• Trump does not have a faultless record on personnel decisions, he (and we) endured some very bad ones.
  

Liz Cheney is the House Republican Conference chair, the third-highest position in the House Republican leadership. She has exercised terrible judgement and frankly if she had integrity would resign.  She is the third woman elected to that position after Deborah Pryce and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (maybe it is time the HRC  should not consider the position now female only).  Nevertheless there has been a lot of buzz, including from Trump,  about replacing Cheney with Elise Stefanik of New York  whose main virtue may be Woman and not a Trump antagonist ( if the following analysis is dependable.)

What is needed to replace Liz Cheney is a smart legislative operator devoted to moving an agenda, who has an understanding of the troops and some PR savvy, a team player who agrees with the agenda and who is personally deserving of confidence.

Erick Erickson is a Trump antagonist so take his points below with a few grains of salt. However, if substantially true and without compelling explanation, we do not see how Stefanik is even close to the go to person. Supporting Trump as a person is nice, but we are more concerned about the “Trump” agenda.

🚨🚨🚨 GOP DANGER

Erick-Woods Erickson May 7

0

0

Set forth here are a collection of recent graphics from two of our favorites — Terrel Aftermath and Stilton’s Place.  The TA item up first exquisitely captures what is our observation and concern about the continued masking without rhyme or reason we see every day. The compliance seems more fit for somewhere other than the US. A dystopian paradise perhaps.   In stores that really don’t care, outside, the dutifulness of it is one thing (bad as it is), the apparent relishing of it is another. I believe many people are so affected by the propaganda about viral spreading that they wear their mask, including those who have  had one of the vaccine as a security blanket while they suck their thumbs about the “Rona”

0

0

• On to the governor — should she sign it?
• How do supporters of vaccine passports in any setting square their support with the Federal and Iowa constitutions and  civil rights legislation?

On Wednesday the Iowa legislature passed limited restrictions on so called vaccination passports. The Senate acceded to House bill — House File 889 .  The Senate  vote was essentially along party lines at about 32 or so to 16.  It is now on to Governor Reynolds’ desk –  Should she and will she sign it?

Regrettably the legislation exempts health care entities in general from requiring proof of vaccination from visitors or personnel.  The exemption portends the inability of unvaccinated otherwise healthy family or friends to visit hospitalized family members or otherwise assist with their well-being in a healthcare setting. Of note is that health care workers have been among the most reluctant to get the vaccines, knowing or seeing the side-effects, reading the studies and epidemiology, knowing they are all experimental at this stage and the limited liability the producers enjoy, realizing the limited protection they may provide to evolving strains and the true limited risks for themselves and others if they are healthy, not to mention the availability of cures as the disease is 95+% survivable overall and even more so among the uncompromised.

Here are the core federal constitutional and legislative laws which are controlling. How do they square with any exemptions when out of religious and philosophical scruples and their own research people refuse mandatory COVID vaccinations?  Apart from those matters implications HIPAA is also s matter that would seem to disallow or at least severely control what health care providers can require and reveal about patients should a health care entity require COVID vaccination(s).

Laws that apply to all

Erie Insurance issued  this commentory as regards the broader topic of First Amendment rights

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII): This established that employers can’t discriminate against people because of their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The law also requires employers to reasonably accommodate applicants’ and employees’ sincerely held religious practices.    . . .

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA): This law makes it illegal to discriminate against employees or applicants because of genetic information. Genetic information includes information about an individual’s genetic tests and the genetic tests of an individual’s family members, as well as information about any disease, disorder or condition of an individual’s family members (i.e. an individual’s family medical history).

These laws also make it illegal to retaliate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit. Remember: Local or state laws might get more specific than these federal laws. Be sure to familiarize yourself with any laws unique to your area, and consult a lawyer for specific legal advice pertaining to your business.

UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964

SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer –

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

(l) Prohibition of discriminatory use of test scores

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a respondent, in connection with the selection or referral of applicants or candidates for employment or promotion, to adjust the scores of, use different cutoff scores for, or otherwise alter the results of, employment related tests on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

(m) Impermissible consideration of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in employment practices

Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, an unlawful employment practice is established when the complaining party demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice.

