The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

How The Supreme Court Is Enabling GOP Authoritarians

A new analysis is explaining the disturbing circumstances surrounding the overturning of Roe v. Wade and how the U.S. Supreme Court has morphed into an entity actively working toward authoritarianism.

In a new op-ed published by The Guardian, Jill Filipovic —author of the book, The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness—offered an assessment of the message being sent with the Supreme Court's rollback of the 1973 landmark ruling.

Filipovic began with an overview of the previous presidential elections and how Republican presidents were elected in the first place. She noted that the most recent ones managed to win only by way of the Electoral College; not by popular vote. That stipulation suggests the presidential election was determined by a minority as opposed to the opinion of most Americans who voted.

Subsequently, those Republican presidents elected by the minority, are the ones responsible for stacking the courts with conservative judges and officials who typically lean to the far right.

"Of the nine justices sitting on the current court, five – all of them in the majority opinion that overturned Roe – were appointed by presidents who initially lost the popular vote; the three appointed by Donald Trump were confirmed by senators who represent a minority of Americans," Filipovic explained. "A majority of this court, in other words, were not appointed by a process that is representative of the will of the American people."

She went on to rehash the circumstances of SCOTUS Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett's appointments to the high court. "Two were appointed via starkly undemocratic means, put in place by bad actors willing to change the rules to suit their needs," she wrote. "Neil Gorsuch only has his seat because Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, blocked the ability of Barack Obama to nominate Merrick Garland – or anyone – to a supreme court seat, claiming that, because it was an election year, voters should get to decide."

She added, "Then, Donald Trump appointed Amy Coney Barrett in a radically rushed and incomplete, incoherent process – in an election year."

As a result of court stacking, far-right judges have "stripped from American women the right to control our own bodies" and Filipovic has highlighted the problematic and contradictory aspects of it.

"They have summarily placed women into a novel category of person with fewer rights not just than other people, but than fertilized eggs and corpses. After all, no one else is forced to donate their organs for the survival of another – not parents to their children, not the dead to the living. It is only fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses that are newly entitled to this right to use another’s body and organs against that other’s will; it is only women and other people who can get pregnant who are now subject to these unparalleled, radical demands."

Filipovic also noted that it raises a compelling fundamental question.

"This raises a fundamental question: can a country be properly understood as a democracy – an entity in which government derives its power from the people – if it subjugates half of its population, putting them into a category of sub-person with fewer rights, freedoms, and liberties?"

According to the latest disturbing trend, Filipovic explained why the answer appears to be "no."

"The global trend suggests that the answer to that is no," she wrote. "A clear pattern has emerged in the past few decades: as countries democratize, they tend to liberalize women’s rights, and they expand abortion and other reproductive rights. Luckily for the women of the world, this is where a great many nations are moving."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Trump Reported To Fear Voter Fury Over Abortion Ruling

Publicly, former President Donald Trump is taking credit for the U.S. Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade and ultimately revoking women's right to legal abortions. But, behind closed doors, he reportedly is not thrilled about the ruling.

According to Rolling Stone, "privately, the former president is anxious about what the end of Roe, and the flood of extreme Republican state-level anti-abortion laws it will unleash, will mean for the GOP’s electoral prospects — and for his own."

Inside sources have revealed the former president is privately concerned about how the ban on abortion rights could impact his potential 2024 presidential run. One source, who has privately spoken to the former president since the controversial SCOTUS draft opinion leaked, shared details about his concerns.

“He keeps shitting all over his greatest accomplishment. When you speak to him, it’s the response of someone fearing the backlash and fearing the politics of what happens when conservatives actually get what they want [on abortion],” one source said. “I do not think he’s enjoying the moment as much as many of his supporters are, to be honest with you.”

Per Rolling Stone, another insider said that Trump insisted it would have been more beneficial for Republicans to focus on criticizing Democrats over late-term abortions "while steering clear of markedly less popular conservative positions on the issue."

Although Republican lawmakers have proposed legislation to completely ban abortion across the board, even without exemptions for sexual assault and incest victims, Trump has expressed apprehension about such extreme measures for quite some time.

“Several years ago…I remember being at a dinner with [Trump] at the White House, where there were several Democrat[ic] and Republican senators and congressman,” said Dallas megachurch pastor Robert Jeffress, who previously worked as an advisor for the former president during his campaign and presidential term. “He absolutely savaged the Democrats present — in a polite way — for having the view that abortion should be legal up until the moment the child is born. He used the term ‘barbaric,’ if I recall correctly,” says Dallas megachurch pastor Robert Jeffress, who advised Trump throughout his campaign and term in office. “He asked the Democrats at the table how they could believe that.”

