So Roberts is said to be still trying to work out a compromise that leaves the basic concept of Roe in place while allowing the Mississippi law (15 weeks) to stand and ultimately undermining Casey. Some will argue that this is Judicial prudence of doing one thing at a time, not moving too quickly, or simply looking for some sort of compromise.
Others will claim that it is nothing short of politicizing the court and putting politics ahead of the constitution and law. Many feel that this has been the problem with the entire Roberts court for some time. Always one eye on the politics and always looking for the ruling that will ruffle the least amount of feathers.
57 comments:
C.H. TruthMay 8, 2022 at 3:29 PM
No, officer, I should not be arrested for trespassing. Somebody else broke the door down and busted out the window, and I just went in peacefully after that.
So in other words....
I am correct and you are a liar... again!
The most dishonest clergy I have known
If it is not a baby.
Why take organs/tissue from it?
CNN addressed the problem 🤣
Chief Justice Roberts 'enveloped in chaos' as he loses control of the Supreme Court: CNN
Tom Boggioni
May 08, 2022
According to a report from CNN legal analyst Joan Biskupic, the leak of a first draft Supreme Court opinion that indicates the conservative-leaning court has every intention of dismantling the 50-year-old court decision that legalized abortion, is just one sign the Chief Justice John Roberts' grip on the court is slipping.
With multiple reports stating Roberts has been working behind the scenes to save a portion of the Roe v Wade, or at least to tone down Justice Samuel Alito's inflammatory rhetoric, Biskupic claimed that Roberts is facing his iggest challenge since taking over as the 17th chief justice back in 2005.
According to journalist and Supreme Court biographer, Roberts is "enveloped in chaos" as he faces the multiple tasks of shepherding the abortion ruling to the point where it will be officially announced, while at the same time ferreting out who leaked the first draft.
According to the CNN report: "... the sheer release of a draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito reflects a failure to protect the court as an institution. Never before has a full draft opinion been publicly revealed. And in this situation, the magnitude of the contents has shaken the country as people on both sides face the possibility that women may no longer have a right to end a pregnancy in its early weeks."
He has been a great đź‘Ť
We will see đź‘€
For now, the best opportunity for a public airing of the facts may be the 2022 election campaign. Some candidates are already attacking the lockdowns and mask mandates, and pandemic strategies could become a major issue in the 2024 presidential race, especially if Ron DeSantis runs on his success as Florida’s governor. That prospect has already inspired hit pieces in the media and attacks from Democrats like Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, which suffered one of the nation’s worst surges in unemployment during its strict lockdowns. Newsom recently defended his state’s draconian mandates by claiming that an additional 40,000 Californians would have died if he had followed Florida’s policies. But that misleading figure, repeated uncritically by journalists, was based on a crude comparison of the states’ Covid mortality rates without accounting for the larger percentage of elderly people in Florida.
When properly adjusted for the age of the population, the cumulative Covid mortality rate in Florida has been below the national average. As of late March, Florida’s rate was the 19th lowest among the states, only a little higher than California’s, which was the 14th lowest. And by a more important indicator—the rate of excess mortality, a measure of how many more deaths than normal from all causes occurred during the pandemic—Florida has fared slightly better overall than California, and notably better among the young. The rate of excess mortality among young adults has been consistently lower in Florida than in California, where the strict lockdowns presumably contributed to deaths from other causes. If California’s cumulative rate of excess mortality equaled Florida’s, about 5,000 fewer Californians would have died during the pandemic. And if California’s unemployment rate equaled Florida’s last year, 500,000 fewer Californians would have been out of work.
Others will claim that it is nothing short of politicizing the court
Claim.......The GOP has taken 50 years to stack the court to undermine the rights of women the way they want....To say otherwise is just lying to yourself as the court is nothing but a political body of the appointers!!!!! The sad thing is that the super majority was achienved by the GOP playing games, changing the game and getting fewer votes than the D's. !!!!
