Crazy b*tch doubles down on her claims of near-death experience in Capitol riot and accuses skeptics of 'minimizing the experiences of survivors' - even though she was in a different building

AOC Is Still the Biggest Lunatic in Congress

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has slammed critics who accuse her of exaggerating her experiences in the riot at the U.S. Capitol, saying they are 'minimizing the experiences of survivors.'

Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, appeared on CBS This Morning on Friday to defend her account of the January 6 riot and slam those who suggested she's making a 'mountain out of a molehill'.

The controversy has spanned the week, after Ocasio-Cortez described her stark terror and fear of death in an Instagram Live video on Monday, while critics, including Republicans in the House, pointed out that she was in the Capitol's office complex during the attack, not in the domed Capitol Building building itself.

'You know, so many survivors fear being publicly doubted. But the fact of the matter is, is that the account is accurate,' she said in the interview.

'And you know, when it comes to minimizing the experiences of survivors, that is extremely damaging as well,' Ocasio-Cortez added.

'I think it's unfortunately kind of the spring to deny and to politicize our accounts with something that I sat with,' she said.

'And it was a big reason why, you know, on top of making sure that we could clear our story due to security concerns, there's also a reason why I sat on my story, as well,' the congresswoman continued.

Democrat Rep. Jason Crow appeared along side of her in support, calling attempts to cast doubt on their account of the assault 'horrific.'

'There's no other way to describe it. This re-victimization, this minimization of survivors. This is a big part of the problem, and it has to stop,' he said.

It comes after Ocasio-Cortez spoke on the House floor Thursday night in a speech dedicated to her 'lived experience' of the riot.

'Sadly, less than 29 days later, with little to no accountability for the bloodshed and trauma of the 6th, some are already demanding that we move on,' Ocasio-Cortez said. 'Or worse, attempting to minimize, discredit or belittle the accounts of survivors.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9229111/AOC-doubles-claims-near-death-experience-Capitol-riot.html

************************************

Lawyers Are Facing Reprisal for Representing Trump. This Is Un-American

“So … you represented Trump?” That question is unfairly haunting a number of the former president’s lawyers.

Because of his legal counsel to former President Donald Trump, constitutional scholar and law professor John Eastman—the former dean of the law school no less—was pushed out of Chapman University, where he spent his entire, very distinguished academic career.

The same thing happened to Cleta Mitchell, a well-known and highly respected Washington, D.C. lawyer who had practiced with Foley and Lardner for decades.

Now, Michigan lawyers Greg Rohl, Scott Hagerstrom, and Stefanie Junttila, who represented the Trump campaign in election litigation in the state, are being unfairly and unjustly targeted for disbarment by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and state Attorney General Dana Nessel.

These lawyers find themselves in the all-too-familiar position today of being punished for carrying out their professional duties to the best of their abilities—as required by the codes of conduct that govern all attorneys—by representing a client who is politically unpopular with those in power.

This is not just wrong, but un-American—something we don’t say lightly. This country is fundamentally based on the rule of law, which depends on protecting the ability and independence of lawyers to take unpopular clients and unpopular cases, something that has been done by brave, principled lawyers throughout our nation’s history.

This is one of those lessons that people on both sides of the political aisle selectively defend and selectively forget.

Unfortunately, we’ve been here before.

Hillary Clinton was attacked for defending a child rapist as a court-appointed attorney. Lawyers who represented detainees at Guantanamo Bay were also attacked for defending terrorists.

Some progressives deride prosecutors for enforcing laws they view as unjust, and some conservatives deride defense attorneys for defending dangerous or unsavory individuals charged with committing heinous crimes. And just about everyone derides divorce lawyers.

But we are, as John Adams said, a nation of laws and not of men. That means that we insulate our justice system from the fickle whims of human nature with processes and procedures. These are designed to minimize human error and to diminish the influence of the court of public opinion.

The independence of lawyers is one of the most important parts of that system. Adams himself put his famous line into practice when, in 1770, he defended British soldiers accused of killing American colonists during the Boston Massacre. A more unpopular representation could hardly have been imagined, but Adams risked his reputation and career because he believed in the rule of law.

The right to counsel is one of the most precious rights we have because it is essential to an individual’s ability to assert any other right. As distinguished law professor Geoffrey Hazard Jr. once said, the adversarial system “stands with freedom of speech and the right of assembly as a pillar of our constitutional system.”

Harassing or punishing lawyers who represent unpopular clients or take unpopular cases undermines the rule of law.

That is exactly what the governor and attorney general of Michigan are trying to do by calling for the disbarment of several of Trump’s lawyers, who did exactly what rule 1.3 of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct directs them to do, which is practice “zeal in advocacy upon the client’s behalf.”

They claim that the lawyers should be disbarred because they “undermine[d] the faith of the public in the legitimacy of the recent presidential election, and lent credence to untruths that led to violence and unrest.”

But a commitment to the rule of law separates a lawyer from the implications of the cases he undertakes. If not, then Clinton “protected a child rapist,” and Guantanamo defense lawyers “undermined our national security and tried to free terrorists.”

