“…The Washington Post reports, “College Park Mayor Patrick Wojahn, a long-serving public official and advocate for environmental and social justice issues in his Maryland city, was arrested Thursday morning and has been charged with 56 counts of possession and distribution of child pornography.”
As the Post details, the specifics of the case are sickening:
Authorities have accused Wojahn of uploading and sharing dozens of videos to the social media app Kik in early January that depicted explicit sexual acts involving prepubescent boys and adult men. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children flagged the suspicious Kik account to the Prince George’s County police on Feb. 17, authorities said, and investigators obtained a warrant to search Wojahn’s College Park home on Feb. 28. During that search, police said in court documents, Wojahn waived his Miranda rights and told investigators that the Kik account was his. Police also said that Wojahn “advised that he has viewed and possessed files depicting child pornography,” according to court papers.
The Post further notes that the news of Wojahn’s arrest “shocked” the city’s residents, who described him as “a present, reassuring leader during the height of the coronavirus pandemic and an advocate for [wait for it] equity.”
It’s strange, though. The above-cited WaPo story is a comprehensive one, 25 paragraphs in length and 1,134 words long, and yet not one of those words is “Buttigieg.” Nor is one of those words “Democrat.” Same with this article in The Hill, which, unlike the Post, purports to be a credible news source. To its credit, The New York Times, which also covered the story and failed to mention Wojahn’s friendship with Buttigieg, did mention that he’s a Democrat, albeit in the 19th paragraph, fifth from the bottom, well beyond most folks’ willingness to continue reading...”
One can only imagine the hue and cry which would have erupted had Wojahn had been a frequent guest at the Trump White House, let alone been “mentored” by Don, Jr.!
Still, like every cloud, even this one has a silver lining, at least from Pete’s perverted perspective:
“Instead of doing anything to address those real issues that are impacting American people right now, you have a governor from Tennessee who has decided to go after drag shows. What sense does that make, to go after drag shows?” she said.
…She concluded in saying that President Biden has “always been very clear when it comes to vulnerable communities like LGBTQ community that he has their backs.”
Soooo…the leader of the political party which is actually responsible for destroying our economy, sky-high inflation and creating unsafe schools and communities is focused on promoting perversion.
Now, here’s The Gouge!
First up, NRO‘s Charlie Cooke accurately avers, the misleading musings of a not-so-wise Latina woman to the contrary notwithstanding…
“CNN’s Joan Biskupic writes up yesterday’s oral arguments from the two student loan cases that are currently before the Supreme Court:
Prelogar’s arguments were bolstered by the three liberals among the nine. Sonia Sotomayor, the senior justice on the left, warned that judges would seize greater power if agency authority to carry out acts of Congress were diminished.
Addressing Nebraska state Solicitor General James Campbell, who argued against the Biden administration, Sotomayor said, “What you’re saying is now we’re going to give judges the right to decide how much aid to give them. Instead of the person with the expertise and the experience, the secretary of education, who’s been dealing with educational issues and the problems surrounding student loans, we’re going to take it upon ourselves, instead of leaving that decision in the hands of the person who has experience with these questions.”
This is a nonsense argument from Sotomayor. First off, the question before the Court is not “how much aid” to give to students. The question before the Court is whether the statute it is examining — the 2003 HEROES Act — confers upon the executive branch the power to do what it’s trying to do. If it does, it does. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t. The amount of aid doesn’t enter into that calculation. Neither does the level of “expertise and experience” exhibited by the incumbent Secretary of Education. That Secretary could have the most sparkling mind in American history, or he could be a total moron, and, in both cases, the issue before the Court would be same: “Does he have the power to do it?” There is no provision within the United States Constitution that accords unlimited power to bureaucrats simply because some people consider them to be well-credentialed.
As for Sotomayor’s suggestion that, by superintending this statutory matter, the Court is taking it upon itself to set policy, “instead of leaving that decision in the hands of the person who has experience with these questions,” that too is absolute rot. As Biskupic notes, Elena Kagan made this argument in last year’s EPA case . . .