Summary of the HIPAA Privacy Rule  

Can a business refuse to do business with a person on account of  that person not having or failure to verify having beeb recipoient of a COVID vaccine/with race or religion (Lawblog,com)

The United States Constitution, Ist Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The United States Constitution, 14th Amendment:

Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

0

0

• Who the hell is running things!
• Life, personal vaccine freedom, freedom from COVID tyranny, election integrity, protect our culture, simple uncomplicated things other states are doing or have done already.  Take note and pass similar

For crying out loud, Republicans in the Iowa legislature  have a 32 to 18 majority in the Senate and a 59 to 41 majority in the House AND a Republican governor.

Do you think they can get their act together and pass simple sound protective legislation when solid examples are evident!? Uncomplicated non loop-hole riddled, and not vague legislation should have already been passed and signed into law regarding:

A Constitutional amendment to merely allow (not even require) the protection of the unborn and correct the Iowa Supreme Court ruling which in essence says somehow the Iowa Constitution enshrines abortion on demand without limitation and disallows regulation to protect the right to life. Never-mind that BS interpretation was unthinkable to the legislature and people who formed and passed the Iowa Constitution and subsequently regulated abortion.

On this matter the Iowa Republicans have a decent example in Tennessee and what they did.  It is a wording tested by virtue of passing the plebiscite there.  It makes clear that their state constitution allows the legislature to act to regulate abortion.  It is a wording that people can understand when they go to the voting booth rather than wonder what a vague untested wording being pushed by the organization The Family Leader actually means.  We have communicated with legislative leadership regarding the matter and others directly.  Hopefully we will have time to elaborate here in a coming post.

Make evident that vaccination and general mask requirements are against public policy for lack of scientific efficacy and as an assault on personal freedom of conscience. Employees and others that are victims of employer mandates should be provided a presumptive civil cause of action and employers sanctioned by the state. There are sound approaches passed in other states but the protective essence must be addressed simply and thoroughly.  Loophole riddled legislation we have seen of late is worse than none at all.

Outlaw focused private money going to government entities used under color of government auspices to run election turn-out activities.  SEE PREVIOUS POST

Restrict counties and municipalities especially mayors from imposing health lock-downs mandates without limitations or without a sound basis and contrary to well considered state policy

THERE ARE MORE EXAMPLES TO PROTECT OUR FREEDOMS AND CULTURE THAT A TRULY WOKE, AS IN AWAKE, LEGISLATURE CAN DO QUICKLY IN RESPONSE TO THE UTTER ASSAULT ON OUR FREEDOMS GOING ON RIGHT NOW IN SO MANY AREAS.  THE IOWA LEGISLATURE DOES NOT HAVE TO REINVENT THE WHEEL NOR SHOULD IT PASS LEGISLATION THAT IS RIDDLED WITH LOOPHOLES. IT DOES NEED TO STAY IN SESSION AND ACT ON THESE AND OTHER IMPORTANT MATTERS.

0

0

Judicial Watch: Records Show Iowa State Officials Coordinated with Big Tech to Censor Election Posts

Paul Pate is Iowa Secretary of State (SOS).  A Republican, supposedly a conservative of sorts (like the Georgia Governor, etc). We find his stated policy of “make voting easy and secure” or words to that effect nauseating.  Making voting “easier” after a point becomes a solicitation for the ill-informed to vote, and that is Pate’s history.  There is no civic virtue in encouraging voting before debates even begin or in championing using the most vulnerable to fraud method of voting. He claims credit for some voter security improvements in the state but that is Republican dogma. In my judgement he has undermined voter security by pushing vote by mail over the years and championing early voting by mail.

Not mentioned in the Judicial watch article is that Pate recommended that Iowa counties take Billionaire liberal Mark Zuckerberg’s CTCL money if they wanted to. Imagine that, how oblivious at best could he be given the known pedigree of the personnel running that show in addition to Zuckerberg’s own political proclivities?  Imagine allowing  private money to target early voting and other Dem get-out-the-vote priorities under color of government operations.

Of course the counties /states Zuckerberg’s organization CTCL pursued were largely Dem electoral targets including Iowa. Some Republican county auditors (who are the top local election officials in Iowa) took the money, oblivious as well, but certain big counties are run by Dem auditors and they were no doubt in tune and particularly eager for it.