Nonsense. In each of these cases, the lawyers upheld the rule of law by playing their proper role in the process. The same goes for Trump’s lawyers. They made legal claims under applicable laws that were reviewed by the courts, which is just as it should be.

That is not only an absurd claim but a dangerous one. Under that bizarre theory, all of the lawyers who represented Al Gore in 2000 in his election contest should have been disbarred.

So too the lawyers who represented Democratic congressional candidate Dan McCready in North Carolina in 2018 in an election contest that the state’s Board of Election overturned due to absentee ballot fraud.

And Democrat lawyer Marc Elias should also be disbarred for claiming that voting machines produced incorrect results that favored Republican Claudia Tenney in the race for New York’s 22nd District.

When lawyers violate their ethical obligations by, for example, filing a meritless lawsuit, the courts already have rules and procedures to deal with them. The justice system is designed to do that. But taking on an unsavory client or a client that state officials don’t like for partisan reasons does not amount to litigating in an unethical manner.

When people intentionally blur that line, as Whitmer is doing, they undermine the rule of law, the fair administration of justice, and access to the protections of our legal system.

Elections are decided at the ballot box and, in some cases, issues arising from an election and potential recounts may require legal resolution. Punishing the lawyers who represent candidates and their campaigns in these cases is not only wrong, it is disgraceful.

No matter which candidates you supported in the last election, no matter which political party you believe represents your points of view on how this country should be governed, everyone should agree that the retribution, reprisals, and payback being imposed on lawyers involved in the 2020 election have no place in our civil society.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/02/04/lawyers-are-facing-reprisal-for-representing-trump-this-is-un-american

****************************

Ideological Imperialism Is Leading to a Bad End

When it was learned in 2016 that Russia may have hacked the emails of John Podesta and the DNC, and passed the fruits on to WikiLeaks to aid candidate Donald Trump, mighty was the outrage of the American establishment.

If Russia's security services filched those emails, and a troll farm in Saint Petersburg sent tweets and texts to stir up rancor in our politics, it was said, this was an attack on American democracy and its most sacred of rituals -- the elections by which we chose our leaders.

Some called it an "act of war." Others compared it to Pearl Harbor. Almost all agreed it was intolerable interference in the internal affairs of the United States which called forth both condemnation and retribution.

Yet, when it comes to interfering in the affairs of other nations, how sinless, how blameless, are we Americans?

During the Cold War, the United States regularly dumped over regimes we believed imperiled our cause -- Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, the Congo in the 1960s. After the Cold War, the United States was a major mover in the "color revolutions" that changed regimes in Ukraine and Georgia.

According to Victoria Nuland, then of the State Department, now back again, $5 billion was pumped in to effect the overthrow of the democratically elected pro-Russian regime in Kiev and its replacement by a pro-American one.

This was the triggering event that caused Vladimir Putin to annex Crimea to secure his country's Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol.

Consider the reaction in this capital to the arrest and imprisonment of dissident Alexei Navalny, following his return from Germany, where he had been treated for chemical poisoning, allegedly by Putin's security services.

In an editorial, "Nothing But a Poisoner," The Washington Post thundered: "Western governments should be doing what they can to help this unprecedented challenge to Mr. Putin's autocracy survive and grow... "Mr. Putin has dedicated himself to exploiting the weaknesses in democratic systems. Now is the time to return the favor."

Consider what the Post is calling for here:

The U.S. and NATO nations should openly side with protesters in Russia's cities whose goal is the overthrow of Putin and of the internationally recognized government of Russia.

How, one wonders, would Americans react if Putin openly urged worldwide support for the "Stop the Steal" mob that invaded the U.S. Capitol to overturn the results of the Nov. 3 election?

Though Americans are divided over racial, cultural, social and moral issues, liberal interventionists still talk of our "universal values" that represent the future toward which all nations should aspire. Among these are the values of democracy as practiced in the United States.

These are the standards by which other nations are to be judged. And nations that do not conform to these standards are candidates for U.S. interference in their affairs. Ours is an ideological imperialism of a rare order.

Where did we Americans acquire the right to intervene in the internal affairs of nations -- be they autocracies, monarchies or republics -- that do not threaten or attack us?

When we have intervened in these nations militarily, disaster has most often been the result. It was partly because the regimes of Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen did not comport to our ideas of good governance that we went in militarily to change them. Result: millions of dead, wounded and displaced Arabs and Muslims all across the Middle East. A historic calamity.

When the Arab Spring arose, we embraced it. The democratic revolution was here! And what happened in the largest Arab nation that responded as we insisted, Egypt?

An ally of 30 years, President Hosni Mubarak, was ousted. The Muslim Brotherhood was voted into power. It was replaced a year later by a new general, Abdel Fattah el-Sissi, a man more ruthless than Mubarak.

This week, the generals in Myanmar (Burma) ousted the civilian leadership of the country and assumed full power. President Joe Biden reacted reflexively, calling it a "direct assault on the country's transition to democracy. In a democracy," said Biden, "force should never seek to override the will of the people or attempt to erase the outcome of a credible election."

