All_Pro_Bills

My prediction is sometime next week Garland to sics the DOJ after Rittenhouse on some sort of "civil rights violations" of the 3 "victims" investigation.

If I could run the 100 meters three seconds faster I'd be the Olympic champion in the event. And we can engage in hypothetical's by eliminating or changing one thing or another that occurred that night but that doesn't absolve anyone from their actions. Why not go back further? Maybe if the event was a peaceful protest rather than a riot it would have turned out different? Maybe if the mayor let the police do their jobs it would have been different? Maybe if Blake cooperated with police when they attempted to arrest him on a felony warrant rather than engage in a confrontation it wouldn't have resulted in a shooting? And none of this would be happening..

Strip away all the political and social commentary and this is perhaps the key insight. Chasing somebody is an act of aggression. Its a signal you want to engage in a confrontation. If not you don't chase them, period. You can't argue that somebody who initiates a confrontation is the victim. They are not. They are the assailant, they are the instigator. The other individual, armed or not has a right to self-defense regardless of the argument made by the prosecutor. Combine this with the knowledge the city government will not allow the police to act or intervene in the riot and you're already aware that you're on your own. So self-defense is the only option as police response is off the table in this situation. Also, the citizens arrest argument is off the table when testimony revealed one of the rioters threatened that he was going to kill Rittenhouse. That's not an arrest scenario, that's an execution. Ironically, something the protesters/rioters were there to protest and riot about regarding a police shooting. Now we can argue the "just shoot him in the leg" position on the use of deadly force but a very good assumption is that if nobody chased the kid down and attacked him from behind he'd have run down the street without any such incident taking place.

Herd immunity is a term that has been eliminated from the conversation. Is there anyone left that still believes a 100% level of vaccination will stop the virus? That might work if the vaccine was durable and the virus was stable but neither of those things is true. It wears off over time and leave the "vaccinated" no better off than the un-vaccinated. It appears a more complex prevention/treatment/vaccination response is required. I'll leave it to the experts to figure that out but their singular obsession with vaccination of everyone for perpetuity looks like a fail. It time to a) admit to the limits of medical science, 2) get a better plan.

I guess since its become completely transparent that standard operating procedure of the administration is to weaponize the DOJ, Federal law enforcement, and security and intelligence agencies against the political enemies of their protected constituents social and political causes there's nothing to discuss.

To the left its not a question of law and order, self-defense, or Constitutional protections. Or a trial by jury hearing testimony and evaluating the evidence to render a verdict. Its simply that some random guy dared to intervene in a protest/riot that was sanctioned by the political left where the police were ordered not enforce the law and as a result of his presence 2 politically protected members of the riot were killed and 1 politically protected member of the riot was wounded by a politically unprotected outsider. A politically unprotected outsider that's not a member of the left can't be allowed to get away with that. Because their fear is what's next? Every time they call off the police and allow their protected political organizations somewhere to riot, harm people, and destroy property all of a sudden random private citizen(s) or groups will be empowered to take action and eliminate the threat to their persons and property regardless of the politicians order the police to stand-down with the intent of letting their supporters riot. One potential result, no more riots as anarchists get the message they're "fair game" and the protection the politicians provide in exchange for their services is not longer possible. For the political left that's worst case and it can't be allowed.

In the middle of a lawless environment facilitated by government that sat back and endorsed anarchy. What else did anyone expect would happen under those circumstances? I've said this before and it seems to go over a lot of people's heads. And exactly what are the rules for defending yourself during a riot? One the government encourages and takes no action to stop? Anybody with an ounce of common sense and a weapon would have done the same thing that kid did. If you think you wouldn't do the same thing then you'd be dead. Period.

To protect people and property from rioters that the police and the mayor abandoned because Democratic officials support anarchist in the streets across America.

Thanks for your service. Don't worry certain posters always pull the race card when cornered by their otherwise empty argument. Take it as vindication that you've won.