The Republican run Iowa legislature needs to outlaw focused private money going to government entities used under color of government auspices to run election turn-out activities.

A “non-profit” policy or partisan entity can run their focused election “vote early” and turn-out effort independent of government. Government doing their bidding is  inherently suspect, subject to partisan strategizing.  Further, the use of the entities grants for turn-out efforts associates government approval to that entity’s donors and their policy proclivities and partisanship.

Even the one-day use of private entity space for election day voting can be manipulated for partisan effect.  Indeed a Scott County Auditor once proposed using a bar owned and named for a well-known union organizer as a satellite voting location. That said, and a careful watch as to any manipulations, donation of church building space and perhaps other non-public exceptions for election day voting can be employed for practicality in various counties.  It is nowhere near the same issue.

Reading the article linked in the tease box above, also set forth below, and the accompanying links,  I see not much of a rebuttal to Judicial Watch’s concerns from Pate or his spokes-hole Kevin Hall.  Hall is  formally of The Iowa Republican, a now largely inactive if not defunct but one time important publication. His flacking for Pate is a real disappointment.  Regardless,  I see in their response an admission of sorts that the Iowa SOS office submits questionable or untimely data to the Federal election entity referenced, which is what Judicial Watch was going by.

At least as egregious is the Iowa SOS office’s effort at censorship of Judicial Watch to avoid debate and or embarrassment.  Judicial Watch is not an organization that goes off half-cocked.  It has achieved consent decrees for several states regarding similar matters. Pate’s actions at a minimum are pathetic, maybe ought to be impeachable, certainly something else for a primary challenger to pursue against Pate.

Judicial Watch: Records Show Iowa State Officials Coordinated with Big Tech to Censor Election Posts

The records show communications between the Secretary of State’s office and representatives of Facebook and Twitter to Target Judicial Watch Posts.

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch announced today that it received 624 pages of records from the office of the Secretary of State of Iowa, revealing how state officials pressured social media companies (Twitter and Facebook) to censor posts about the 2020 election. Included in these records were emails from Iowa state officials to representatives of Big Tech pressuring these companies to remove Judicial Watch’s posts. The emails show how the state agency successfully pressured Facebook to censor Judicial Watch’s post about Iowa’s management of its voter rolls.  

Judicial Watch received the records as a result of a June 2020 Iowa Open Records lawsuit that was filed after the Iowa Secretary of State failed to comply with a February 2020 request for records and communications about a Judicial Watch report regarding the accuracy of the state’s voter registration rolls (Judicial Watch v. Iowa Secretary of State (No. 05771 EQCE085973)). Judicial Watch was represented by Iowa lawyer Alan R. Ostergren of Des Moines, Iowa.

The records show that officials in the Iowa Secretary of State office on multiple occasions contacted officials from Facebook and Twitter to try to have these companies remove Judicial Watch posts that raised concerns about Iowa’s failure to maintain accurate election rolls.

On February 3, 2020, at 5:19 p.m., Kevin Hall, the communications director for the Iowa Secretary of State, wrote in a February 3, 2020, email to Facebook official Rachel Holland:

Rachel,

We’ve been playing whack-a-mole with this false story all day. Is there anything you can do to help: [likely https://www.facebook.com/JudicialWatch/posts/10157583458431943] 

We’ve told them is fake. They have it PINNED to the top of their page. 

Here’s our rebuttal: https://sos.iowa.gov/news/2020_02_02.html

Holland responded at 6:11p.m., writing:

Hi Kevin,

Circling back with an update regarding the content posted by Judicial Watch. Our third-party fact checkers have rated this content false, and we have applied a filter over the content warning users before they click to see it that the content has been rated false by independent fact checkers.

Please continue to report violating content to us by emailing reports@content.facebook.com, and copying me (RachelHolland@fb.com), as I will be on an airplane for the next couple hours. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this or any other matters. 

A couple of hours later, Hall followed up, “Thank you! They have new posts up, doubling down on the false claims.” 

And Holland responded, “Thanks for flagging- we’ve got a full team with eyes on this now and are applying the false filter to similar articles as well. I’ll send you an additional update shortly!” 

