Tag: washington dc

Surprise! Nation’s Capital Ranked As Least Desirable Place to Live in the Entire US of A

We already know that Americans are fleeing blue states and cities in droves and searching for greener pastures in places like Texas, Tennessee, Utah, and Idaho. We also know that in 2020, California saw its first net population decline since 1850 as residents flee high taxes, woke dictates, and exploding crime. We regularly read about formerly great cities like Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago, and Portland descending into chaos and blight.

But where’s the absolute worst place to live in the United States? Turns out, according to surveys, it’s the nation’s capital, Washington D.C. It’s not just the “Swamp,” duplicitous politicians, and crazy Nancy Pelosi that make it such an unappealing place to reside, it’s high taxes, crime, the “migrant crisis,” and the excessive cost of merely surviving that make it such a no-fun zone.

The numbers are in, and they are not kind:

A new study found that for the second year in a row, Washington, D.C., is the least desirable place to live in the U.S., with 33% of the participants who took part in the survey ranking it among the top five worst cities in America.

The company behind the poll, Clever, surveyed 1,000 people in June then looked at migration data from the most recent U.S. Census to understand why the nation’s capital has become America’s least desirable city to live in.

This year, 33% of Americans said the District of Columbia is one of the top five worst cities to live in, which is up from 2023, when 20% of Americans held the same opinion.

Clever said politics aside, D.C. is one of the most expensive cities in the country, and 65% of Americans say the excessive cost of living makes a place undesirable.

The survey showed that New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco also made the top 10 list of nasty places to live, while Tampa, Florida, was ranked as the best, and Charlotte, North Carolina, and Virginia Beach, Virginia, earned high marks as well.

Keep reading

IT WAS A SETUP! Pelosi’s Aides Received Warning of Capitol Breach THE NIGHT BEFORE Jan. 6 – But Pelosi Blocked National Guard from the Capitol Anyway

It was ALWAYS the PELOSI INSURRECTION.
Footage was released in June from the House Oversight Committee of Nancy Pelosi taking responsibility for the January 6, 2021, protests and rioting at the US Capitol.

Nancy Pelosi: “I take responsibility.”

And on Monday, John Solomon at Just the News reported that Nancy Pelosi’s top security aides received warnings about a potential Capitol breach the night before the January 6 protests.

Pelosi could have called in the National Guard.  She decided not to.

January 6 was always a set-up.  And the evidence confirms that Pelosi was in on it.

Via Just the News.

Two top House security aides under then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi got stark warnings from police the night before the Jan. 6 riots that protesters might try to breach the U.S. Capitol through its tunnel systems and block lawmakers from voting to certify Joe Biden’s presidential election win, according to newly obtained memos and text messages.

The documents obtained by Just the News also confirm that Pelosi’s team played a role in the botched security planning for that fateful day.

“We have identified numerous open source comments indicating groups intentions of finding the tunnel entrances and confronting/blocking the MOCs (Members of Congress),” Capitol Police Deputy Chief Sean Gallagher wrote Deputy House Sergeant at Arms Tim Blodgett at 8:55 p.m. on Jan. 5, 2021 in an email that got forwarded overnight to Blodgett’s boss, then-Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving.

A second warning was sent later that evening about possible threats against Supreme Court justices, and the sergeant-at arms-office scheduled a briefing for Pelosi’s then-chief of staff Terri McCullough the next morning, hours before the breach occurred, according to the messages obtained by House Administration Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Barry Loudermilk.

As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Washington DC Mayor Muriel Bowser were both warned about the security situation prior to January 6th, and they both turned down National Guard troops at the US Capitol that day.

Keep reading

Washington DC family lose custody of their autistic son, 16, after refusing to let him transition to a girl

A military family who lost custody of their autistic son after they refused to transition his gender are suing a major DC hospital.

The family said their boy had never shown any desire to become a girl until, at 16, he was hospitalized for self-harming after a bitter breakup with his girlfriend in 2021.

Staff at Children’s National Hospital informed the family that he wanted to be female and should be referred to using she/her pronouns going forward, the suit claims.

His army veteran parents, from Prince George County in Maryland, rejected the suggestion, saying their son was ‘impressionable’ due to being autistic.

They have accused the hospital of starting a ‘full-on campaign to transgender this child’ and accused staff of ‘mental re-programming’, saying their son had been forced to write letters to friends disavowing his previous male identity. 

According to the lawsuit, the hospital used its emergency policies to keep the boy in its units and reported the parents to child protection services.

The boy was then moved into foster care and hasn’t been back to the family home since. What followed has been a two-year legal battle for custody over the teen, who is now 19 and remains in foster care.

The parents, who are in their 40s and African-American, say their son was at risk because his condition means he is vulnerable to social manipulation.

Keep reading

House subcommittee releases thousands of hours of new J6 footage

House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk on Monday released an additional 4,000+ hours of United States Capitol Police (USCP) footage of the January 6 riot.