“The Court appoints itself – instead of Congress or the expert agency – the decisionmaker on climate policy,” Kagan wrote in a dissenting opinion. “I cannot think of many things more frightening.”
. . . and that was a bunch of old tosh as well. In that controversy, as in this one, the Court was not appointing itself as “the decisionmaker”; it was deciding where the decisionmaking power lies. Was it in Congress, which, the plaintiffs claimed, had not yet legislated on the issue? Or was it in a federal agency that had been empowered by Congress to execute congressional legislation? In that case, the Court determined that it was in Congress, because Congress had not granted the EPA the powers that it was claiming. In so doing, it did not take the power for itself; it handed it back to Congress.
In essence, Kagan’s argument is completely backwards. In statutory cases such as these, the risk is not that the Supreme Court will claim a role for which it is not suited, but that, absent the court’s deliberation, the executive branch will claim powers that rightfully belong to Congress. If, as Kagan seems (selectively) to want, the Supreme Court were to habitually abandon the playing field whenever it was presented with statutory questions, then the role of deciding which powers the executive branch has been delegated would henceforth be performed by the executive branch — which, having been given carte blanche to interpret the laws however it likes, would start doing whatever it wished to do without reference to the law as written. It would, no doubt, be nice if we were in the habit of electing presidents who were faithful to their oaths of office. But we are not in that habit. Instead, we keep electing presidents who scour the law books for sentences that might, if you squint, seem to connect vaguely with whatever they want to do that week, and who then insist dishonestly that they are empowered to act without further legislation. By intervening in such cases, the Supreme Court is not undermining the “experts”; it is playing its role as the arbiter of the meaning of the law — a role that it is self-evidently better placed to fulfill than is the non-lawyer and non-judge who heads up Joe Biden’s Department of Education.
One suspects this might be more obvious to Kagan and Sotomayor in different circumstances. Were the Secretary of the Treasury in the next Republican administration to claim in bad faith that he had the power to stop collecting all income taxes for a year, one would likely not hear much talk about the brilliance of the bureaucracy from Elena Kagan, and nor would we hear Sonia Sotomayor wondering aloud during oral arguments, whether she ought to leave the matter to “the person with the expertise and the experience, the secretary of the treasury, who’s been dealing with fiscal issues and the problems surrounding high taxes” — even if, as a matter of indisputable fact, the secretary in question were the most experienced expert in the land. Instead, Sotomayor and Kagan would grasp that the policy matter and the legal matter were separate, and that the scope of the question before the Court was clear: “Does that law allow for this?”
That’s the question at hand here, too.“
Were one to elicit a response from Sotomayor and her Socialist sisters as to what serves as a guide for their judicial philosophy, outside of Das Kapital and the musings of Saul Alinsky, their honest answer would be…
…as it unquestionably has nothing to do with the Constitution, rule of law or the Judeo-Christian morals and values shared by the Founding Fathers and the majority of the country.
Speaking of Judeo-Christian morality, we’ve stressed in the past our belief, just as in the baseless mass hysteria behind the daycare witch hunts of the mid-1980s-mid-1990s, the dramatic uptick in children “self-identifying” as transgender is almost exclusively the result of pressure, not only from parents, teachers and counselors, but social media, as NRO‘s Madeleine Kearns recounts:
“Transgenderism is the belief that every person has a “gender identity” (an inner sense of being male, female, something else, or in between) distinct from his or her sex and that, when the two conflict, gender identity should take precedence. It is perhaps surprising that this idea has caught on. And yet it has. According to Pew Research, over 5 percent of Americans under 30 identify as transgender or nonbinary, compared with 1.6 percent of the total adult population and just 0.3 percent of those over 50.
Both those alarmed and those pleased by this trend agree that the mainstreaming of transgenderism has encouraged more people to declare themselves trans. What is disputed is whether the trend has mainly encouraged the true transgender population to make itself known. Or has it mainly encouraged transgender identification among those who are not transgender (either because “true trans” does not exist or because it can be confused with underlying mental-health conditions)?
