Wednesday, February 24, 2021
Former Staffer Accuses Gov. Andrew Cuomo of Sexual Harassment
A former aide accused New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) of unwanted sexual advances in a blog post published Wednesday.
Lindsey Boylan, the former deputy secretary for economic development and special adviser to Cuomo, said Cuomo repeatedly touched her body, attempted to kiss her on the mouth, invited her to play “strip poker,” and overtly objectified her, documenting her experiences with screenshots of emails and texts in a Medium post.
Boylan alleges that Cuomo’s top female staff members “normalized” the governor’s conduct. In 2018, she says, she began to “speak up” after Cuomo allegedly kissed her without consent, but her superiors “reprimanded” her:
After that, my fears worsened. I came to work nauseous every day. My relationship with his senior team — mostly women — grew hostile after I started speaking up for myself. I was reprimanded and told to get in line by his top aides, but I could no longer ignore it.The allegations come as Cuomo’s administration is under investigation by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney in Brooklyn following reports that the governor’s top deputy told Democrat lawmakers that officials withheld the nursing home data, admitting that they “froze” due to fears that the figures could “be used against us” in a federal probe.
On September 26, 2018, I sent a mass email informing staff members of my resignation.
The New York Post first revealed the damning admission.
In response to the scandal, New York state lawmakers are calling for Cuomo’s emergency powers, granted for coronavirus pandemic, to be stripped from him.
There have been more than 13,000 confirmed and presumed-positive coronavirus deaths of nursing home residents since March 1, 2020, with about 4,091 of those deaths occurring after the resident was...
Mother Of Officer Sicknick Says Media Got Her Son’s Death Wrong, Rejects NYT Fire Extinguisher Story
The mother of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, who died one day after the Capitol riots in January, rejected media assertions weaponized by Democrats in their impeachment trial that her son was killed from head trauma by a fire extinguisher.
“He wasn’t hit on the head, no. We think he had a stroke, but we don’t know anything for sure,” Gladys Sicknick told the Daily Mail in an interview published Tuesday. “We’d love to know what happened.”
The false narrative first came from the New York Times, which headlined an article, “Capitol Police Officer Dies From Injuries in Pro-Trump Rampage,” published on Jan. 8, two days after the riot.
“[Pro]-Trump supporters … overpowered Mr. Sicknick, 42, and struck him in the head with a fire extinguisher, according to two anonymous law enforcement officials,” the paper reported. Democrats repeatedly cited the story and even introduced it into evidence at the impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump.
Subsequent reporting, however, shed doubt on the paper’s claim, which resulted in only a quiet correction more than a month later — once the Senate impeachment trial began to wrap up.
“New information has emerged regarding the death of the Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick that questions the initial cause of his death provided by officials close to the Capitol Police,” an update now reads at the top of the page.
Medical examiners told CNN in a story published on Feb. 2 that they failed to find signs that Officer Sicknick “sustained any blunt force trauma,” let alone by a fire extinguisher. ProPublica cast doubt on the fire extinguisher story much sooner, publishing comments from Sicknick’s brother, Ken, on Jan. 8. Ken said his brother texted the family hours after the attack that he had been pepper-sprayed but was doing fine.
“He texted me last night and said, ‘I got pepper-sprayed twice,’ and he was in good shape,” Ken told ProPublica. “Apparently he collapsed in the Capitol and they resuscitated him using CPR.”
House Democrats, however, still cited false evidence at their impeachment trial that Sicknick was conclusively killed by a blow from a fire extinguisher. They even included the story in a pretrial memo. “Insurrectionists killed a Capitol police officer by striking him in the head with a fire extinguisher,” Democrats wrote.
The Sicknick family, meanwhile, is still awaiting answers regarding the...
Ivy League ‘Wokes’ are the Biggest Supporters of Political Violence
D.C. doesn’t need the National Guard, but Columbia and Yale might.