For now, the best opportunity for a public airing of the facts may be the 2022 election campaign. Some candidates are already attacking the lockdowns and mask mandates, and pandemic strategies could become a major issue in the 2024 presidential race,
Or they can be like the trump endorsed Purdue running on the premise that Kemp cost trump the GOP the election and Purdue would never let that happen......sad how these pols are running on empty with their issues in the past and doubtful will be repeated.....JMHO>>>>
Q. What does it mean if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade?
A. The United States Supreme Court is deciding a case concerning a Mississippi law which prohibits abortion after 15 weeks. The case will allow the Court to reconsider some of the significant holdings in the landmark decision Roe v. Wade (1973). In a significant breach of protocol, a complete draft of a proposed majority opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito was leaked. This proposed opinion would overturn Roe. Justice Alito wrote, “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences.”
When the Supreme Court determines that a law is inconsistent with the requirements of the U.S. Constitution, it will use the power of judicial review to strike down that law. In Roe, the Court considered whether laws prohibiting abortion were in violation of the Constitution. In that 1973 case, a 21-year-old woman sued to strike down a Texas law that prevented her from obtaining an abortion. The case was ultimately decided in her favor, 7-2, by the Supreme Court.
The Court found that the U.S. Constitution includes a right to privacy, which encompasses the right of women to make their own decisions on whether to end a pregnancy. Justice Harry Blackmun, writing for the majority, wrote, “This right of privacy . . . founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”
The Court in Roe conceded that the right to privacy is not explicit in the Constitution. But it noted that individual privacy has been part of the interpretations of multiple provisions in the Constitution, and that specifically includes decisions related to marriage, familial relations and contraception. In the leaked opinion, Justice Alito sharply disagrees and writes, “[t]here was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion.” He also noted abortion rights are not “deeply rooted in history or tradition.”
In many ways, Roe v. Wade has become one of the central pillars for much of the jurisprudence on a range of privacy rights. These include the right to refuse medical treatment, to use contraception, to marry or have personal relationships with whom one chooses. In the draft opinion reversing Roe, Justice Alito anticipates this concern and states that the new opinion is limited to abortion, which he writes is substantively different as it involves unborn life. However, the logic he uses to challenge abortion rights raises concerns among legal scholars that other rights derived from individual privacy — which can be claimed to lack strong enough historical or cultural roots — could also be at risk.
A draft opinion is not a final opinion (a good reason they are not made public), so it could change. However, should the Supreme Court reverse Roe v. Wade, many states will, or already have, enacted legislation limiting or even prohibiting abortion. There are as many as 23 states with trigger laws, or preexisting laws, like Michigan, which will ban abortion if Roe is reversed. There are also states like New York, which protect abortion rights in state law. The rules may be quite different depending on where you live.
Kevin Wagner is a noted constitutional scholar and political science professor at Florida Atlantic University.
Or they can be like the trump endorsed Purdue running on the premise that Kemp cost trump the GOP the election and Purdue would never let that happen......sad how these pols are running on empty with their issues in the past and doubtful will be repeated.....JMHO>>>>
I have no fucking idea what that has to with lockdowns and masks don’t work, but you got a shot in at Trump whom I didn’t vote for and I’m going Kemp all the way. I can’t wait for when he destroys your doppelgänger Tank Abrams
You don’t make sense fatman
It's mother's day and the Left is all about death of babies.
I have no fucking idea what that has to with lockdowns and masks don’t work,
I can't help that you are the dumbest fuck other than the goat farmer.....Sorry sport, I can't fix stupid as deeply set as yours.....BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
Get woke, go broke
A massive public relations firm, Zeno, is privately advising its high-profile corporate clients to avoid commenting on the draft Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, according to an internal communication obtained by Popular Information.