That same day, Hall and Maria Benson, the director of communications at the National Association of Secretaries of State, both tried to convince Twitter to censor Judicial Watch’s posts but were ultimately unsuccessful. 

Hall filed a report with Twitter, and Benson escalated it by looping in Kevin Kane from Twitter. On February 3, 2020, Benson wrote, “Iowa Secretary of State has reported the below election misinformation, but Twitter has declined to take it down. As you can see from facts the tweets are clearly wrong. I wanted to bring this to your attention to hopefully remedy the situation. I’ve cc’d Kevin Hall, their Communicators Director.”

Kane responded rejecting the request saying, “Thanks Maria – This was reviewed by our team and is not in violation of our election integrity policy as it does not suppress voter turnout or mislead people about when. where. or how to vote. I understand this is not the outcome you are seeking and appreciate you continuing to report Tweets to our team.”

In an email the next day, Hall wrote to Kane saying, “Facebook, thankfully, was helpful. I would suggest perhaps reviewing your policies at Twitter and putting them more in line with what Facebook is doing to counter election misinformation.” 

After being rejected by Twitter, Benson emailed Brian Scully, an official at the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, writing on February 3, 2020: 

Hey Brian,

Can you report this as well? Hannity is now retweeting and Twitter isn’t playing ball with us. I’ve cc’d Kevin Hall who you met Saturday. He’s IA SOS’s Communications Director. He’s been reporting and playing wack a mole by trying to reply to misleading tweets.

Scully responded promising to contact Twitter. “Sorry … been out of pocket a bit. Will reach out to Twitter. Let me know if you get something.”

“These records are yet another example of state officials conspiring with Big Tech to deny Americans their First Amendment rights,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These records further show that Big Tech censorship is a government scandal: Iowa government officials worked with Facebook to remove posts they didn’t like, and Facebook bowed to this political pressure immediately. It should be disturbing to all Americans that government officials are working to censor speech they disagree with and that these behemoth companies often seem willing to roll over and censor free speech.”

Judicial Watch last week released records from the office of the Secretary of State of California revealing how state officials pressured social media companies (Twitter, Facebook, Google (YouTube)) to censor posts about the 2020 election. Included in these records were “misinformation briefings” emails that were compiled by communications firm SKDK, that lists Biden for President as their top client of 2020. The records show how the state agency successfully pressured YouTube to censor a Judicial Watch video concerning the vote by mail and a Judicial Watch lawsuit settlement about California voter roll clean up.

###

Related reading:  Here

0

0

• Questions the Panem/Capitol* Media never bothered to ask or observe
• Nothing to see here, move along.

The photos below from a  Gateway Pundit (TGP) article go back quite awhile, one or more of which we republished some days ago without annotating them further.  We do so here because it has been in our craw and to emphasize justices plight.

Red circle as per TGP shows the gun hand of the Capitol* policeman “X” identified by that publication as the shooter of Ashli Babbit. Commenters on that site wondered about the appropriateness of the position of X’s trigger finger(red circle) on his drawn weapon with the others in the line of fire as he approached the scene. Note the blue circle, that officer does not have his finger ion the trigger and he is in a much better position to see what was going ion and any perceived serious threat. Note circle yellow. That officer also has a superior vantage point and does not even have her weapon drawn. Note the white circles. That officer apparently also does not perceive any great imminent threat, as his weapon is not drawn. Officer ‘X” supposedly maintained that he feared for his life and for others due to the backpack Ashli Babbitt was wearing — something ubiquitous among tourists and protestors at every turn in DC. See annotation to next photo.

Green circle shows another protestor’s backpack. Black arrows show apparent straps to a backpack on another. All those backpacks and so few bullets for officer X. Strangely no other officer felt compelled to shoot anyone, not Ashli or any of the others armed with backpacks. It appears that individuals are attending to diminutive fallen mortally wounded Ashli Babbitt. Doubly strange is the person circled in grey, indicated by TGP to be notorious John Sullivan a BLM agitator. Perish any thought he was there as an agent provocateur.

Ironic that as in The Hunger Games, Capitol police and media tell you only what works for them. See any similarities?