The Democrats and their media have spent the past few months crying about political violence coming from conservatives, calling for gun control, and militarizing the nation’s capital. All of the agonizing about political violence came after a year in which ‘woke’ Black Lives Matter mobs killed, beat, and burned their way across the country in an orgy of ‘mostly peaceful’ violence.
Even the most modest estimates of political woke terror in 2020 place it at 8 dead, over 700 injured, and over $2 billion in damages. And the year could have ended even more bloodily with the Left prepping for mass protests with “bail funds that could be activated in response to mass arrests" and a fund “for the families of anyone killed in violence on or around Election Day."
Months before the election, 41% of Democrats suggested that there would be at least a little justification for violence if President Trump won. Those are numbers the media won’t discuss.
While the media continues to promote a phantom conservative threat, it doesn’t want to look at where the violence is coming from in its own ranks. But it will not surprise anyone who remembers the seventies that Democrat support for violence is coming from the Ivy League.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) free speech survey from 2020 found that the highest level of tolerance for political violence came from Columbia University students. Three-quarters of Columbia students identified themselves as some form of “liberal” while less than 10% would describe themselves as politically conservative.
Meanwhile at Yale, 1 in 5 students were willing to tolerate political violence under some circumstances. These are the future leaders of the country’s public and private institutions.
The college with the most conservative student body, Brigham Young, making up about half the students, also had a student body with the least tolerance for political violence.
While most surveys don't break down support for political violence within a party, the FIRE college survey showed that "students identifying as extremely liberal said violence to stop a speech or event from occurring on campus was 'always' or 'sometimes' acceptable at a rate double than students identifying as extremely conservative."
The identified political demographic with the strongest support for violence was the Left.
The 'wokes' weren't directly represented, but so-called non-binary gender students, an almost certain 'tell' of wokeness, were the most violent with 1 in 10 believing that violence was sometimes or always acceptable, and a third believing that political violence could be justified. Three-quarters of this group identified as...
Brooklyn Lawyers Charged for Throwing Molotov Cocktails at Cops at Black Lives Matter Riot Get Sweet Plea Deal
Black and brown privilege at work.
Two Brooklyn attorneys who faced life in prison for allegedly tossing a molotov cocktail at a New York Police Department (NYPD) vehicle during a Black Lives Matter (BLM) riot have received sweet plea deals from authorities.
Colinford Mattis, 32, and Urooj Rahman, 31, were arrested after Rahman allegedly made a molotov cocktail out of a Bud Light bottle and hurled it at a police van. Thankfully, nobody was hurt by the terrorist act. Mattis served as her getaway driver, according to authorities.
In addition, Rahman was seen holding the homemade bomb in her van, according to surveillance footage found at the scene. Mattis and Rahman could have faced anywhere from between 5 years in prison to life behind bars if they were convicted of these crimes. As a result of the plea deal, they may walk without any real repercussion and be able to join future BLM revolutionary terror displays.
They claimed they should not be made to abide by the law because they only damaged property and not people, and prosecutors seem to be buying their rationale.
 |
| This is not them however, it is illustrative... |
“What I saw was targeting a property. No property is above a human life. Destruction of property is nothing compared to the murder of a human life,” Rahman said.
She defended terrorism as being necessary to promote her extremist left-wing political agenda.
“I understand why people are doing it. It’s a way to show their pain, their anger. I think the mayor should have pulled his police department back, the way that the...
House Democrats, Targeting Right-Wing Cable Outlets, Are Assaulting Core Press Freedoms
Democrats' justification for silencing their adversaries online and in media -- "they are spreading fake news and inciting extremism" -- is what despots everywhere say.
Not even two months into their reign as the majority party that controls the White House and both houses of Congress, key Democrats have made clear that one of their top priorities is censorship of divergent voices. On Saturday, I detailed how their escalating official campaign to coerce and threaten social media companies into more aggressively censoring views that they dislike — including by summoning social media CEOs to appear before them for the third time in less than five months — is implicating, if not already violating, core First Amendment rights of free speech.