Zeno is a multinational company with almost $120 million in annual revenue and a roster of blue-chip corporate clients including Coca-Cola, Salesforce, Hershey's, Netflix, and Starbucks. Zeno is also a part of Edelman Holdings, the world's largest public relations conglomerate. According to Zeno CEO Barby Siegel, the firm's mission is to "champion the courageous to achieve something better for humankind."
That mission is not reflected in an email sent to Zeno staff this week by Katie Cwayna, Zeno's Executive Vice President for Media Strategy. Cwayna's message includes "a template email to share with client contacts" regarding the leaked Supreme Court opinion which would end all constitutional protections for abortion rights. The template tells clients that "the media" and others "will look for corporations to take a stand and make their views known." Zeno's advice, however, is to keep quiet:
Do not take a stance you cannot reverse, especially when the decision is not final. This topic is a textbook "50/50" issue. Subjects that divide the country can sometimes be no-win situations for companies because regardless of what they do they will alienate at least 15 to 30 percent of their stakeholders… Do not assume that all of your employees, customers or investors share your view.
(While Cwayna claims overturning Roe is a "50/50" issue, 72% of Americans oppose overturning Roe, according to a January poll by Marquette Law School.)
It's mothers day and all the right can talk about is maintaining white mens power!!!!!!
ational company with almost $120 million in annual revenue and a roster of blue-chip corporate clients including
120 million is at best a minor player. Massive is your stupidity and the size of your head, shorty!!!!! BWAAAAAAAAAA
Inflation is rising.
BIDEN has no team to address it.
Current Avg .$4.31
DAY #1 When Biden took office and attacked The US Oil/Gas Industry.
$2.24
AND Diesel the life blood of Ranching/farming and Transportation is even higher.
As always fatboi has problems with comprehension
Zeno is also a part of Edelman Holdings, the world's largest public relations conglomerate.
Stock price: ZENO (Other OTC) Yahoo Finance
$0.0450
+0.0038 (+9.22%)
BWAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! Shorty gets his white ass kicked again and blames me!!!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOL. Keep digging boy.....your lose again
You can have the last word asshole since it makes you feel big.....BWAAAAAAAAA!!!
Ot but
Ukraine will prevail over Russia as freedom prevailed over the Nazi dictatorship in 1945,
Baseball ⚾️ the Angels had a walk off win 🏆
VERY lo iq trying to pull another "fast one":
Zenosense, Inc. (ZENO)
Other OTC - Other OTC Delayed Price. Currency in USD
Add to watchlist
Quote Lookup
0.0450+0.0038 (+9.22%)
At close: May 6 11:47AM EDT
Description
Zenosense, Inc. does not have significant operations. Previously, the company operated as a healthcare technology company. It intends to explore and identify business opportunities seeking to acquire a business in a reverse merger, asset purchase, or similar transaction. The company was formerly known as Braeden Valley Mines, Inc. and changed its name to Zenosense, Inc. in November 2013. The company was incorporated in 2008 and is based in New York, New York.
------------------------------
Dumb fuck or liar or both ?
you decide
either way what a loser
British scientist says US anti-abortion lawyers misused his work to attack Roe v Wade
Giandomenico Iannetti, a pain expert at UCL, angrily denies that his research suggests foetuses can feel pain before 24 weeks
Giandomenico Iannetti, a professor of neuroscience, says his work was used in ‘a very clever way to prove a point’.
Giandomenico Iannetti, a professor of neuroscience, says his work was used in ‘a very clever way to prove a point’. Photograph: Giulio Origlia/Getty Images
Anna Fazackerley
A University College London scientist has accused lawyers in the US of misusing his groundbreaking work on the brain to justify the dismantling of Roe v Wade, the landmark ruling that legalised abortion nationally in America.
Giandomenico Iannetti said his research, which used imaging to understand the adult brain’s response to pain, had been wrongly interpreted to make an anti-abortion argument.
Last week an unprecedented leak of a draft legal opinion showed a majority of supreme court judges support overturning Roe v Wade and ending federal protections for abortions, in a move that could result in 26 states banning it. The court is considering a case, Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organisation, which challenges Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks gestation.