0

0

Insufferable on the way out — her statement leads with how she is a servant. Commentary excerpt via TownHall follow video.  Our comments follow TownHall

Cheri Bustos Announces Retirement From Congress After Leading House Democrats To Defeat In November

Illinois Democrat Congresswoman Cheri Bustos announced Friday she will not run for re-election next year after serving a decade in the lower chamber.
“Today, I’m announcing I will not seek reelection after completing this term,” Bustos said in a video statement. “I feel it’s time for a new voice.”

Bustos, the voice who chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) last cycle lost the Democrats 15 seats in November, putting Republicans just five seats away from reclaiming the House majority in the next election cycle. The president’s party historically fares poorly in the new administration’s first midterms. Democrats expected gains rather than losses last fall.

The districts populist blue-collar and pro-Trump demeanor (subject to the Dem machine in other races) indicates the possibility she might face primary opposition and lose to a concerted Republican effort  . . .

Bustos’ upcoming exit puts Illinois’ 17th Congressional District in play next year with no incumbent with a D+3 rating on the Cook Partisan Voter Index, a moderate score. President Barack Obama carried the district handily in 2012 by 17 points, while President Donald Trump captured it in 2016 by less than one.

Whaduya wanna bet she “retires” to a lucrative job of one sort or another

How many of these “servants” exit congress poorer, or do not use “membership” as a launching pad to pursue more money or power?

Will she go for the Senate?  It would be a stretch by her words.

Will she get a cushy political appointment in pursuit of more power and money down the road?

Will she head to a non-profit some healthcare outfit, her previous “service heart” undertaking (non-profit is a laughable term in relation to most healthcare delivery in this country, especially the administration of most claiming the status).

Is she taking the fall (more like being handed the sword to fall on) for Democrat congressional operation’s near disaster which was having the likes of Nancy Palosi to defend?

Republican congressional candidates largely ran against Nancy Pelosi everywhere. Whose fault is their losses other than Nancy Pelosi?

Bustos likely saw she was in trouble, from Dem money raisers, from the possibility of a primary, from lack of enthusiasm for her from the radical Dem base, from a competent Republican challenge AND that the Dem majority is in trouble.  So she’s outta there. Perhaps she is a better political prognosticator than given credit for.

0

0

• The sheepishness Rudy describes just proves how pathetic the FBI has become, down to the street level
• How they are now a political arm of the “law” (swamp)
• The stuff they got, they had or they could have asked him for

Via Newsmax.  Graphic via Terrell Aftermath.

Rudy Giuliani: FBI Raid Evidence ‘Exculpatory’ of Innocence 

The FBI raided the residence of former President Donald Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, who says electronic evidence they already have, were already offered, and ultimately will be “exculpatory” of innocence for any crime for which they might be hunting.

“I’ve known about this for two years, Tucker,” Giuliani told Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight” of a potential raid, also noting in the interview his iCloud account was “unconstitutionally” raided during his defense of Trump during the impeachment trial.

“I could have destroyed the evidence, but I didn’t destroy the evidence because the evidence is exculpatory. It proves the president and I and all of us are innocent.

“They are the ones who are committing — it’s like projection — they’re committing the crimes.”

Among the crimes the former New York City mayor alleges is an “illegal” warrant for this week’s raid of his apartment and the raid of his iCloud account during the impeachment trial after Trump left office.

“They should be investigated for blatantly violating my constitutional rights, the president’s constitutional rights,” Giuliani told Carlson. “In the middle of the impeachment defense, they invaded, without telling me, my iCloud. They took documents that are privileged, and they unilaterally decided what they could read and not read.

“The prosecutors, the Justice Department, spied on me, and if that is not taken seriously, if that doesn’t result in their being sanctioned, the case being dismissed, and it stopping, this is no longer a free country.

“We might as well be in, you know, East Berlin before the wall fell. This is tactics only known in a dictatorship: Where you see a lawyer’s records right in the middle of his representation of his client. You should be prosecuted and disbarred for that. You should not be prosecuting somebody else.”

While Giuliani did acknowledge “professional” and “apologetic” FBI agents during the 6 a.m. ET raid this week, he noted they refused to take the hard drives Giuliani told them were from the Hunter Biden laptop, despite the warrant demanding the seizure of all electronics. In fact, they didn’t question Giuliani calling them Hunter Biden’s laptop contents.

