The New Big Lie

You may have seen yesterday that the Wall Street Journal reported that the bullets used in the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk were inscribed with "transgender and anti-fascist ideology" expressions (according to a law enforcement bulletin obtained by the WSJ). 

One guess what happened after that: MAGA went nuts and it was everywhere. If you've been paying attention, the Far Right has been insisting that pretty much every school shooting for the past year or two, or three or four, or forever was done by a transgender person, usually based on, well, nothing other than their irrational and bigoted hatred of transgender people. And they're even saying that there should be a law passed banning transgender people from owning guns because...they are Second Amendment absolutists?

But now, that's all been walked back. The WSJ has updated its original report about the engravings emphasizing that officials have now said that the initial “bulletin may not accurately reflect the messages on the ammunition.”

Oh gee, thanks! Like the damage has not already been done. 

This is exactly like how when Melissa Hortman was politically assassinated, almost immediately the Far Right claimed it was because of a recent vote that she and the other lawmaker injured took and that proved that the person who killed her was from the Left. (Honestly, when I saw it happening and how quickly it spread on social media, I pictured teams of interns at the Heritage Foundation and other like-minded foundations being tasked to FIND SOMETHING to blame it on the Left and that's what they came up with.) You will still find people arguing that this is true today even though her killer had a list of 70+ Democrats who he wanted to kill. I mean I literally had someone arguing that with me yesterday.

Just know that people will be claiming that Charlie Kirk's killer used "pro transgender bullets" until the end of time.

Though at this point, I'm just waiting for the AI versions of the video of the suspected shooter showing him wearing a sombrero, or perhaps in blackface, or hell, they'll just insert Jasmine Crockett, Michelle Obama, or Hillary Clinton in his place.

I hate this timeline.

https://x.com/AaronBlake/status/196

6309089303986318?

Fetterman Friday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator Fetterman;

As the events of Utah are still unfolding, I'd like to set them aside for the moment. 

Instead, I'd like to ask you again about Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. And I am asking you for a comment since you voted to confirm her appointment.  

First some framing. PBS reported:

The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for federal agents to conduct sweeping immigration operations in Los Angeles, the latest victory for President Donald Trump’s administration at the high court.

The conservative majority lifted a restraining order from a judge who found that “roving patrols” were conducting indiscriminate arrests in LA. The order had barred agents from stopping people solely based on their race, language, job or location.

And:

U.S. District Judge Maame E. Frimpong in Los Angeles had found a “mountain of evidence” that enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. The plaintiffs included U.S. citizens swept up in immigration stops. An appeals court had left Frimpong’s ruling in place.

In her dissent Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote:

The Fourth Amendment protects every individual’s constitutional right to be “free from arbitrary interference by law officers.” After today, that may no longer be true for those who happen to look a certain way, speak a certain way, and appear to work a certain type of legitimate job that pays very little. Because this is unconscionably irreconcilable with our Nation’s constitutional guarantees, I dissent. 

Let me ask you, Senator, not about your stance on Civil Rights/Liberties (as you've already responded with a letter or two on this subject) but about DHS Secretary Kristi Noem. As I wrote at the top of this letter, you voted to confirm her appointment. Did you think, at any point, that this would be an outcome of that appointment??

Additionally, do you regret voting for Kristi Noem? 

I'll await your answer.

As always, I'll post here whatever answer I get from you or your office, Senator.

This

From President Obama:

We don’t yet know what motivated the person who shot and killed Charlie Kirk, but this kind of despicable violence has no place in our democracy. 

No place at all.  

Sotomayor Dissents

From Noem v Vasquez:

We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.

And:

The Fourth Amendment protects every individual’s constitutional right to be “free from arbitrary interference by law officers.” After today, that may no longer be true for those who happen to look a certain way, speak a certain way, and appear to work a certain type of legitimate job that pays very little. Because this is unconscionably irreconcilable with our Nation’s constitutional guarantees, I dissent.

 

Happy Birthday, Jeff!

 

There it is.

For context, back in July Politico reported: 

President Donald Trump said Thursday he would sue the Wall Street Journal and its owner over a new bombshell report about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to begin the process of unsealing grand jury testimony the disgraced financier’s criminal case. 