Anti-abortion lawyers in that case argued that scientific understanding has moved on since the court’s 1973 ruling that enshrined the constitutional right to abortion, and it was no longer accurate to say foetuses cannot feel pain before 24 weeks.
Their argument relied heavily on a controversial discussion paper on foetal pain published in the Journal of Medical Ethics in 2020 by Dr Stuart Derbyshire, a British associate professor of psychology at the National University of Singapore.
The paper claims that some of Iannetti’s research results suggest we might not need a cerebral cortex – which remains undeveloped in a foetus of less than 24 weeks – to feel pain.
Iannetti, an Italian professor of neuroscience who now leads a laboratory in Italy but spent the past 16 years researching at UCL and Oxford University, is adamant that this is “an unjustified leap”.
“My results by no means imply that the cortex isn’t necessary to feel pain. I feel they were misinterpreted and used in a very clever way to prove a point. It distresses me that my work was misinterpreted and became one of the pillar arguments they [the lawyers] made,” he said.
Prof Iannetti had no idea the paper was being used to justify the dismantling of Roe v Wade until American colleagues contacted him to say they were “shocked” at the way his findings were being presented. He helped academics in the US to draft a response for the lawyers but says he feels it is out of his control and “there isn’t much more I can do to stop people claiming my work says something it doesn’t”.
Leading pain scientists and academic medical societies on both sides of the Atlantic strongly dispute the anti-abortion legal argument, insisting the international scientific consensus that it is not possible for foetuses to experience pain in the first few weeks of existence remains firm and “irrefutable”.
John Wood, professor of molecular neurobiology at UCL, said: “I thought this opinion piece [by Derbyshire] was inaccurate.” Wood insisted that “all serious scientists” agreed a foetus cannot feel pain until 24 weeks, “and perhaps not even then”.
When you have to lie about the science of birth control, abortion, and global warming...
Scott watch 60 minutes
Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper told CBS in an interview broadcast Sunday he helped prevent a series of "dangerous things that could have taken the country in a dark direction" during his time in the Trump administration.
Driving the news: When CBS' Norah O'Donnell asked Esper during the "60 Minutes" interview for examples, he cited a proposal to "take military action against Venezuela," to "strike Iran" and, "at one point, somebody proposed we blockade Cuba."
Context: O'Donnell noted during the program that Ukraine was an "early source of tension" between Esper and then-President Trump.
Esper documents in his book, "A Sacred Oath," that two days after his 2019 Senate confirmation, Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for a "favor" during a phone call on aid to the country that ultimately led to Trump's first impeachment.Esper agreed with O'Donnell that he had to keep pressing Trump to release $250 million in aid to Ukraine. "It would be an argument after an argument. And I'd have to say, "Look, Mr. President, at the end of the day, Congress appropriated. It's the law. We have to do it," he added.
Zoom in: Esper said such ideas would occur at various times, "certainly the last year of the administration."
"These ideas would happen, it seemed, every few weeks," Esper said. "Something like this would come up and we'd have to swat 'em down."O'Donnell asked Esper, "Who's 'we had to swat 'em down'?""Mostly me," he replied. "I had good support from General Mark Milley."
The big picture: Esper's interview follows a series of revelatory claims he makes about his time in the Trump administration, including exploring the possibility of secretly launching missiles into Mexico and asking whether people protesting the death of George Floyd could be shot in the leg.
During his "60 Minutes" interview, Esper also said then-President Trump discussed sending 10,000 active duty troops to Washington, D.C., following a small fire at the historic St. John's Episcopal Church during racial injustice protests.Trump denied this and several other claims made by Esper in a statement to CBS:
He going to send troops to shoot protesters and actually send the 82nd airborne during the Floyd George demonstrations.
Then stop Lying about those three and so much more James.
Attempt it, for let's say all next week.