But despite his reported concerns behind closed doors, Trump and his campaign still managed to use the court ruling to his advantage. On Friday evening, Trump's campaign team fundraised while celebrating the unprecedented court ruling.

Sending out a text message to Trump supporters, the campaign team wrote, "Roe v. Wade has been OVERTURNED thanks to Pres Trump! Do you support the Supreme Court’s decision?

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Clarence Thomas Warns He’s Coming For All Your Rights (Except Guns)

A new analysis is breaking down Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' concurring opinion in the overturning of Roe v. Wade. The New York Times' Sheryl Gay Stolberg explained how Thomas' remarks appear to suggest that the abortion ban could only be the beginning of the conservative attack on civil rights.

According to Stolberg, Thomas "laid out a vision that fomented fears about what other rights could disappear: The same rationale that the Supreme Court used to declare there was no right to abortion, he said, should also be used to overturn cases establishing rights to contraception, same-sex consensual relations, and same-sex marriage."

Although Justice Samuel A. Alito's majority opinion insists the ruling on abortion “should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” Stolberg emphasized that Thomas also argued that the court's majority does not view abortion as "a form of 'liberty' protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution."

She went on to note three cases that he used as an example to support his arguments as they were ruled upon according to the same line of reasoning. Stolberg noted that Thomas "took aim at three other landmark cases that relied on that same legal reasoning: Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 decision that declared married couples had a right to contraception; Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 case invalidating sodomy laws and making same-sex sexual activity legal across the country; and Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 case establishing the right of gay couples to marry."

She continued, "Justice Thomas wrote that the court 'should reconsider' all three decisions, saying it had a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents. Then, he said, after 'overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions” protected the rights they established.'"


Stolberg noted that Thomas' language is a prime example of the epitome of what abortion and LGBTQ advocates have expressed concern about. Advocates have repeatedly warned that the overturn of Roe v. Wade would only be the beginning of a conservative attack that could subsequently lead to attacks on "the right to contraception and same-sex marriage."

The critical assessment of Thomas' remarks comes as the liberal SCOTUS justices also express their dissent regarding the unprecedented ruling. As reports began circulating about the ruling, Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan weighed in with their remarks

“With sorrow ― for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection ― we dissent,” wrote Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

The statement comes in wake of conservative justices' ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization which will subsequently regress federal abortion laws back nearly half a century.

“Today, the Court discards that balance,” the justices wrote. “It says that from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of. A State can force her to bring a pregnancy to term, even at the steepest personal and familial costs.”

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

‘Vows Were Broken’: Kellyanne Conway Openly Rebukes Husband Over Trump

When Kellyanne Conway appeared on CNN with host Michael Smerconish, things quickly went awry when he asked her about the chapter in her book that speaks of her husband, George Conway. Instead of focusing on the question, Conway spiraled off into a rant about her husband's stance on former President Donald Trump.

In fact, Conway's rant was so intense that Smerconish was barely able to get a word in. The highly-publicized couple has made headlines multiple times for their clash on Trump. Their feud began when George Conway publicly launched his attack against the former president on Twitter.

During the interview, Kellyanne Conway was also asked about her marital state given their political clash. She wasted no time weighing in.

"You know, in 2016, known as the year of the tweet, George Conway sent zero tweets," she began. "Now he's sent over 100,000. He can change his mind about Donald Trump, this is a free country, George has no allegiance to a political party or presidential candidate but his vows to me I feel were broken because we were all in."

She went on to discuss her book.



"You know, I also write in the book, Michael, that people like to say without Kellyanne Conway, Donald Trump would not have gotten elected president of the United States, that's debatable," she said during the Saturday morning interview. "But without George Conway urging, if not insisting me, his wife, to take that campaign management job and helping out with more with the kids and home, I don't see how I could be the campaign manager the level I was. George was my partner."

"Did you ever say, George, what the hell are you doing here?" Smerconish asked.

"I did and that's in the book," she shot back. "All I got was a steady diet of 'Trump, Trump, Trump.' I will tell you that I know he's billed differently now, but for the three years, he was mentioned 48 times by the New York Times. He was mentioned 45 of the 48 times as, quote, 'Kellyanne Conway's husband.' We should be honest about how everybody came to know him and that he became some kind of resistance folk hero but not at a small cost.