This distinction would not matter if the claims of transgender rights did not conflict so drastically with women’s sex-based rights, or if those identifying as transgender weren’t being treated with drugs and surgeries that render them infertile and risk lifelong sexual dysfunction. But they do and they are — so it does…”
Emails reveal @Poudreschools started secretly transitioning K-5 students last year by using students’ preferred names & pronouns at school but legal names with parents. @Erin4Parents
— Nicole Solas Domestic Terrorist! (@Nicoletta0602) March 2, 2023
“…Emails posted on Twitter by the senior fellow with Independent Women’s Forum Nicole Solas show an assistant principal in the Poudre School District (PSD) inquired how to address a student whose parents instructed school staff to not use the student’s preferred gender pronouns.
…Assistant Principal Amanda Pawelski at Laurel Elementary School sent an email looking for guidance on whether to use a student’s preferred pronouns when their parents told staff directly not to call the student by those pronouns.“I feel very strongly about the student but have heard that we legally have to follow the parents’ direction due to the age of the child (elementary school). I’ve also heard that this is different in secondary schools due to legal determination ages,” Pawelski wrote in the email.“Then tonight I was asked about this in the ABCs training, and I was told it makes no difference if elementary or secondary and that the law doesn’t make that distinction that we should follow the student, not the parents,” Pawelski said in the email sent to PSD Chief Equity and Academic Officer Marlena Gross-Taylor.
She continued, “I’d like to be able to have a more definitive answer than I’ve experienced and want to know how to direct my teachers as well. We want to support the student. We also want to be covered legally.”Gross-Taylor forwarded the email to PSD LGBTQIA+ Coordinator Shayna Seitchik and someone with the email handle Darcie Votipka.“Yes, of course!” Votipka responded. “I will confer with Shayna.”
In an email addressed to Gross-Taylor, she is informed about a meeting that Votipka and Seitchik had to discuss the matter.“Just to keep you in the loop, Darcie and I met to discuss this and both agree that the school should use the student’s affirming name and pronouns at school and use their legal name and corresponding pronouns when talking with the family until they are supportive of the student’s new name and pronouns,” Seitchik said.Seitchik also cited “resources” from the American Civil Liberties Union, the U.S. Department of Education and others.
Gross-Taylor responded to Pawelski saying that schools should use the student’s affirming name and pronouns at school and use their legal name and corresponding pronouns when talking with the family until they are supportive of the student’s new name and pronouns.Gross-Taylor also added a link to “guidance on the issue as well.”…”
These kids are K-5, for heaven’s sake!!!
Here’s the juice: At such an impressionable age, you could convince kids they were, to borrow a phrase from Gilbert and Sullivan, a Major General, vegetable, animal, or mineral.
And all too predictably, writing at The Patriot Post, Emmy Griffin reports…
“‘I was 15 when you cut into my body, ripped out my breasts, and stitched me back up like I was your rag doll. You are on the wrong side of history and will always be remembered as child butchers.’
These are the powerful words of 18-year-old Chloe Cole, who was a victim of the transgender madness.
Cole was 13 when she started having troubles with her body. Anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia, speech difficulties, and autism characteristics greatly contributed toward her seeking a fix for her troubles. She found “answers” on social media, where “transgender” influencers led her to make a self-diagnosis.Her parents took her to Kaiser Gender Pathways Clinic in Oakland, California, for help.
The “help” that these medical professionals provided was the infamous “gender affirmation” method of dealing with Cole’s struggles. Perhaps if a mental health professional had talked to Cole about her life and gotten to the bottom of her struggles, this story would have ended differently. That did not happen. Cole was fast-tracked down the “gender transition” pipeline, and at age 13 she was put on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. At 15 she was butchered. Her treatment continued until her 17th year when she started her detransitioning journey…”
Here’s a second shot of the juice: While not opposing the grounds for her lawsuit, we’re forced to ask where were Chloe’s parents in all of this?!? Sorry, but we have to question the discernment, if not sanity of parents who would let their mentally-unstable 13-year-old girl and some demented doctors irrevocably determine their child’s future.