Mark Esper is a Washington insider who spent his whole career flying below the radar – until he became President Donald Trump's second secretary of defense. A West Point graduate and paratrooper, Esper spent 10 years as a by-the-book Army officer. And when he left active duty, he moved through the revolving doors of think tank jobs, Capitol Hill & Pentagon staff positions, and defense lobbying. It all turned out to be boot camp for his assignment as defense secretary -- and a face-off with Mr. Trump, whom he came to regard as a threat to American democracy. But we begin tonight with the former defense secretary's thoughts on Russia's war in Ukraine.
I won't have to attempt it.
Comes naturally to me to be truthful.
We have tickets for their last show ever at the Fox
How many presidents have we had that so many people consider to be a serious threat to American democracy?
FOR
Obama
THE Current Fucking Retard.
Biden has America in a shooting War.
Sorry Libs...
Not going to watch some 60 minutes propaganda piece about stuff that people thought "was close" to happening, or "would have" happened or anything that actually didn't happen in real life.
Or any idiot's claim that Trump (not the current President who is destroying our country) was some sort of threat.
Bottom line...
Every day that goes by is another day closer to the possibility of Trump being reelected. Democrats better worry more about finding real solutions and less about trying to scare people about what the GOP is doing as the minority.
Like it or not... there is not a single "Republican" who is actually part of the USSC and is actually responsible for the draft decision.
Bidenomics is a full on Disaster.
Babies starving without Formula.
The Bush-Trump Supreme Court wants to go against the will of the American people.
What the Left is doing is the Big Lie.
It is a lie at least as offensive as Trump’s “Stop the Steal” mendacity. Biden and woke progressives suggest that the Supreme Court is banning abortion. If — and this is a big if — the eventual ruling is consistent with Alito’s draft, what the Supreme Court would be doing is consigning abortion to the democratic process — you remember, the “ground up” process that progressives never cease telling us how much they revere.
Would that abortion could be banned by a court!
But it can’t. See, constitutional conservatives are not progressives. They don’t use raw judicial power to impose conservative policy preferences. If Alito’s draft, or something like it, became the law, the Court would be saying: “You can have as much or as little abortion as you want, America. It’s not in the Constitution, so we have no authority to say what you may or may not do.”
Finally, why is Biden lying? Because he believes it is in his and his party’s electoral interests to do so. Biden knows his administration is a disaster. If Democrats have to run on his record in the 2022 midterms, and then, two years later, he or some presumably sentient substitute has to run on it, Democrats are going to be wiped out. Fearing this, they are desperately trying to fool the electorate, to cling to power based on an enormous lie.
In so doing, they are willing to risk the safety of the justices and the viability of an institution, the judicial department, without which the Constitution that Biden is sworn to defend cannot be preserved and protected.
That’s why no one cares what the Left has to say about January 6. We already know the Capitol riot was an abomination. The only thing to be said in mitigation is that at least that display of “passion” was aberrational. With the leak and the intimidation campaign that has inexorably followed, Democrats are firmly within their long tradition.
Like it or not... there is not a single "Republican" who is actually part of the USSC.
"White Nationalists," then? Including the black one?
As part of his interview with "60 Minutes" on Sunday, former Secretary Mark Esper explained that every few weeks, there were illogical proposals coming out of Donald Trump's White House that he, along with other high-level officials, would have to put a stop to.
He described it as a kind of barrage of "crazy', which he would fight back.
At various times during the — certainly the last year of the administration, you know, folks in the White House are proposing to take military action against Venezuela. To strike Iran. At one point, somebody proposed we blockade Cuba," said Esper. "These ideas would happen — it seemed, every few weeks. Something like this would come up and we'd have to swat 'em down."
In one case, Esper described the conversation he had with Trump about bombing the drug cartels. Trump claimed, "No one would know it was us."