"I feel that I should have known ahead of time if this thing called the Lincoln Project was going to exist there were going to be ads, dumping an op-ed the next day, his tweets are going to be about my boss," she continued. "Again, just so your viewers who are saying 'why did you have her on? I turned off the TV,' although they didn't or are reading online, they should know that George -- I feel like I was owed an explanation. And this is not the situation, I gave up millions of dollars to go be a public servant in the White House. George wanted to have a big job in the Trump administration, we moved our family to Washington as a family. He changed his mind about Donald Trump somewhere along the way. Famously, Donald Trump never changes. I didn't change my mind."

Shortly after the interview, Smerconish addressed critical responses to him having Kellyanne Conway on the show. During the interview, many frustrated viewers tweeted their concerns. His remarks came after one viewer even demanded that the interview footage be taken down.


Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Pulling A 'Ted Cruz,' Governor Disappears As Montana Suffers Huge Floods

Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte (R) reportedly returned to his state after deep speculation about his absence in the midst of historic flooding across the state. Since it has been confirmed that he was vacationing in Italy, he is also facing deep scrutiny for doing so as Montana residents faced the challenges of unprecedented weather conditions.

Twitter users began sharing their reaction to Gianforte's actions shortly after his press secretary Brooke Stroyke released a statement to address the concerns about the governor's whereabouts. It appears to have only made things worse as Twitter users are now slamming the Republican governor and comparing him to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) who fled his state to vacation in Cancun during the bitter winter storm of 2021.


"Montana’s Republican Governor Greg Gianforte pulls a Ted Cruz," tweeted NBC Universal senior executive, Mike Sington. "He’s out of state vacationing in Tuscany while Montana has been devastated with historic flooding. His office had previously refused to confirm where he was."


"The lessons of Ted Cruz's Cancun fiasco seemed painfully obvious," MSNBC producer Steve Benen also tweeted. "Evidently, Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte wasn't paying close enough attention."


"Gov. Gianforte was in Italy, his office confirms Friday morning," one Twitter user wrote. "The governor left Saturday for a personal trip to Italy and returned last night. He will be in Gardiner today for a tour and briefing."


In wake of Gianforte's actions, members of the Montana Democratic Party are also voicing their frustrations. On Wednesday, June 15, Sheila Hogan, the executive director for Montana's Democratic Party, sounded off with her concerns. According to The Hill, she also slammed the governor's office and accused his staff of "lying about his absence and 'purposefully obscuring the fact that the executive order was signed by his lieutenant governor.'”

“In a moment of unprecedented disaster and economic uncertainty, Gianforte purposefully kept Montanans in the dark about where he was, and who was actually in charge,” Hogan said. “Again, we ask, where in the world is Governor Gianforte?”

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

New Evidence Reveals Trump Campaign's Role In Georgia Fake Electors Scheme

An incriminating new email obtained by both CNN and The Washington Post is shedding light on an election plot in Georgia that was reportedly orchestrated by former President Donald Trump's campaign.

According to CNN, the Trump campaign is said to have advised fake electors to infiltrate the Georgia State Capitol and cast fake electoral votes for the former president. The email correspondence, which was dated December 13, 2020, included detailed instruction for electors to get themselves in position to cast Georgia's electoral college votes although President Joe Biden had already been announced as the election winner of the state.

In the email, Robert Sinners —a Georgia-based elections operations director for the Trump campaign— advised the group of fake electors to use "complete secrecy and discretion." The email also included instructions for the fake electors to sign certificates confirming they had the authority to cast the votes on behalf of the state.

"I must ask for your complete discretion in this process," wrote Sinners. "Your duties are imperative to ensure the end result — a win in Georgia for President Trump — but will be hampered unless we have complete secrecy and discretion."

The Washington Post, reports that the fake electors were also instructed to tell Capitol security that they actually had appointments with a state senator in order to be allowed entry into the building. Sinners also emphasized the importance of the group not drawing attention to themselves or having any contact with the media.


"Please, at no point should you mention anything to do with Presidential Electors or speak to the media," Sinners wrote in bold text, per The Post.

In wake of the email being made public, Sinners released a statement to the Washington Post. According to the Trump campaign staffer, he simply followed the orders of Georgia Republican Party chairman David Shafer and other senior campaign staffers.

"Following the Former President's refusal to accept the results of the election and allow a peaceful transition of power, my views on this matter have changed significantly from where they were on December 13th," said Sinners, who now works for Georgia's Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R).

