would truly cloak Members of Congress with a powerful dual non-disclosure and immunity shield for virtually any of their activities that could be deemed information gathering about any matter which might engage legislative attention (emphasis added).
The D.C. appellate court in September 2023 largely upheld Howell’s order only making an exception to a handful of records pertaining to the votes planned for January 6, 2021. “Informal factfinding,” the three-judge panel including two Trump appointees concluded, “does not necessarily mean that such acts are privileged.” (Perry, by the way, was never charged.)
So, what “legislative” function did Cheney conduct when she used an encrypted app to talk to Hutchinson, who already had testified twice to the J6 committee before connecting with Cheney? Further, Hutchinson’s now provably false account of Trump’s behavior on January 6 had no role in developing legislation; in fact, the J6 committee’s final report contained only vague legislative recommendations that were never enacted by Congress. (Republicans took control of the House a few weeks after the committee issued its report.)
Cheney’s conduct also appears to fail the “investigative” test established in other court decisions. Hutchinson’s fictional tales about Trump physically confronting his security detail or throwing dishes at the wall or watching cable news as the chaos unfolded at the Capitol did not represent the fruits of an “investigation” or serve any investigative purpose.
Cheney may succeed where others failed since her immunity litigation will be handled by likeminded D.C. judges who won’t care about the appearance of hypocrisy. But watching Cheney—one of the most insufferable, self-aggrandizing, and thin-skinned politicians around—eat her own words will be a satisfying spectacle on its own.
Posts
All Comments