And:

That post came less than an hour after the president responded to a report in the Journal alleging he had sent a racy birthday letter to Epstein. Trump said he had personally warned the Journal’s owner, Rupert Murdoch, and its editor in chief, Emma Tucker, that the letter was “fake” before the report was published, calling the story “false, malicious, and defamatory.”

Apparently, it's not fake, is it?

Release the Epstein files. All of them. 

McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator McCormick;

I'd like to ask you about some recent events. Notably, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his hearing before a Senate Committee last week.

The AP fact-checked some of his statements. Here's one:

KENNEDY, on how many Americans have died from COVID-19: “I don’t think anybody knows that, because there was so much data chaos coming out of the CDC and there were so many perverse incentives.”

THE FACTS: This data is easily accessible. Approximately 1.2 million Americans have died from the virus, according to both the CDC, and the WHO.

PBS also did some fact-checking and found this:

[Sen. Bill] Cassidy asked Kennedy if he agreed that President Donald Trump deserves a Nobel Prize for Operation Warp Speed, Trump’s 2020 initiative that resulted in the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines.

“Absolutely,” Kennedy said.

Cassidy said Kennedy’s support surprised him, because of Kennedy’s COVID-19 vaccine criticisms and actions. Kennedy canceled funding for mRNA vaccine research, the science that led to the rapid development of the vaccine.

PBS also pointed out:

In 2021, Kennedy falsely said the COVID-19 vaccine was the “deadliest vaccine ever made.” 

Kennedy has also claimed (again, this is simply false) a link between vaccines and autism.

So let me ask you, Senator, do you think that the COVID-19 vaccines saved millions of lives or was it the deadliest vaccine ever made"?

Are you vaccinated against COVID-19, Senator?  If so, why?  And if not, why not? 

What are your thoughts on vaccines in general? 

I'll await your answer, Senator.

As always, whatever answer I get, I'll post it here.

Fetterman Friday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator Fetterman;

I'd like to ask you again about Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. And I am asking you for a comment since you voted to confirm her appointment. 

On September 2, Reuters reported:

A federal judge on Tuesday blocked U.S. President Donald Trump's administration from using the military to fight crime in California, as the Republican president threatened to send troops to more U.S. cities including Chicago.

 

San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer found that the Trump administration willfully violated a law known as the Posse Comitatus Act, which sharply limits the use of the military for domestic enforcement, by employing troops to control crowds and bolster federal agents during immigration and drug raids. The administration deployed 4,000 National Guard members and 700 active-duty U.S. Marines to Los Angeles in June.

On the other hand, Politico reported a few days earlier: 

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on Sunday stated that President Donald Trump’s deployment of the National Guard saved Los Angeles from certain destruction. 

“L.A. wouldn’t be standing today if President Trump hadn’t taken action then. That city would have burned down if left to the devices of the mayor and the governor of that state,” Noem told CBS’ Ed O’Keefe on “Face the Nation.” 

Senator, which is correct?  Was Trump's decision to send in the National Guard a violation of Posse Comitatus or did that decision save Los Angeles from being burned down?

Any comment on how Secretary Noem is doing her job? Any regrets on your vote to confirm her?

I'll await your answer.

As always, I'll post here whatever answer I get from the Senator.

McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator McCormick;

I'd like to ask you about some recent events.

CBS News reported that:

President Trump on Tuesday claimed, "I have the right to do anything I want" as Chicago waits to see if he will follow through with his threat to send National Guard troops to Chicago..

That link leads to this other article at CBS:  

The Pentagon has been planning for weeks to deploy military troops in Chicago, as part of President Trump's plan to crack down on crime, homelessness, and undocumented immigration, similar to his approach in Washington, D.C., the Washington Post reported on Saturday.

According to the Washington Post, the Pentagon's plans include mobilizing at least a few thousand National Guard troops as early as September, and officials have also discussed the use of active-duty troops.

Does the president indeed have the right to "do anything [he wants]" as he asserted? So far he's discussed sending in the National Guard to cities governed by Democratic Mayors.

Both Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are currently governed by democratic mayors, right? 

Given this from the US Code:

Whenever—

(1) the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; 

 

(2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or 

 

(3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States; 

 

the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia. [Emphasis added.]

Does President Trump have the right to send the National Guard into either city uninvited?    

I'll await your answer, Senator.

As always, whatever answer I get, I'll post it here.