90 Miles From Tyranny

Tuesday, April 12, 2022

Visage à trois #177

Three Videos For Your Viewing Pleasure:

Three Additional Bonus Videos:

Quick Hits Of Wisdom, Knowledge And Snark #349

A Seattle Man Says He Killed 'In the Name of Allah.' Why Won't the Media Report That?

After Tyrone Bernard Wells Jr. murdered Randee Leann Rios, he called 911 and announced matter-of-factly, “I’m reporting a murder.” According to the transcript made available Sunday, Wells told the 911 operator, “It was on my account.” The operator replied: “Hold on, you said the murder was on your account? What does that mean?” Wells explained, “Yes, ma’am. That means, in the name of Allah, I murdered her.”

This only confirmed what Seattle’s KING 5 reported as far back as March 30: Wells explained that “he had been reading the Qur’an before Rios came over and told police ‘that verses in the Qur’an seemed to indicate to him that it would be necessary for him to kill Rios.’” Yet for the most part, Seattle’s media has been resolutely mute about Wells’ own stated motive for the killing. Could that be because it doesn’t fit the preferred establishment media narrative?

Conservative Seattle talk radio host Jason Rantz noted Sunday that not only did Wells’ reference to the Qur’an not receive “on-air coverage from local outlets nor the Seattle Times,” but even worse, “Times reporter Sara Jean Green went a step further, claiming there was no motive presented by the prosecutors.” It’s true: Green’s March 30 account of the murder states, “The charges don’t provide a motive for Rios’ slaying, but prosecutors say Wells claimed to have been using meth in the days leading up to her killing.” Rantz points out that “this was a lie when Green reported the story,” as the charges contain Green’s words about his Qur’an reading.

Now that the 911 call transcript only underscores Wells’ Islamic motivation, will the Seattle Times report about this fact? Of course not. Rantz recounts that Jodie DeJonge, metro editor for the Times, said that the paper had no plans to “correct or update their story.” “This is a tragic, complicated story,” explained the Times. “At this time, we have no plans to revise it. We will continue to track this case.”

In reality, it isn’t complicated at all. It’s a brutal murder, to which the perpetrator has confessed. According to KING 5, “Prosecutors requested Wells’ bail be set at $5 million to reflect the ‘extreme danger’ he poses to the community if he was released from jail, according to charging documents.” Wells also told the 911 operator that “he used a hatchet and a pair of bolt cutters to kill the...

Joe Biden is now the president, in part, because of his share of questionable mail-in votes in Pennsylvania.

Before the 2020 election, politicians in the capital of Pennsylvania passed a new law. It was called Act 77, and it created a 50-day, no-excuse, mail-in ballot rule. This law provided virtually no security or integrity for the most important election of our lifetimes, and it blatantly violated the state constitution.

This led to disastrous consequences. Joe Biden is now the president, in part, because of his share of questionable mail-in votes in Pennsylvania. Biden’s abhorrent policies and rhetoric have left us with rampant inflation, open borders, needless death and instability abroad in Afghanistan and Ukraine, and spiking violent crime in our cities—including my city of Philadelphia.

It has also caused millions of American patriots, including many of my fellow Pennsylvanians, to question the legitimacy of our government. Citizens who care about the rule of law want our elections to be free and fair. They do not want the playing field to be slanted in favor of one party over the other.

Our ruling elites have decreed that any question about election integrity with respect to 2020 is conspiracy-mongering at best, and treason at worst. Personalities on MSNBC, CNN, and other outlets constantly refer to the “Big Lie” in response to anyone who cites problems with the way the election was managed. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton routinely refers to the 2016 election as “stolen,” and they have no problem with that. This ridiculous double standard has only deepened the distrust.

Here in Pennsylvania, we have a real, concrete problem with our election integrity, and it is no mere conspiracy theory. Act 77 already has been declared unconstitutional by Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court, our state’s intermediate appellate court.

The Pennsylvania state constitution requires in-person voting unless you meet stringent requirements, such as serving in the armed forces or being genuinely disabled. If the politicians in Pennsylvania truly believed Act 77 was necessary, they should have tried to amend the state constitution. They failed to do that, and millions of ballots were cast under this illegal voting process.

The fight is now in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, where the court has reinstated the act pending their review. I am deeply concerned about what this portends regarding their potential ruling, and its direct impact on...