Loudermilk’s committee is working on a new investigation into the Capitol riot, after he claimed that the work of the Democrat-led Select Committee on the January 6 Capitol Attack was so tainted that the final report should be invalidated. 

The congressman previously accused the select committee of cherry-picking its evidence in their investigation, and said some of the pieces of evidence were “flat out lies.”

“My subcommittee’s investigation has one goal: Ensure the American people get the complete unvarnished truth about January 6th,” Loudermilk said in a social media post on Monday. “Today’s video footage release brings us one critical step closer to accountability and accomplishing that important mission.”

The new footage can be found on the video streaming platform Rumble.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Ruling Alters January 6 Charges: From Insurrection to Trespassing

The Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. U.S. has struck down one of the most common charges against January 6 defendants: “obstruction of an official proceeding.” This ruling has profound implications for the numerous cases that relied on this charge, rendering many of these convictions invalid.

For years, the narrative around January 6 has centered on the idea of an “insurrection.” Politicians and pundits alike have used this term to describe the events of that day, often framing it as an organized attempt to overthrow the government. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling signals a significant shift in how these actions are legally interpreted. The events of January 6 are now increasingly seen as a case of mass trespass and unlawful entry rather than an insurrection.

The Justice Department’s decision to use the obstruction charge, which stems from a law enacted post-Enron to criminalize the destruction of evidence, has now been called into question. The broad interpretation of this law allowed it to be applied to hundreds of January 6 cases. At least a quarter of the prosecutions included this charge. The ruling will result in resentencing for many, and pending cases will proceed without the obstruction claim.Former President Donald Trump is also affected by this decision. Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment against Trump in Washington, D.C., includes obstruction charges. With the Supreme Court’s ruling, half of this indictment could be dropped, necessitating a potential superseding indictment. This development could derail Smith’s efforts to bring Trump to trial before the election, a goal that has been prioritized by both Smith and Judge Tanya Chutkan.

The ruling challenges the long-held belief that January 6 was an insurrection. Polls show that a majority of citizens view the events as a protest that escalated into a riot, not an attempt to overthrow the government. This perspective is reinforced by the Supreme Court’s decision, which suggests that the legal framework used to prosecute many of the January 6 defendants was flawed.

Keep reading

Sex, Lies, & Racial Hysteria: The Quiet J6 Killing Of Rosanne Boyland

One wonders what thoughts passed through the fevered mind of Officer Lila Morris as she struck the seemingly lifeless Rosanne Boyland over the head with a branch, then struck her again, and then struck her a third time so hard that the branch snapped in half.

If Morris thought Boyland a hateful white supremacist who deserved her fate, one could, if not forgive her, at least understand how she came to think that way. For the last two years, Morris had heard little else about these MAGA minions and the monster who led them.

President-elect Joe Biden had set the tone when he launched his presidential campaign in April 2019, implying President Donald Trump had called the neo-Nazis involved in the Charlottesville dust-up “very fine people.” No major candidate has ever begun a presidential campaign with a more divisive and slanderous opening gambit (one that Snopes conceded was false just this past week).

Biden continued the slander throughout the campaign. Just four weeks before the 2020 election, he weighed in on the well-timed bust of an FBI-massaged plot to kidnap Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer. “There is a through line from President Trump’s dog whistles and tolerance of hate, vengeance, and lawlessness to plots such as this one,” fumed Biden. “He is giving oxygen to the bigotry and hate we see on the march in our country.”

If Morris feared the depredations of these Hun-like hordes, she was in good company.

“Just remember, we’re on the right side of history,” Rep. Val Demings told a colleague as they huddled fearfully in the House gallery on January 6.

“If we all die today, another group will come in and certify those ballots.”

“White supremacy and patriarchy are very linked in a lot of ways,” congressional drama queen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told CNN’s Dana Bash.

“There’s a lot of sexualizing of that violence. And I didn’t think that I was just going to be killed. I thought other things were going to happen to me as well.”

When Bash asked AOC if she thought she was going to be raped, AOC answered, “Yeah, yeah. I thought I was.”

The left has been feeding its base a steady diet of racial fear and loathing for generations.

Ocasio-Cortez is Puerto Rican. Demings and Morris black. Also black is Michael Byrd, the Capitol Police lieutenant (now captain) who shot and killed January 6 protestor and Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt.

Babbitt and Boyland were both white.

The phrase “had the races been reversed” is such a manifest truism that pundits on the right no longer bother to complete the thought

Keep reading

Supreme Court strikes obstruction charge used for hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters

Federal prosecutors improperly charged a Jan. 6 defendant with obstruction, a divided Supreme Court ruled on Friday, likely upending many cases against rioters who disrupted the certification of the 2020 presidential election.

After the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol, federal prosecutors charged more than 350 participants in the pro-Trump mob with obstructing or impeding an official proceeding. The charge carries a 20-year maximum penalty and is part of a law enacted after the exposure of massive fraud andshredding of documents during the collapse of the energy giant Enron.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the government’s broad reading of the statute would give prosecutors too much discretion to seek a 20-year maximum sentence “for acts Congress saw fit to punish only with far shorter terms of imprisonment.”