Shafer's lawyer also confirmed his client's cooperation with the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

"None of these communications, nor his testimony, suggest that Mr. Shafer requested or wished for confidentiality surrounding the provisional electors," Shafer's lawyer said, according to the news outlet.

Despite the efforts to overturn the election results in Georgia, all 16 of the state's electoral votes went to Biden.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Barr Deputy's Report Debunked 'Unmasking' Accusations Against Democrats

A newly disclosed U.S. Department of Justice's investigatio has determined that members of former President Barack Obama's administration had no interest in revealing General Michael Flynn's identity “for political purposes or other inappropriate reasons.”

According to BuzzFeed, the report is based on months of investigative research on the so-called “'unmasking' of Flynn" who briefly held the position of U.S. National Security Advisor under former President Donald Trump's administration before he submitted his resignation in February 2017. Flynn's resignation came amid scrutiny and questions about the nature of his conversations with Russia’s ambassador to the US.

Per Buzzfeed: "Republicans later accused officials in the Obama administration of using their positions to reveal anonymized names in classified documents, known in the intelligence community as unmasking, in order to target individuals in Trump’s orbit."

Amid those accusations, former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr ordered that an investigation be launched to further assess the allegations. The investigation was conducted by John Bash, who at the time, worked as a U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas. Although the investigation was closed back in 2020, the report had not been made public.

Bash has made it clear that his "review has uncovered no evidence that senior Executive Branch officials sought the disclosure of' the identities of US individuals 'in disseminated intelligence reports for political purposes or other inappropriate reasons during the 2016 presidential-election period or the ensuing presidential-transition period.'"

Bash further expounded on his findings in the written statement for his report. Although he admitted that he did not see any justification for a criminal investigation into those suspected of being involved in the "unmasking," he also said "he was 'troubled' by 'how easy it is for political appointees of the incumbent administration to obtain nonpublic information about individuals associated with a presidential campaign or a transition team.'”

“There exists a significant potential for misuse of such information— misuse that could be difficult to detect,” Bash wrote. His report recommended that the intelligence community consider implementing “certain prophylactic safeguards for unmasking requests that relate to presidential campaigns or transitions, including a more demanding substantive standard for granting those requests, special notification requirements, and a centralized approval process.”

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Ted Cruz Decries ‘Elites’ For Hiring Private Security — Just Like He Does

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is complaining about liberal "elites" acquiring personal security but there is just one problem with his latest rant. According to The Daily Beast, it is highly hypocritical because he also has security.

The Texas senator made the controversial remarks when he appeared at the National Rifle Association’s annual convention on Friday, May 27. At the time, Cruz ranted about liberal “elites” who advocate for gun control while hiding behind “private security.”

However, the Beast has shed light on Cruz's itemized expenses highlighting the cost his campaign has paid for security since October 2022.

"Since October 2020, the Cruz campaign has paid Houston-area executive protection firm Atlas Glinn nearly half a million dollars to protect himself and his family—$499,661, almost all of it in monthly lump sums averaging around $30,000, according to federal disclosures. (The Atlas Glinn website features a photo of a security detail guarding Cruz in a parade car.)"

In fact, Cruz is considered the biggest Republican spender where the cost of security is concerned. However, data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, also indicates that he receives the most monetary support from pro-gun law advocacy groups. Behind Cruz's spending are three Democratic lawmakers. Sens. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Jon Ossoff (D-GA), and Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO) have all spent at least $300,000 on security. According to financial statements, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) has reported approximately $122,000 in security expenses.

Speaking to the Beast, Swalwell explained his reason for incorporating security. As manager of former President Donald Trump's second impeachment trial, the California Democrat faced numerous threats and personal attacks from Trump supporters.

“As the father to three children in diapers, I’m especially mindful of my kids’ security. Since Fox News [broadcast] footage of my home and numeric street address on-air in December 2020, my children have been limited in their ability to play out front. To protect my family, on some occasions we have hired trained security professionals,” Swalwell said.

“I do not oppose guns. I like guns. I enjoy shooting,” he continued. “And the security professionals I have hired are trained.”

“What I don’t like,” Swalwell continued, “is a country of unrestricted weaponry that allows the most dangerous weapons to end up in the hands of the most dangerous people. We can still be a country that allows its citizens to shoot for sport, hunt with your kids, and protect your home and not allow weapons of mass destruction to mow down our children.”

When asked about the campaign expenses, Cruz's spokesperson spoke with the Beast and insisted that he has faced an onslaught of death threats.