Derek Mitchell of the National Democratic Institute, a subsidiary of the National Endowment for Democracy, explained: "Democracy is one of the pillars of the Biden Administration's foreign policy agenda. They recognize they have to address this pretty seriously. The question is what to do."

Actually, the larger question, the basic question is why the internal affairs of Burma, a nation 10,000 miles from the United States, are the business of the United States.

The post-Cold War world, where America stood in moral judgment of the democracy credentials of all other nations, and acted against those that did not sufficiently conform, is coming to an end.

And if we do not give up this ideological imperialism, that end, especially where Russia and China are concerned, could come sudden and soon.

https://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2021/02/05/ideological-imperialism-is-leading-to-a-bad-end-n2584263

*********************************

Newsflash to the ACLU: Boys Are Different Than Girls

In a series of tweets posted on February 3, the ACLU alleged that “trans girls are girls” and that “the idea of sex being rooted in biology is a ‘myth.’” Yes, the ACLU affirmed, “Biological sex and gender are not binaries,” and, “Trans athletes do not have an unfair advantage in sports.”

Accordingly, the only reason to deny a trans-identified student the right to play on the sports’ team of his or her choice is “pure discrimination.”

To this I say – with love and compassion to these young people who struggle with their gender identity – this is a lot of bunk.

Of course boys are different than girls.

Of course there are biological distinctions.

Of course males, on average, have biological advantages over females when it comes to strength, size and speed.

That’s why we have girls’ leagues and boys’ leagues, from little league through college through professional sports.

That’s why we have men’s and women’s competition in the Olympics, and that why we have men’s and women’s world records.

That’s why the fastest mile run by a high school male was 3.53.43 (by Alan Webb in 2001) while the fastest mile run by a high school female was 4.33.87 (by Katelyn Tuohy in 2018). What an extraordinary gap between the sexes.

That’s why a 17-year-old male cleared 19 feet in the pole vault while the world record for a female of any age stands at a little over 16 feet 5 inches.

That’s why there is no comparison in weightlifting records between men and women as “men’s ability to produce maximal force and thus levels of limit strength are much greater than those exhibited in women.”

This holds true whether we’re dealing with 16-year-olds or 26-year-olds. Males are different than females and, when it comes to athletic competition, they have distinct advantages over women.

But of course that’s the case.

You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know all this. You just need common sense. Or do you actually think that an All-Star team from the WNBA could compete with a team of the worst players in the NBA?

Someone might say, “But over a period of time, when a transwoman has been on hormone treatments for a period of years, those advantages disappear.”

Actually, those advantages might lessen, but they do not all disappear unless you think that a 6'8" male who identifies as female will lose five inches in height after years of hormone therapy. Or unless you think that a male’s additional body and muscle mass will completely vanish with enough hormones (especially if that person is an athlete who continues to exercise).

Last December, the British Journal of Sports Medicine released a major study on the “effect of gender affirming hormones on athletic performance in transwomen and transmen: implications for sporting organisations and legislators.”

What were the results? “Prior to gender affirming hormones, transwomen [meaning biological males who identify as females] performed 31% more push-ups and 15% more sit-ups in 1 min and ran 1.5 miles 21% faster than their female counterparts. After 2 years of taking feminising hormones, the push-up and sit-up differences disappeared but transwomen were still 12% faster. Prior to gender affirming hormones, transmen [meaning biological females who identify as males] performed 43% fewer push-ups and ran 1.5 miles 15% slower than their male counterparts. After 1 year of taking masculinising hormones, there was no longer a difference in push-ups or run times, and the number of sit-ups performed in 1 min by transmen exceeded the average performance of their male counterparts.”

Based on these findings, the study questioned whether the Olympics’ standard of a one-year waiting period for a trans-identified athlete was sufficient.

But this is actually a moot point when it comes to children’s sports, since many, if not most, of the students in question are not taking hormonal drugs. In other words, a “transgirl” has all the physical advantages of a male, which is why boys who competed poorly against other boys are now coming in first when competing against girls.

As I and others have repeated for years, this is not a question of discrimination. It is a question of fairness.

In the words of a high-school senior who missed out on her chance to go to the state track finals because she was beaten by two biological boys, “It’s coming down to common sense and realizing that men are physically superior to women. That’s just science. It’s not subjective. It’s objective.”

As she said in a viral video, “When I’m at the start of the race, when I’m lining up and getting into my blocks, everyone already knows the outcome. Those two athletes are going to come one and two and everyone knows it.”

That’s because they are biological males running against biological females. Boys are simply different than girls.

That’s why a 2017 study conducted by researchers in the Molecular Genetics Department of the Weizmann Institute discovered that of the 20,000 genes analyzed, “6,500 of them are expressed differently in men and women in at least one of the body's tissues.”

To say this is not to deny the existence of intersex individuals who have biological or chromosomal abnormalities. Nor is it to minimize the internal struggles experienced by many who identify as transgender.

But it is to say that biology is not bigotry and that it is outright discrimination against women and girls to force them to compete against biological males.

That’s a simple fact of life whether the ACLU likes it or not.

https://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2021/02/05/newsflash-to-the-aclu-boys-are-different-than-girls-n2584258

***************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*****************************************