My point is city and state officials repealed the rule of law when they consciously decided not to enforce it because of favored causes and groups and looked the other way as looters and rioters rampaged through the city. All they had to do was let the police do their jobs. The bloods on the hands of the mayor and governor. How can you break the law when there is no law to break? As the mayor decided not to enforce the law. They could have stopped any violence and injuries from happening simply by doing their jobs correctly. The question is have the idiots running the city and the state learned their lesson? Are they going to let rioters run free to pillage and burn the city again if the verdict is innocent? It wouldn't surprise me.

House Republicans in the Judiciary Committee have sent a Tuesday letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland after an FBI whistleblower provided 'a protected disclosure' revealing that "the FBI's Counterterrorism Division is compiling and categorizing threat assessments related to parents, including a document directing FBI personnel to use a specific "threat tag" to track potential investigations." So when he testified on the topic he lied. Once again authoritarian government coming down on private citizens that oppose their agenda. In a free society government should be mediating and settling disputes between conflicted parties through encouraging debate, providing mediation and through fair application of the law, not taking one side or the other while using force and coercion to suppress fair discourse and conversation. This current crew is a bunch of fascist hacks..

Wow. Please enroll in a basic reading comprehension class at the local community college.

What exactly do you believe the "rules of engagement" are during a riot? Adding in the fact that city and state officials refused to meet their obligations to maintain social order and public safety. In the process they violated and nullified the contract between the people and the government. Along with that challenging the right to self-defense in a lawless environment they allowed to exist. And in the process let anarchists decide what the "law" is during the event. The reality is there are no rules in that situation. Anything goes in order to survive or stay alive. And why should anyone follow the rule of law in that situation? All that does is get you dead. And why? The government has told you by their inaction the rules don't matter. And then later they're going to sit in judgment? If anyone should be prosecuted in Kenosia it should be the mayor and other government officials for negligence and dereliction of duty.

How exactly should one show up for a riot? Tux and top hat? Reality is when people with all kinds of weapons show up at a riot intent on committing violence there are going to be bad consequences all around. So maybe don't riot. Given your stand on 1/6 I assume you have a negative view of rioters. And perhaps finding some common ground we might agree the police and city government in Kenosia should have acted to prevent violence and arrest those intent on committing it. And doing so possibly could have prevented this entire unfortunate incident from ever occurring.

Oh, if the verdict is "not guilty" there will definitely be riots. And the White (the CRT nuts think using capital "W" in spelling White is racist!) Supremacist narrative is the go to move at the moment. The press has already pumped out massive amounts of propaganda pushing their standard America is on trial here narrative and not one individual being judged in court based on the evidence and decision of a jury. Any jury verdict that acquits will be portrayed as laced with one form of bias or another. Guaranteed. When you believe the world is full of victims there's no other way to see it. The question is what will be the response of liberal administrations running the city governments? Are they going to just sit back and let it happen like they did in 2020 to make a political statement or are they going to enforce civil order? It's a Catch-22. If they enforce the law, make arrests, crack down on violent demonstrations they run the risk of antagonizing the activist base. But if they let riots occur and pictures of these events are plastered all over the media, despite best efforts that will be made to suppress these images (Youtube blocking, Facebook & Google censoring, NBC ignoring, and more..), then they run the risk of alienating even more voters than they've pissed off since the inauguration in January 2021. My guess is that its just not in their DNA and the natural tendency is not to let the chance for a good riot to go to waste.

I find it futile to engage in topics related to law-and-order with the authoritarian left. If its a political opponent then maximum sentences, automatic assumptions of guilt, and showing no mercy applies. But if it applies to popular positions like de-fund the police, looting is a form of reparations, no bail for crimes, lenient prosecutors refusing to prosecute violent criminals, drug infested encampments on city streets, eliminate prisons, events like CHAZ, and so on then they're all on board with ignoring or breaking the law or giving criminals a pass to go out and commit more crimes. Because political opponents are dangerous criminals and economic or social criminals are victims.