“Senator Cruz has received thousands of death threats from angry Leftists and there are several individuals being prosecuted by the Department of Justice because of threats on the Senator as we speak. If you don’t think that is a legitimate reason for security you should probably have your head checked,” the spokesperson said. “Senator Cruz supports the Second Amendment right of every law-abiding Texan and American adult to protect themselves.”

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

At NRA Convention, Cruz Blames School Shootings On Everything…Except Guns

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) opted to appear at the National Rifle Association convention in Houston, Texas on Friday after multiple Republican lawmakers backed out of making public appearances in wake of the Uvalde school shooting.

Now, Cruz is facing deep scrutiny not only for attending the conference but also for his remarks praising firearms. During the convention, Cruz also offered a number of reasons he believes are to blame for the shooting other than guns.

“It’s a lot easier to moralize about guns and to shriek about those you disagree with politically. But it’s never been about guns,” Cruz said on Friday, after naming tons of excuses for mass shootings, such as “broken families, absent fathers, declining church attendance, social media bullying, violent online content ... chronic isolation, prescription drug, and opioid abuse.”

Speaking of the shooting, Cruz said, “The entire state ― the entire country ― is horrified and grieving." He added, “And it is an evil that has happened too many damn times.”

The lawmaker's remarks have been deeply criticized as many Twitter users have weighed in with their reactions. Some users also pushed back to refute Cruz's claims.







Cruz's remarks at the convention come just days after his previous attempt to blame other factors for the mass shooting. Distancing from the discussions and calls for stricter legislation on gun control, the Texas lawmaker claimed suggested that one solution might be to have fewer doors at education facilities.

“One of the things that everyone agreed is, don’t have all of these unlocked back doors,” he told Fox News Wednesday. “Have one door into and out of the school and have ... armed police officers at that door.”

During his speech on Friday, Cruz also echoed his previous call for more armed law enforcement agents. Those remarks came amid reports criticizing the Uvalde Police Department and its officers' delayed actions to confront and subdue the shooter.

“Ultimately, as we all know, what stops armed bad guys is armed good guys,” Cruz told the NRA. A bipartisan group of lawmakers are reportedly working to craft a proposed piece of legislation that, according to HuffPost, will include: "more stringent background checks, proposals to bolster school safety, and 'red flag' laws that allow authorities to temporarily seize firearms from people who have been determined to be a danger to themselves or others."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Maker Of Assault Rifle Used In Uvalde Massacre Featured Child In Bizarre Ad

A Georgia gun manufacturer is facing scrutiny for its disturbing ad shared just days prior to the mass school shooting in Uvalde, Texas.

According to HuffPost, on May 16, Daniel Defense —a firearm company that manufactures AR-15-style semi-automatic rifles like the one Salvador Ramos, the 18-year-old shooter who fatally shot two teachers and 19 students— posted an image of a young child holding an assault rifle.

With the image, the gun manufacturer included Proverbs 3:5 which reads, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”


Since the deadly Uvalde, Texas massacre, the company's tweet is being seen in a different and less-favorable light. Although the company quickly changed its Twitter account status from public to private, screenshots of the tweet had already been screenshotted.

To make matters worse, HuffPost reports that the disturbing post was actually tweeted on Ramos' 18th birthday which, according to reports, is when he actually purchased his first firearms. In fact, Ramos is said to have purchased a Daniel Defense DDM4 V7 just days before opening fire in the school.

Daniel Defense has also boasted that the firearm is the “perfect rifle for everybody.” According to the police report on Ramos, the teen also purchased a second firearm which has been identified as a Smith & Wesson M&P 15. However, he only carried the assault rifle into the school.

In wake of the shooting and the recirculating Twitter post, Daniel Defense has come under fire for its tendency to develop firearm advertisements that have a connection to religion. Speaking to NBC News, Ryan Busse, a former firearms executive and gun violence prevention group advisor said, “This is how [company founder Marty Daniel] has grown his business: By being on the edge and wrapping this holy-roller thing around it.”

A spokesperson for Daniel Defense also said, “We believe this week is not the appropriate time to be promoting our products in Texas at the NRA meeting.”

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Why Boebert May Follow Cawthorn On The Far-Right Chopping Block

Rep. Madison Cawthorn's (R-N.C.) midterm election defeat has raised lots of questions about the next far-right Republican lawmaker that could be on the political chopping block.

According to a new analysis written by The Daily Beast's senior columnist, Matt Lewis, it looks like Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) may be next. In his new piece published by the Beast, he explained why he believes lightening could "strike twice."