“Hunter Biden’s hard drives fall within the scope of the subpoena,” Giuliani said. “The subpoena required them to take all electronics. They decided to leave that behind. They also were completely content to rely on my word that these were Hunter Biden’s hard drives. I mean, they could have been Donald Trump’s. They could have been Vladimir Putin’s. They could have been anybody’s. But they relied on me, the man who had to be raided in the morning.”

Giuliani’s legal defense of the illegality of the warrant is based on the fact they have no evidence, as required, to prove he was not willing to turn over anything they wanted.

“The reality is that warrant is completely illegal,” Giuliani said. “The only way you can get a search warrant is if you can show that there is some evidence that the person is going to destroy the evidence, or is going to run away with the evidence.

“Well, I’ve had it for two years and haven’t destroyed it, and they also got it from the iCloud. So, there was no justification for that warrant. It is an illegal, unconstitutional warrant.”

0

0

• Banning “critical race theory” is banning racism
• Banning “critical race theory” is banning precursor to racial spoils
• Banning “critical race theory” is banning neo-segregation
• 1619 project should be “targeted”
• Republican Iowa legislature caught up in trying to fine tune something already clear that they have the moral high ground on

Idaho Becomes First State to Ban Critical Race Theory

CV NEWS FEED // Gov. Brad Little, R-ID, signed a law Wednesday banning the use of the controversial “critical race theory” in the Idaho public education system.

Analyst and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute Christopher Rufo pointed out on social media that the move makes Idaho “the first state in the nation to ban critical race theory indoctrination in public schools.”

The bill will “prohibit schools from promoting race essentialism, collective guilt, and neo-segregation,” Rufo reported, calling the new law a “historic win.”

The bill states that public educators are now forbidden to teach students that “any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior.”

The law also prohibits teaching that “individuals should be adversely treated on the basis of their sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin” or that any people “by virtue of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin, are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past by other members of the same sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin.”

A similar law is now under consideration in Louisiana, where lawmakers face strenuous opposition from national progressive groups and local public educators.

Iowa legislature should copy Idaho and move on

Iowa Senate Republicans approve limits on diversity trainings; Democrat fears bill targets 1619 Project  

0

0

Teen whose life saved by Columbus police officer identified

NY Times liberal columnist, Bret Stephens writes:
“An alternative view: Maybe there wasn’t time for Officer Reardon, in an 11-second interaction, to “de-escalate” the situation, as he is now being faulted for failing to do. And maybe the balance of our sympathies should lie not with the would-be perpetrator of a violent assault but with the cop who saved a Black life — namely that of Tionna Bonner, who nearly had Bryant’s knife thrust into her.”

An expression of gratitude for the police officer who saved her life would be helpful…but not anticipated.

I’m going to give the youngster the benefit of the doubt.

Nevertheless, I wish the young lady whose life was saved by Officer Nicholas Reardon in the tragic Columbus,O. incident would publicly express her gratitude.

Aside from acknowledging to another officer that Ma’Khia Bryant did, indeed, attack her with a knife and was only seconds and inches from being seriously injured or even killed, the teen has said nothing more as far as I’ve been able to learn.

The reason I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and forgive her apparent reluctance to say more (and most of all say something in defense of cops in general or Officer Reardon in particular) is because she probably must still live in the neighborhood where the attack occurred. Based on overwhelming evidence, that would undoubtedly subject her to intimidation, vicious threats, and probable serious harm or ‘worse’.

In today’s atmosphere, especially in the Black community where BLM and other agitators are constantly trying to arouse people to violence, any comment, even vaguely in support of Officer Reardon’s action, or police in general, can get a person hurt seriously or even killed.

Below are two news accounts that provide a few more details surrounding the incident, and about the late Ms. Bryant:

At the Federalist

If Black Lives Matter Gives A Crap About Black Lives, It Will Retract Its Ma’Khia Bryant Statement

There is a bit more detailed rundown on the story here:

Based on eye witness accounts and video evidence, it is difficult to do anything other than to commend the police officer’s action under the most extreme and stressful conditions, while at the same time mourn the deceased teenager, despite her actions.

Much more remains to be known of events leading up to this tragedy but it is apparent that Officer Reardon deserves praise for saving a life even though extreme circumstances necessitated the tragic death of another.   dlh

0

0