"And I just thought it was fanciful, right? Because, of course, it would be us. I was reluctant to tell this story. Because I think-- I-- I thought, people won't believe this," Esper continued. "That they'll think I'm just making it up and folks in-- in-- in Trump's orbit will-- will dispute it. And then I was having dinner after the election in 2020 with a fellow Cabinet member. And he said to me, he goes, 'You know, remember that time when President Trump suggested you shoot missiles into Mexico?' And I said to him, 'You heard that?' He goes, "Oh, yeah. I couldn't believe it. And I couldn't believe how well you managed and talked him down from that.' And at that moment, I knew I gotta write the story. Because at least have one witness who will verify that this really did happen."
It's "important to our country, it's important to the republic, the American people that they understand what was going on in this very consequential period. The last year of the Trump administration. And to tell the story about things we prevented. Really bad things. Dangerous things that could have taken the country in-- in a dark direction."
Esper never came forward at the time that any of this happened. Even after he was fired and the Senate was addressing impeachment, Esper didn't come forward. It was only in his book that he spoke out about some of the stories.
He's a lifetime Republican
Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper told CBS in an interview broadcast Sunday he helped prevent a series of "dangerous things that could have taken the country in a dark direction" during his time in the Trump administration.
Driving the news: When CBS' Norah O'Donnell asked Esper during the "60 Minutes" interview for examples, he cited a proposal to "take military action against Venezuela," to "strike Iran" and, "at one point, somebody proposed we blockade Cuba."
Context: O'Donnell noted during the program that Ukraine was an "early source of tension" between Esper and then-President Trump.
Esper documents in his book, "A Sacred Oath," that two days after his 2019 Senate confirmation, Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for a "favor" during a phone call on aid to the country that ultimately led to Trump's first impeachment.Esper agreed with O'Donnell that he had to keep pressing Trump to release $250 million in aid to Ukraine. "It would be an argument after an argument. And I'd have to say, "Look, Mr. President, at the end of the day, Congress appropriated. It's the law. We have to do it," he added.
Zoom in: Esper said such ideas would occur at various times, "certainly the last year of the administration."
"These ideas would happen, it seemed, every few weeks," Esper said. "Something like this would come up and we'd have to swat 'em down."O'Donnell asked Esper, "Who's 'we had to swat 'em down'?""Mostly me," he replied. "I had good support from General Mark Milley."
The big picture: Esper's interview follows a series of revelatory claims he makes about his time in the Trump administration, including exploring the possibility of secretly launching missiles into Mexico and asking whether people protesting the death of George Floyd could be shot in the leg.
During his "60 Minutes" interview, Esper also said then-President Trump discussed sending 10,000 active duty troops to Washington, D.C., following a small fire at the historic St. John's Episcopal Church during racial injustice protests.Trump denied this and several other claims made by Esper in a statement to CBS:
Your talking points Scott
ADMINISTRATIONTrump slams Esper as ‘lightweight’ in response to 60 Minutes interview
BY MONIQUE BEALS - 05/08/22 9:47 PM ET
Former President Trump called his former defense secretary a “lightweight” and a “RINO” in response to a “60 Minutes” interview that covered a series of shocking claims about the former commander-in-chief.
Former Pentagon Mark Esper is releasing a book about his time in the Trump administration this week, and in early excerpts accuses the former president of wanting to shoot racial justice protestors in the legs and fire missiles into Mexico to crush cartels.
In response to CBS’ questions about the interview, Trump disputed those allegations and others, accusing Esper of being a failure as defense secretary.
“Mark Esper was weak and totally ineffective and because of it, I had to run the military,” said the statement from Trump to 60 Minutes.
“Mark Esper was a stiff who was desperate not to lose his job. He would do anything I wanted, that’s why I called him “Yesper.” He was a lightweight and figurehead, and I realized it very early on.”
In his statement, Trump also refuted claims that Esper had blocked consideration of using the Insurrection Act, which could have deployed active-duty troops to deal with civil unrest.
“This is Fake News,” Trump said of those reports. “The fact is I didn’t need to invoke the act and never did.”