Referencing the words of David B. Wheeler, head of the American Muckrakers PAC, Lewis noted that he'd highlighted the similarities in Cawthorn and Boebert's political landscapes.

"The districts, he says, are 'very similar' demographically. And just as Cawthorn faced a North Carolina state legislator, Boebert’s challenger is Colorado Republican state Sen. Don Coram," Lewis wrote. "There’s also a sense that neither incumbent cares about their district, but are instead more interested in their national profile."

Wheeler also highlighted another issue that may be problematic for Boebert: her personal life. “Their own personal lives seem to be an absolute mess,” Wheeler said of both Republican lawmakers.


From multiple run-ins with the law to marrying the man she'd had domestic violence disputes with Boebert has faced her fair share of personal drama.

While much of Boebert's personal turmoil has already been reported, Lewis noted the more recent issues she's faced since those previous incidents.

He wrote:

"Boebert has had plenty of brushes with the law, including a 2015 incident where she was handcuffed at a country music festival after allegedly encouraging minors being detained for underage drinking to leave police custody. Boebert reportedly told police that 'she had friends at Fox News and that the arrest would be national news.'”

Although she still managed to get elected in 2020, questions are looming about whether or not she'll be re-elected; the same types of concerns that loomed over Cawthorn's political career.

While there are some Republicans who believe campaigning in areas seen as "safe districts" will save them from defeat, Lewis explained what the latest political trend suggests.

"It won’t be easy, but it seems at least possible that Boebert will continue the trend that started last week with Cawthorn’s defeat," he wrote. "If that happens, it’s game on. Extreme politicians from “safe districts” (who have assumed the rules don’t apply to them and that they can act with impunity) will once again discover there are some expected standards of behavior—even for them."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Margie Greene Claims Democrats 'Starting Fires' To Worsen Food Shortages

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) is pushing a new conspiracy theory centered around the food and baby formula shortage currently plaguing the United States.

During a recent appearance on the far-right broadcast InfoWars, the Republican lawmaker echoed the bizarre claims of conspiracy theorists as she suggested that Democratic lawmakers are responsible for torching food facilities to create shortages. According to Rolling Stone, the latest theories appear to be based on ordinary fires that actually do occur.

Greene suggested: "Democrats are starting the fires on purpose in order to deprive the nation of food, which would be advantageous for them because they’re playing some sort of globalist long game and don’t want anything to be manufactured in America … or something like that. It’s not totally clear."

Citing a report from the National Fire Protection Association, Rolling Stone noted: "Nearly two dozen food processing plants have gone up in flames this year. This isn’t out of the ordinary — there are thousands of fires at manufacturing facilities every year." But in true conspiracy fashion, Greene and other far-right extremists have misconstrued facts to fit into a disturbing narrative they appear to have created.

When Greene appeared on InfoWars, she ranted about the current issue with host Alex Jones.

"The Biden administration and the Democrats … are destroying the very important, most critical part of the fabric of America, and that is our farmers,” Greene ranted. “They’re doing it on purpose. They want to be the global economy. They want to be completely involved. And here we have these ‘random,’ supposedly accidental fires at food processing plants.”

Jones also signaled in agreement with Greene. Claiming to have spoken with "mathematicians," Jones said, it seems “'mathematically impossible' for processing plants to be catching fire like they have been so far this year."

He added, “Everything the globalists are doing is about destroying real sustainability and making things collapse to bring in their new world order."

Greene's latest conspiracy theory follows criticism for a multitude of previously debunked claims.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Pennsylvania Republicans Fear Nominating Mastriano For Governor

Republicans in Pennsylvania are expressing growing concern about the possibility of the party being defeated in November for the state's gubernatorial election.

According to Politico, Sen. Doug Mastriano (R-Penn.) appears to be the frontrunner and Republican leaders are reportedly working tirelessly being the scenes to ensure he does not end up with the Republican nomination.

As the primary election approaches, "GOP gubernatorial campaigns and leading state and county officials have been in discussions about uniting behind a single candidate to avoid a scenario in which Mastriano wins the crowded race by taking advantage of a splintered vote. If that doesn’t work, another option is persuading the candidates in single-digits in the polls to drop out."

Speaking to Politico, Andy Reilly, a Republican National Committee (RNC) member, Sam DeMarco, who served as the Allegheny County Republican Party chair, and other sources opened up about their concerns.