To use the statute, he wrote, the government must establish that a defendant “impaired the availability or integrity” of records, documents or other objects used in an official proceeding.

In dissent, Justice Amy Coney Barrett — joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — said the court’s reading of the obstruction statute is too limited and requires the majority to do “textual backflips to find some way — any way — to narrow the reach” of the law.

Friday’s ruling has the potential to affect the convictions and sentences of a small set of rioters — around 27— who are serving time in prison for only this felony. It also could impact about 110 more who are awaiting trial or sentencing, according to prosecutors.In addition, the ruling may affect former president Donald Trump’s stalled trialfor allegedly trying to remain in power after his 2020 defeat; two of the four charges he faces are based on the obstruction statute, and he could move to have those charges dismissed.

Keep reading

Police officers who attended Trump’s Jan. 6 ‘Stop the Steal’ rally may be allowed to keep their identities private

A striking legal question came before justices of the Washington State Supreme Court this week: Does a group of police officers who attended the “Stop the Steal” rally for Donald Trump at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, have a Constitutionally-protected right to keep the results of a probe into their specific conduct that day secret, or must their names — and those results — be revealed to the public?

The question unfolded during oral arguments in Jane & John Does 1-6 v. Seattle Police Department et al. on Tuesday.

At the center of the case are six police officers, two of whom were fired in August 2021 and have been identified publicly by the Seattle Police Department as married former officers Caitlin Everett and Alexander Everett. Four others have not been named publicly by the department though state prosecutors noted to the Washington State Supreme Court on Tuesday that their names have previously emerged on social media. This factor is central to the state’s case; as prosecutors pointed out this week, these four individuals have not only retained their roles at the Seattle Police Department but also have not suffered any harassment as an investigation got underway, The Associated Press reported. 

Keep reading

Former D.C. Official Pleads Guilty to Corruption, Admits to Manipulating Government Contracts for Personal Gain

Bridgette Crowell, a former official within the District of Columbia’s Office of Contracting and Procurement (OCP) and previously at the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), pleaded guilty on Thursday for her involvement in a scheme where she manipulated government contracts for personal gain.

The 39-year-old Laurel, Maryland resident admitted to a one-count criminal Information charging her with conspiracy to commit wire and honest services fraud. Sentencing is scheduled for September 6, 2024, according to DOJ.

Joining Crowell in her corrupt endeavors, Obinna Ogbu, 52, of Silver Spring, Maryland, also entered a guilty plea for his role in the fraudulent activities, both at WMATA and OCP. Meanwhile, Ifediora Oli, another accomplice, has pled not guilty, with his case still pending before the courts.

According to court documents, Crowell began working at OCP in 2019 as a contracting specialist after serving as a contract administrator at WMATA. It was during her time at WMATA that she first met co-conspirators Ogbu and Oli.

While at OCP, Crowell misused her official position by alerting her co-conspirators to upcoming solicitations; providing them with non-public information about the solicitations, including contract pricing; and helping their companies secure government contracts.

Keep reading

VICTORY: FBI Whistleblower Who Exposed Agency’s Lies About January 6th Has Security Clearence Reinstated, Will Receive Over Two Years of Back Pay

A patriotic former FBI agent who helped expose the agency’s lies about the January 6th protests has scored a major victory against his former employer.

FBI agent Marcus Allen had his security clearance suspended in 2022 after he raised questions about Director Christopher Wray’s statements regarding law enforcement involvement during the January 6th protests.

Empower Oversight, a legal advocacy group, filed a lawsuit against the bureau and asserted that the FBI’s actions were retaliatory and falsely labeled Allen as disloyal to the United States.

It has now been confirmed that the FBI reinstated Allen’s security clearance on May 31st and agreed to pay him over two months of back pay as part of a settlement between the two parties. He has now resigned from the bureau.

“This letter is to inform you that I am reinstating your Top Secret (TS) security clearance effective upon receipt of this letter,” the FBI said in a letter to Allen. “My decision to reinstate your security clearance is based upon a determination that the original security concerns have been investigated and have been sufficiently mitigated.”

Allen’s lawyer, Tristan Leavitt, described the settlement as a “total vindication” for his client.

“The F.B.I. has completely backed down and provided everything that we had asked for on behalf of Marcus,” Leavitt said. “It’s clear from the evidence and the FBI’s capitulation there was absolutely no truth to their accusations.”

Allen upset his superiors at the bureau when he testified before the House Judiciary Committee last year and revealed how he was the victim of political retaliation for his views about January 6th.

“I was not in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, played no part in the events of Jan. 6, and I condemn all criminal activity that occurred,” he testified. “Instead, it appears that I was retaliated against because I forwarded information to my superiors and others that questioned the official narrative of the events of Jan. 6.”

Keep reading