Now they are going further — much further. The same Democratic House Committee that is demanding greater online censorship from social media companies now has its sights set on the removal of conservative cable outlets, including Fox News, from the airwaves.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee on Monday announced a February 24 hearing, convened by one of its sub-committees, entitled “Fanning the Flames: Disinformation and Extremism in the Media.” Claiming that “the spread of disinformation and extremism by traditional news media presents a tangible and destabilizing threat,” the Committee argues: “Some broadcasters’ and cable networks’ increasing reliance on conspiracy theories and misleading or patently false information raises questions about their devotion to journalistic integrity.”
Since when is it the role of the U.S. Government to arbitrate and enforce precepts of “journalistic integrity”? Unless you believe in the right of the government to regulate and control what the press says — a power which the First Amendment explicitly prohibits — how can anyone be comfortable with members of Congress arrogating unto themselves the power to dictate what media outlets are permitted to report and control how they discuss and analyze the news of the day?
But what House Democrats are doing here is far more insidious than what is revealed by that creepy official announcement. Two senior members of that Committee, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Silicon-Valley) and Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA) also sent their own letters to seven of the nation’s largest cable providers — Comcast, AT&T, Spectrum, Dish, Verizon, Cox and Altice — as well as to digital distributors of cable news (Roku, Amazon, Apple, Google and Hulu) demanding to know, among other things, what those cable distributors did to prevent conservative “disinformation” prior to the election and after — disinformation, they said, that just so happened to be spread by the only conservative cable outlets: Fox, Newsmax and OANN.
In case there was any doubt about their true goal — coercing these cable providers to remove all cable networks that feature conservative voices, including Fox (just as their counterparts on that Committee want to ban right-wing voices from social media) — the House Democrats in their letter said explicitly what they are after: namely, removal of those conservative outlets by...
Are migrant children receiving ‘classroom education’ while teacher’s unions keep American kids out?
Unaccompanied migrant children apprehended at the border are provided with a number of taxpayer-funded services including “classroom education,” according to the Department of Homeland Security agency that handles their care. Some frustrated Americans want to know if the program includes in-person learning under the rules of the pandemic.
We’d like that question answered, too.
The issue arose as millions of American kids continue to be denied similar opportunities to learn in-person by recalcitrant teacher’s unions that say that it’s too dangerous with the lingering COVID-19 pandemic.
Reports on Tuesday noted that DHS reopened a migrant overflow facility in Carrizo Springs, Texas, as illegal immigration ramps up following a series of executive orders signed last month by President Joe Biden as he took office that undid most of former President Donald Trump’s tough border enforcement actions.
According to DHS’ Office of Refugee Resettlement, reopening the facility was necessary in order to prevent unaccompanied alien children (UAC) from being kept in facilities operated by the U.S. Border Patrol. According to USA Today, reopening the Influx Care Facility will “ensure that children are placed in an appropriate setting where they can receive care and services, such as education, medical and mental health care, counseling, recreation, and access to legal services.”
The ORR’s website notes that education services will be provided in a classroom setting:
Services include:
— Classroom education
— Health care
— Socialization/recreation
— Vocational training
— Mental health services
— Family reunification
— Access to legal services; and
— Case management
Federal law requires the government to provide these and other services and care to UACs who have no legal immigration status, are under 18 years of age, and have no legal guardian in the U.S. The law also requires children to be transferred to such shelters, which are operated by the Department of Health and Human Services, within 72 hours of being apprehended.
According to Axios, HHS is currently caring for about 5,000 UACs.
Meanwhile, American children around the country are still being kept out of classroom learning environments mostly because teacher’s unions have refused to allow their members to return to schools, claiming that doing so puts them at risk of contracting COVID-19.
But that claim runs afoul of federal health guidelines and research indicating there is little chance of the virus being spread in schools that are open.
In fact, last week Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, said that research shows the virus spreads more rapidly through communities when schools remain closed.
“What we are finding from the science-based literature is that there is more spread that is happening in the community when schools are not open than when schools are...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)