“There’s so much that concerns me about this,” DeMarco told the news outlet as he specified that he was only speaking for himself as opposed to the entire group. “We’re in a year where all evidence points to a red tsunami. And it appears here in Pennsylvania, because of the number of people in the race and his smaller but consistent base of support, we may be nominating the only Republican who would be unelectable in November.”

Reilly also released a statement detailing his concerns.

In a statement to Politico, Reilly said, “As National Committeeman, I have spoken regularly with almost all of the gubernatorial campaigns over the past [three] months. Last week when the presumptive [Democratic] nominee, Josh Shapiro, and the State Democratic Party used campaign resources to assist the candidacy of Doug Mastriano in the Republican primary, it raised concerns among the campaigns. Those concerns have led to discussions among the campaigns of which I have been occasionally involved.”

Reilly also added that “the state party voted not to endorse a candidate, any decision a campaign makes to endorse another candidate, suspend their campaign or stay in the race is entirely the decision of that campaign.”

Mike Conallen, the former chief of staff for Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) who now serves as a Republican strategist in Pennsylvania, also explained why he believes Mastriano will have the most difficult time clinching a gubernatorial win. The Republican candidate, who has been a vocal supporter of Trump and his voter fraud conspiracies, leaves heavily to the far right. For Conallen, it seems that may be a bit problematic.

“I think there is a significant level of concern that Mastriano, of all of the primary candidates, will have the most difficult time in the general, just because of the level of his conservative viewpoints and policies,” said Conallen. “There was the general consensus that even though he was the most likely to win the primary, he was going to have the toughest time in the general.”`

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Russian Soldiers Reported To Sabotage Putin’s War On Ukraine

Members of the Russian's armed forces have reportedly been mulling over ideas to deliberately sabotage their own military operations in an effort to impede Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war efforts to continue his invasion of Ukraine.

According to The Daily Beast, the latest developments reportedly stem from "recordings of alleged Russian troops’ phone calls that the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) intercepted."

During one conversation, an alleged Russian soldier claimed they'd been funneling sand into their tankers' fuel systems to create clogging issues.

“I don't follow stupid orders, I simply refuse,” one fighter was reportedly heard telling a fellow comrade-in-arms. “The motherf*cker sent me to tanks, motherf*cking piece of shit. I f*cked it up and that's it.”

Another Russian soldier also admitted that he and multiple of his fellow comrades had intentionally "damaged their tank—the last one left in their regiment—to interfere with an attack plan," per another document shared by the SBU. “We have one tank left in the regiment,” he said. “In short, we broke our tank ourselves in the morning so as not to go.”


However, the Beast reports that these aren't the only efforts being made to obstruct Putin's war. Per the news outlet: "The Russian war effort isn’t only being hampered from the inside. Inspired by the Russians’ intercepted phone calls, Ukraine’s government encouraged other Russian troops to disobey orders and refuse to attack, echoing earlier calls to surrender and abandon the war path."

In a statement released on Friday, May 6, 2022, the SBU said it "welcomes this practice. But even it can be improved—just ‘give up’ and leave the war in Ukraine!”

Pentagon press secretary John Kirby also released a statement addressing the latest intel. While Kirby admitted that he is aware of the intelligence-sharing effort, he confirmed the United States has no involvement in it.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Trump Booed At Rally When He Promotes Dr. Oz For Senate

Former President Donald Trump recently attempted to convince his skeptical supporters that Dr. Mehmet Oz is a viable candidate for the U.S. Senate. According to HuffPost, the former president attended a rally on Friday, May 6 in support of Oz where the crowd of Trump supporters responded with boos of disapproval.

In response to the disapproval, Oz attempted to sway the crowd with a remark targeting President Joe Biden. “I love you guys, Pennsylvania!” he declared. “I love that you’re out here in the rain in Westmoreland, and I know why you’re excited: Because the only thing that Joe Biden has built back better is the Republican Party. Do I have it right?”

The audience, which was filled with die-hard Trump fans who only attended to hear the former president speak, reacted with lackluster applause. Speaking to HuffPost, rallygoers shared their reactions to Oz and many admitted they were on the fence about him.

“I think he’s Hollywood,” said Timothy Lohr, a truck driver in Westmoreland County, Penn. “That’s just my opinion. I don’t like Hollywood.”

Dave Popola, a coal mining machinist, also expressed apprehension about Oz. “In his past, he spent a lot of time with the left,” said Popola. “He was hanging around with the Obamas way too much, and Obama tanked the coal industry the first time.”