I could agree with your disarming theory under different circumstances. Such as a nightclub, a school, a church, or a shopping center, for examples. Situations where people are going about their business without intent to cause harm to persons or property. Situations where the motives and intent of individuals present are very clear. But under the context of a riot in progress, where police and civil authority are unwilling to act or intervene, and some number of the crowd are committing criminal acts consistent with rioting and looting? An environment where lawlessness is the temporary norm of behavior? I can't agree.

The current cast of players that present and believe themselves to be progressives or liberals are in reality authoritarians and supporters of the use of the triumvirate of big central government, main stream big media, and big tech as a tool of oppression of their social and political enemies. Their tactics are no different from Fascists, Nazi's, Stalinist's, Maoists, whatever you want to call them, yet they believe themselves to be of great virtue and enlightenment. They are the worst kind of fanatics. They believe their own lies. Every solution they advocate for every problem involves big government with a heavy dose of force and coercion. The idea that the individual has rights to things like self-determination absent government control is inconceivable to them. Traditional Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives., moderate Democrats, and people that think of themselves as Independents that still believe reasoning things out with them or attempting compromise are fools.

Who was charged with terrorism on 1/6? Kenosia is about real events and not some imaginary scenario or some false comparison.

No matter who the broadcast crew is we've started a drinking game during the TV broadcast. Whenever they say the word "pressure" everyone does a shot. But as its gotten so popular with the crews we've had to scale it back to a sip of your beer or else everybody would be passed out before halftime. Maybe they use the term 60 or 70 times during the game.

To this point the MSM has pretty much created their own version of what's transpired in the courtroom from day one. If you watched any of the trial on TV and then compared that experience with the opinions and observations of political hacks like Lemon and Cuomo you might get the idea there are two different trials going on at the same time. The one you're watching and the one they're commenting about. What they also have a penchant for is taking a situation where one man is on trial and extrapolating it into an indictment of society complete with their favorite social justice narratives. Its not Rittenhouse that's on trial its all of America. A specific segment of America. As for the MSM at the end of the day if the jury decides on an acquittal my bet is the narrative and conclusion will be its because the judge, the defendant, defense counsel, the jury, and all the witnesses are all White Supremacists. All commanded by some invisible force that organizes secret calls and meetings in order to conspire with the Wisconsin court system while also tampering with the jury. Immediately following will be howls and cries for a Federal investigation by the DOJ into potential Civil Rights violations which Garland will instruct attorneys at the DOJ to pursue. Then watch and wait for that to flop too.

She'll shoot him in the face if he doesn't appear. Then lead the committee's search party to find Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that intelligence sources believe were taken by Bigfoot.

Appeals Court re-affirms stay on Biden vaccine OSHA rule mandate. Likely headed to a Supreme Court test. "The mandate is staggeringly overbroad," the opinion said adding that the vaccine mandate "raises serious constitutional concerns" and "likely exceeds the federal government’s authority." Proponents argued the mandates serve the public interest and they are necessary to put an end to the nearly two-year coronavirus pandemic. The court commented "the public interest is also served by maintaining our constitutional structure and maintaining the liberty of individuals to make intensely personal decisions according to their own convictions - even, or perhaps particularly, when those decisions frustrate government officials". https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/11/12/appeals-court-hits-brakes-biden-covid-19-vaccine-rule-employers/6359969001/

Well, one theory is that in the face of evidence there would be a very large and potentially violent crowd of protesters that day a decision was made to not augment security and leave a standard security detail in place at the Capitol in order to allow or trigger a rather uneventful "riot" to occur that resulted in no loss of life or physical harm to anyone of consequence in order to use the chaos of the event as pretext for justifying the issuing some draconian restrictions on opposition political activity and free speech.

That's it. And to stack the deck further that's why Nancy vetoed all Republican committee appointment names that would be unfriendly to a politically motivated course of business. That's not how the house committee appointment process works. The majority does not have veto power over minority appointments. In my view, one reason why this committee is illegitimate and nothing more than a political show to placate the base hungry for a win. In the end they'll prove nothing but provide lots of suspicions and conclusions that will allow the faithful to still believe the narrative.