
Not a meritocracy…


A BLM rioter who set fire to a pawn shop and killed a man is facing a shorter sentence than normal because, according to US Attorney W. Anders Folk, he was “caught up in the fury” of the Black Lives Matter riots.
On June 5, 2020, in Minnesota, BLM riots were breaking out and becoming violent. Hundreds of people took to the streets and began looting local businesses, vandalizing private property, and recklessly setting fire to buildings. Montez Terriel Lee Jr. was one of these violent actors.
That night, Lee broke into a pawn shop, poured fire accelerant around, and set it on fire. These actions were caught on video.
According to court records, one of the videos captures Lee standing in front of the burning shop, saying, “F*** this place. We’re gonna burn this b**** to the ground.”
Over two months after Lee burned down the shop, a 30-year-old man, Oscar Lee Stewart, was found dead among the debris.
By joining in the violence of the BLM riots and being misled into thinking that was the right way to act, Lee took the life of an innocent man that night.
The typical sentence that would be applied to Lee’s case is over 200 months of incarceration. However, in a memo from the US Attorney’s office for the District of Minnesota, a lesser sentence was recommended because of the “motives” behind Lee’s actions.
The memo describes Lee’s motives as almost admirable. Forgetting the violence he enacted and the innocent life he took, at least his intentions were “good”.
Mr. Lee’s motive for setting the fire is a foremost issue. Mr. Lee credibly states that he was in the streets to protest unlawful police violence against black men, and there is no basis to disbelieve this statement. Mr. Lee, appropriately, acknowledges that he “could have demonstrated in a different way,” but that he was “caught up in the fury of the mob after living as a black man watching his peers suffer at the hands of police.”
The defense that Lee was “caught up in the fury of the mob” is a poor way to set an example for the rest of the country. There needs to be some maintained sense of right and wrong. If you are upset and seeking social change, you shouldn’t be allowed to do so by burning cities and being violent. Generating fear and endangering others is not a reasonable way to get a point across.
Just one day after President Joe Biden nominated Gigi Sohn to the federal agency that oversees television networks, her nonprofit secured a favorable legal settlement with those same networks that reduced her financial liability by more than $30 million.
According to a confidential settlement revealed by Bloomberg Law, Sohn’s now-defunct nonprofit, Locast, agreed to pay a number of top broadcasters $700,000 after it illegally streamed their programming. That amount is a mere fraction of the $32 million Locast was initially ordered to pay. Sohn, who served as one of the nonprofit’s three directors, signed the agreement one day after Biden announced her nomination to the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the same networks she settled with.
Sohn’s settlement with the likes of ABC, CBS, and Fox has impeded her confirmation process. During a December hearing, Republican senators Roger Wicker (Miss.) and Roy Blunt (Mo.) expressed concern over the lawsuit, with Blunt asking Sohn if the ordeal would impact her “dealings with the very same local broadcasters that sued” Locast. Last week, Wicker called for a second hearing on Sohn’s confirmation due in part to the “timing of this settlement in relation to her nomination.”
“The possibility of the nominee’s future financial liability to a number of companies regulated by the FCC, and the timing of this settlement in relation to her nomination, demands a full discussion by the committee to ensure that there is a clear understanding of the ability for this nominee to act without any cloud of ethical doubt,” Wicker said. “The committee needs to hold a new hearing on this matter to provide the nominee an opportunity to fully address these concerns.”
While Bloomberg Law wrote that Sohn’s settlement “appears to undercut” Wicker’s “stated reason for opposing her nomination,” others aren’t so sure. American Commitment president Phil Kerpen questioned both the timing and terms of the settlement, arguing that it raises new ethics questions.
“How does this eliminate criticism? The terms of the deal are incredibly favorable to her,” Kerpen told the Washington Free Beacon. “How could anyone say that she can now objectively vote on anything involving any of the big broadcast networks that just basically let her company off the hook?”
Washington cares less about Ukrainian independence and sovereignty than Russia. Its primary interest in the territory is its location right next to Russia; its other interests lie in the resources and markets a Ukraine under US influence offers. Of course, the latter also helps explain Russia’s determination not to let NATO assimilate Kyiv and the country it is the capitol of. If Washington was truly interested in the independence of the Ukrainian people, it would call for a resolution granting autonomy to the eastern Donbass region of Ukraine, where a war for that region’s secession from Ukraine has been waging since at least 2014 when the US/NATO sponsored color rebellion overthrew the elected government in Kyiv. It is that US-leaning government that Washington wants to preserve; a government first installed by US and NATO intelligence that may represent Ukrainian hopes, but certainly does not represent Ukrainian independence. Only the Ukrainian people can determine that and their voice is both muffled and mixed. Democratic socialists, unabashed capitalists looking towards the EU, families with old money stolen from the people after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, fascists whose legacy includes killing thousands of Jews and collaborating militarily with the Nazis, and millions of workers and farmers—these are the people of Ukraine. In my mind it is the last demographic which should have the greatest say in their nation’s future. However, if the rest of the world is any indication, their voice is the last to be heard.


President Joe Biden’s administration is set to roll out a new federal program, funded by American taxpayers, that will provide “legal services” to border crossers and illegal aliens, a new report details.
The plan, first reported by Axios, would ensure that private contractors working with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) help provide a range of legal services to border crossers and illegal aliens arriving at United States-Mexico border stations in California, Texas, and Arizona.
Axios’s Stef Kight reports:
It will be for migrants attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico border, those in Border Patrol custody, in the [Remain in Mexico] program or who may be enrolled in [Remain in Mexico] or otherwise placed in deportation proceedings, according to the published documents on SAM.gov.
Increasing migrant access to legal services has long been a goal of the administration. While the new Legal Access at the Border (LAB) program will help prepare migrants for the immigration legal process, it will not directly provide them attorneys.
…Contractors will explain the migrants’ options for staying in the U.S. while deportation orders are pending, as well as general immigration court practices and procedures.
The expanded legal services for border crossers and illegal aliens are part of a larger plan by the Biden administration to transform the southern border into a mere checkpoint for foreign nationals seeking entry to the U.S.



You must be logged in to post a comment.