Esper says Biden administration had ‘shaky start’ to Ukraine warRoe v. Wade draft fuels Democratic calls to add justices to Supreme Court
The former president said “no comment” in response to whether he asked if he could “attack the drug cartels with missiles.”
Esper’s interview on “60 Minutes” comes ahead of the release of his new book “A Sacred Oath,” set for Tuesday.
Esper was fired in November 2020 amid arguments with Trump over police brutality and the response to protests over racial inequality in the U.S.
If you say so Roger....
But I guess it actually didn't happen, huh?
Trump fired Esper in November 2020 after Esper said publicly he did not support using 10,000 military troops against the wave of Black Lives Matter protesters.
You really believe that the free press that isn't highly partisan is a deep state conspiracy to take down the orange monster
He graduated from West Point and served unlike the bone spur draft dodger
And CBS wonders why nobody watches 60 minutes anymore...
Talking points 👉
Former President Donald Trump on Sunday deemed Mark Esper “a RINO incapable of leading,” aggressively disputing a number of the key claims made in a forthcoming book by his one-time defense secretary—except one. In a statement responding to a request for comment from CBS News’ 60 Minutes, on which Esper appeared Sunday to discuss his book, A Sacred Oath, Trump railed against “Yesper” and “the Fake News media.” The former president insisted it was “a complete lie” that he had asked why they couldn’t “just shoot” Black Lives Matter protesters in the legs in 2020, as Esper has alleged, saying that “10 witnesses” could back him up. “Mark Esper was weak and totally ineffective,” Trump continued, “and because of it, I had to run the military. I took out ISIS, Qasem Soleimani, [Abu Bakr] al-Baghdadi, rebuilt the military with $2.5 trillion, created Space Force, and so much more.” The investigative program also asked Trump about Esper’s claim that, in office, the then-president had asked his then-defense secretary if they could quietly fire missiles at Mexico to “destroy the drug labs.” To that, in his Sunday statement, Trump only said: “No comment.”
The investigative program also asked Trump about Esper’s claim that, in office, the then-president had asked his then-defense secretary if they could quietly fire missiles at Mexico to “destroy the drug labs.” To that, in his Sunday statement, Trump only said: “No comment.”
CBS has the highest ranking
During a June 1, 2020 meeting at White House the cabinet was debating what to do about "protests" and "civil unrest," Mark Esper says President Trump wanted to shoot some of the protesters in the legs, a lot of foul language was used and accused President Trump of calling members of the cabinet "f*ing losers."
Trump denied 🙄
So many people are writing books about Trump. Mostly disaffected former lackeys of his who now admit what a dummy he was and is.
...what an immoral, unconscionable dummy...
Lots of CBS TV shows have come and go but the greatest constant on the network is 60 Minutes. While many series have seen their traditional ratings decline over the years, as more and more people shift to time-delayed viewing, 60 Minutes’ numbers have held up incredibly well and the program has remained one of the network’s top-rated shows. Will 60 Minutes ever be cancelled? Is it certain to be renewed for season 55? Stay tuned.
A Sunday night staple, 60 Minutes was created by Don Hewitt and Bill Leonard in 1968. The longest-running series in network primetime, the program features investigative reports, interviews, human interest segments, and news-maker profiles. Three long-form news stories typically air each episode. The CBS News correspondents and contributors include Lesley Stahl, John Dickerson, Scott Pelley, Bill Whitaker, Anderson Cooper, Norah O’Donnell, Sharyn Alfonsi, L. Jon Wertheim, Bill Owens, and Tanya Simon.
The ratings are typically the best indication of a show’s chances of staying on the air. The higher the ratings, the better the chances of survival. This chart will be updated as new ratings data becomes available.
https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/60-minutes-season-54-ratings/
20 minutes ago
BREAKING NEWS:
Dr. Fauci gets a standing ovation from thousands of Michigan University graduates at their graduation ceremony. They chanted his name as he called out the “egregious distortions of reality” by “certain elected officials in positions of power.”