At one point during the rally, Trump attempted to discredit Oz's opponent, Dave McCormick, a hedge fund manager whose allies have relatively deep pockets.

“So I don’t know David well and he may be a nice guy, but he’s not MAGA, he’s not MAGA,” Trump said as he referred to his own campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again.” “I do know that he was with a company that managed money for communist China, and he is absolutely the candidate of special interests and globalists and the Washington establishment.”

Trump continued, “As your senator, Oz will fight to end illegal immigration, end sanctuary cities, and put dangerous criminals behind bars. That’s what he wants to do. He’s going to stop the Democrats, socialists, and communists, and confront China like no senator in the history of our state.”

He also added, “I’ve known him a long time. He’s on that screen,” Trump said. “He’s in the bedrooms of all those women, telling them good and bad. And they love him.”

Newly-elected Ohio Republican Senate nominee J.D. Vance also joined Oz and Trump on Friday. “It’s not about Dr. Oz,” Vance said. “It’s not about anything other than you and Donald Trump.”

He added that a faction of top Republicans is “trying to make it so that Trump-endorsed candidates get defeated because when they do, the fake news media back there will say, ‘Well, Donald Trump’s endorsement doesn’t matter.'”

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Pompeo Torched On Twitter For ‘Epic Freudian Slip’

Mike Pompeo, who served as former U.S. Secretary of State under the Trump administration, caused a bit of confusion with his recent slip-up on live television.

But, according to HuffPost, some critics saw the jaw-dropping slip-up as "a rare moment of honesty" for the former government official who has a history of sharing false narratives. During his appearance on Fox News with Laura Ingraham asked Pompeo: "Why does the left act as if conservatives are a bigger threat to America than the” Chinese Communist Party?"

“Because, in fact, we often are," Pompeo answered before veering off into a rant to explain why he believes the so-called "left" has "'deep ties' to communism,'" The Post notes.


As expected, Twitter users immediately weighed in with their reactions to Pompeo's remarks. One user tweeted, "Having spent two years reporting on Pompeo, I can attest to how dangerous he is. He turned USAID into a rogue playground for right-wing extremists."

Another user wrote, "Wow. He almost accidentally tells the truth for a split second but then ruins it with an avalanche of bullshit. The @GOP is so “anti-communist” that they’ve been compromised by Russia since the mid-90’s."




Printed with permission from Alternet.

Legal Experts Blast Trump Judge’s Mask Mandate Ruling

Legal experts are hammering U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle for axing the federal government's COVID-19 mask mandate based on her own flawed elucidation of the word "sanitation."

The Biden administration argues that masks are categorized as a form of "sanitation," according to the law, but Mizelle argues otherwise. Instead, NPR reports that she's opted "for a much narrower definition of the term that would exclude measures like face coverings;" an interpretation with which legal experts strongly disagree.

According to NPR.org, President Joe Biden's administration has supported its action to keep the mask mandate in place by focusing on key clauses in the U.S. Public Health Service Act of 1944. That law grants the federal government "certain powers to respond to public health emergencies." which is why the administration has been able to maintain the mandate on public modes of mass transportation such as aircraft.

Per NPR: "Specifically, the law says that if the government is trying to prevent the spread of communicable diseases, it can 'provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human beings, and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary.'"

Now, legal experts are criticizing Mizelle's stance. Erin Fuse Brown, a Georgia State University law professor, also offered her opinion of the judge's legal argument. "If one of my students turned in this opinion as their final exam, I don't know if I would agree that they had gotten the analysis correct," Brown said.

"It reads like someone who had decided the case and then tried to dress it up as legal reasoning without actually doing the legal reasoning," she added.

James Hodge, an Arizona State University law professor, also weighed in with a critical opinion of Mizelle's ruling. "If this particular type of opinion took on greater precedential value as it rises up through the court system, if that happens, it's big trouble for CDC down the road," Hodge said.

NPR reports that Hodge argues, Mizelle "substituted her own definition of 'sanitation'" while "brushing aside a legal norm known as 'agency deference' that compels judges to yield to the interpretation of federal agencies when a law's language is unclear."

"This is really a serious deviation from not just what we're trying to do to protect the public's health, but a misstatement of federal authority in emergencies to a great degree," Hodge said.

Brown also agreed with the sentiment. "Even if we're skeptical about agencies or even about Congress's ability to make good judgments in this ... time," she said, "we certainly do not want these decisions to be in the hands of a single unelected judge."

Published with permission from Alternet.