Moving on, here’s another sextet of special selections certain to pique the interest of inquiring Conservative minds:
(2). Though we pointed out in the March 3rd edition how Merrick Garland was lying under oath at worst, manifestly misleading at best during his Senate testimony, reading Andy McCarthy’s account of the AG’s buck-passing, we were struck by the fact neither Josh Hawley nor Ted Cruz ever pointed out to Garland (i) he was atop the marshals’ chain of command, and thus had the unfettered ability to direct them to arrest those illegally protesting in front of the Supreme Court justices’ homes, and (ii) the SCOTUS protests too were recorded on video during daylight.
(3). As most of you know, we never pass up on genuine opportunity to express our complete and utter disdain for Joe Biden, but if there’s one thing which disgusts us even more than that depraved, demented, double-dealing…
…46* had his hands up and turned away, reminiscent of the same way surrendered and turned his back on Afghanistan, well before Iris finished her question. Biden is bad enough without aspiring media stars looking to manufacture outrage at events which didn’t quite go down the way they’re described.
(6). Then there’s this tweet forwarded by Nick, who wisely wondered, “Where do you start?!?”
For Black equestrians with natural hair, finding a helmet that fits can be virtually impossible –– another barrier to inclusion in a sport that remains overwhelmingly white. Helmet companies say there isn’t a simple fix. https://t.co/hhYIBqZV8Bpic.twitter.com/Io9myQ4wKJ
Here’s the juice: such ridiculous assertions are part and parcel to what NRO‘s Wilfred Reilly terms, the “honest conversation about race we never have.” The primary reason the conversation never occurs is, far from wanting to address real racism, Progressives want to preserve the myth of its pervasive, systemic existence so as to energize their base and preserve their power. That it means condemning huge segments of the populace they purport to represent to perpetual dependence is viewed as an asset, not a liability.
Which brings us, inappropriately enough, to The Lighter Side:
Then there’s this instant classic from Speed…
…along with these direct from The Patriot Post…
…and Tennessee Conservative News:
Finally, we’ll call it a wrap with yet another sordid story straight from the pages of The Crime Blotter, and news a…
“A Seattle man charged with murder related to a mass shooting in 2020 was released to home detention at his grandmother’s house ahead of his trial. William Tolliver, 27, was charged with first-degree murder and six counts of first-degree assault, as well as unlawful possession of a firearm, in relation to the January 2020 shooting. The shooting unfolded outside a McDonald’s and left one woman dead and six others injured, including a child and a woman with intellectual and physical disabilities.
A King County Superior Court judge granted Tolliver a pretrial release last Thursday, with Tolliver officially released on Wednesday. His trial begins March 13, and he will be required to wear an ankle monitor while living at his grandmother’s home.
…The King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office argued against Tolliver’s home detention, citing that he had run from police before and that he was under Department of Corrections supervision at the time of the shooting, KOMO News reported. “When you have somebody who has a history of not following court orders, has a half dozen domestic violence offenses, no matter who the defendant is, that’s a concern,” Casey McNerthney with the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office said in a statement about Tolliver’s release, according to the outlet.
Tolliver had previously been arrested 44 times, convicted of one felony, 18 gross misdemeanors and one misdemeanor, KING 5 reported in 2020. Following the shooting, Tolliver…fled to Las Vegas where they were arrested just days later.
“If you are charged with murder in the first degree, and six counts of assault in the first degree, and have shot victims at random, you absolutely should be held reasonably in jail, and that’s what we argued for,” McNerthney added in arguing against Tolliver’s release…”
Sorry, but in what alternate reality…excepting of course Kim Gardner world…would or could such insanity move make sense?!?
Magoo
Video of the Day
Ami Horowitz dispels the oft-repeated lie Israel is an apartheid state.
Tales of The Darkside
Acknowledged cheat and liar Donna Brazile misrepresents the true impact of the D.C. crime bill which would have been so damaging to the District even mayor opposed it.
On the Lighter Side
These two complete clowns suggest what Dumb & Dumber might have looked like if Lloyd and Harry were a married couple.
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.