WONDER WHO HE MEANT...
Blogger The Real Halfbaked Soars Pundit said...
CBS has the highest ranking
You are correct Alky a whole 2% of the population watches
In its 54th season “60 Minutes” averaged 7.596 million viewers, one of four prime-time programs between April 18 and Sunday to top 7 million viewers, according to live-plus-same-day figures released by Nielsen on Tuesday. “FBI” was second, averaging 7.511 million viewers and “Young Sheldon” third, averaging 7.256 million.
7,596,000/332,403,000=.0228
Do you understand why we all believe you are a delusional fool?
Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper told CBS that he helped prevent a series of 'dangerous things that could have taken the country in a dark direction' Esper cited various examples including a proposal to 'take military action against Venezuela, 'strike Iran' and, 'at one point, blockade Cuba'Aside from the interview, Esper also made the claims in his book, A Sacred Oath
Many of the extreme ideas occurred during final year of Trump's administration
Esper claimed he had to 'swat' the ideas away and was supported by General Mark Milley
Other revelations also include exploring the idea of secretly launching missiles into Mexico and shooting people in the leg protesting the death of George Floyd
Esper claimed President Trump discussed sending 10,000 active duty troops to Washington, D.C., during racial injustice protestsTrump has denied all the claims made by Esper and has released a statement
Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper has revealed how he had to prevent former President Trump from carrying out military invasions in both Venezuela and Iran during his final year in office as well as firing missiles over the Mexico border.
Speaking during a lengthy and candid interview on CBS News on Sunday night, Esper said he wanted people to know how close the country came to starting another war.
You really don't believe him because you have lost your mind..
https://www.youtube.com/60Minutes
amen AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMAN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN
Other revelations also include exploring the idea of secretly launching missiles into Mexico
TRUMP TOLD ESPER "THEY WON'T KNOW WE DID IT"
DUH!
No matter what weird language Biden prefers, today is still Mothers' Day
By Laramie Seven
The word "mother" is being erased by the federal government, in accordance with the executive order that President Biden signed on his first day in office on January 20, 2021. Along with other sexed words (father, brother, husband, wife, daughter, son), the edict "Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation" is leading to the elimination of traditional terminology.
The proliferating bastardization of the language would be laughable if it weren't so insulting:
Birthing parents
Childbearing people
Gestational carriers
Bodies with vaginas
Menstruators
Postnatal people
People with a uterus
The Ministry of Truth (AKA the new Disinformation Governance Board that has been created under the Department of Homeland Security) no doubt will be helping us all get used to the new usage.
As George Orwell observed, "if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought."
At Edinburgh Napier University in Scotland, the Wokerati have started instructing students on the care and treatment of pregnant males, and future midwives are being trained to be able to catheterize a penis during "labor."
I'm not a biologist, but I did pay sufficient attention in high school to know that a uterus and cervix are required equipment for giving birth. I also understand biology sufficiently to know that it is not possible for any mammal to change sex. Sex is not just the obvious features such as genitalia; sex is embodied in every cell of the body and plays a part in every aspect of health and wellness. Sex is determined at conception and remains static until death.
The advocates of so-called "inclusive" language claim that their goal is to be kind to everyone. The object of avoiding the word "mother" is to be sensitive to those who are biologically female but do not wish to be referred to with sex-specific terminology. One on one, this can be accommodated. But when messages intended for everyone are modified to avoid basic words like mother, what happens to everyone else?
The goal of communication cannot be to eliminate all possibility of offense. Trying to include everyone with overly broad terms can lead to ambiguity and even alienation. Phraseology such as "bodies with vaginas" and "people with a uterus" offensively reduce mothers to a series of body parts. Consider the woman who adopts a baby and struggles heroically to breastfeed; she is not a "birthing parent," yet she deserves to be respected as a "mother" in all other ways.
If the goal is to be kind to everyone, then it is essential to use language that anyone can readily understand.
Post a Comment