Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced that Monica Mendez of of Port Lavaca pleaded guilty to 26 felony charges, including three counts of illegal v****g, seven counts of assisting a v**er to submit a b****t by mail, eight counts of unlawful possession of a mail b****t and eight counts of e******n f***d.

Later we will find out who she squealed on for mercy.

https://www.westernjournal.com/texas-woman-pleads-guilty-26-v**er-fraud-felonies/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=WJBreaking&utm_campaign=breaking&utm_content=western-journal&ats_es=2d5749f8b6fe9ee541438a0ee5fba951

https://reason.com/2022/06/16/the-u-s-is-spending-130-million-a-day-on-military-aid-for-ukraine-without-meaningful-congressional-oversight/?utm_medium=email

The U.S. Is Spending $130 Million a Day on Military Aid for Ukraine Without Meaningful Congressional Oversight

Lawmakers are avoiding important debates about America's role in the conflict and the potential for misuse of funds and weapons.

Fiona Harrigan6.16.2022 1:56 PM

Yesterday the Biden administration announced that it would send an additional $1 billion in military aid to Ukraine as the country continues to combat invading Russian forces. The new aid package comes on the heels of The Wall Street Journal reporting earlier this week that the U.S. is now "sending roughly $130 million a day in military aid to Ukraine plus economic and other assistance."

American financial support for Ukraine has largely been uncontroversial in Congress. Lawmakers approved a $40 billion aid package in May, adding billions of dollars to the money President Joe Biden originally requested. "The leaders of both parties raised few questions about how much money was being spent or what it would be used for," wrote The New York Times. Just 11 senators v**ed against the bill's passage as it breezed through Congress.

One of them, Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.), drew criticism from both parties for delaying Senate approval of the $40 billion package after expressing concern that Congress was "trying yet again to ram through a spending bill" and had failed to outline oversight mechanisms. Paul unsuccessfully sought to add language to the bill appointing an inspector general to supervise the spending. Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) emphasized the need to get help to Ukraine "right now," and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) charged that Paul "doesn't want to aid Ukraine."

Unfortunately, those arguments are helping lawmakers avoid important debates about the amount and nature of aid the U.S. is sending to Ukraine, as well as the potential for future misuse as billions of fast-passed dollars flood into a war zone without proper oversight. American politicians have chosen a risky course of action and are neglecting to realistically discuss the U.S. role in this conflict.

American officials told The Wall Street Journal that they have "little direct knowledge" of where equipment goes once it reaches the Ukrainian government. One military aid component of the May package, totaling $6 billion, is a t***sfer account that Congress doesn't have strong control over. "The statutory language requires that [the Department of Defense] report to Congress 15 days before any t***sfers occur," explains the Center for Strategic International Studies. "Congress could block such t***sfers, but that is difficult to do politically and procedurally."

Oversight experts warn that issues surrounding t***sfers are inevitable. "Even if it's a noble cause, there's going to be theft. There's going to be misconduct," warned Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction John Sopko, whose office has uncovered rampant misuse of U.S. funds that took place during nation-building efforts in Afghanistan. "If there's one thing we learned from Afghanistan, you've got to have oversight in the beginning."

Many components of the May package and other aid installments deserve more scrutiny from lawmakers than they have received. Not-insignificant chunks of money are going toward countering "Russian disinformation and propaganda narratives," bolstering the Department of Justice's "efforts to pursue high value asset seizures from sanctioned individuals," paying the salaries of Ukrainian government officials, and prepping munitions for military skirmishes that aren't related to the conflict in Ukraine. In rushing the passage of aid, Congress has neglected to debate whether these are appropriate spending priorities for the U.S.—especially, as Paul notes, when the American economy is already in such bad shape.

And there's a deeper, more conflict-relevant concern at hand. The end goals for U.S. assistance are still murky, even as American politicians repeat their opposition to Russian aggression and support for Ukraine regaining its territory and sovereignty. Rajan Menon, director of the Grand Strategy program at Defense Priorities and a professor at the City College of New York, argues that the U.S. must determine what its precise aims are in order to shape responsible policy. Without establishing clear objectives, politicians can shift the goal posts and more easily justify staying involved. Menon asks, for instance, whether the eventual goal is to restore Ukrainian borders to their pre-2022 state or if it's to reclaim Crimea.

"The latter is…ambitious, it's far more dangerous, and it will make the war even longer than [it] otherwise will be," Menon explains. "To say…this is all up to Ukraine to decide is to overlook the fact that we are its principal arms supplier and therefore are deeply implicated in this war. Kyiv is certainly entitled to make its choices but that doesn't release us from the obligation to make our one."

In eschewing proper debate over military aid to Ukraine, American lawmakers are opting out of an uncomfortable—but necessary—conversation. "If we ramp up arms supplies to Ukraine, which is already urgently calling for more, we should take into account that Russia may at some point treat us as a co-belligerent," Menon points out. "Simply assuming that that would be a bridge too far for them would be a mistake." U.S. politicians need to discuss the line not to be crossed before America is effectively acting as a co-combatant rather than allowing Russia to make that determination itself.

Providing military aid to Ukraine strikes many Americans as the right move. It might seem like the best available option, given that alternatives include putting American boots on the ground or securing a no-fly zone over Ukrainian airspace—both of which would prove disastrous.

But those impulses don't relieve U.S. lawmakers of their responsibility to ensure aid is being directed toward appropriate uses and being used properly. To willingly avoid those discussions all but ensures that the war in Ukraine will be another conflict involving fiscal irresponsibility on America's part.

https://www.christiannewsalerts.com/iowa-supreme-court-reverses-4-year-old-a******n-decision-paving-the-way-for-a-total-ban/?utm_source=CNA&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=CNA2&utm_content=CNA2A

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday that there is not a fundamental right to obtain an a******n found in the state’s constitution, opening up the possibility that the practice could soon be further restricted or banned.

The decision comes as the U.S. Supreme Court is set to release its highly anticipated ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson, which may overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that created the federal right to a******n.

The Iowa Supreme Court’s Friday holding came just four years after the court ruled in a 5-2 decision that such a right existed in the state’s constitution, The Associated Press reported.

Since that time, Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds has appointed four justices to the bench, meaning six of the seven judges were appointed by GOP governors.

Justice Edward Mansfield, appointed by former Republican Gov. Terry Branstad in 2011, authored Friday’s majority opinion, which overturned a lower court ruling from 2020 that found the state’s 24-hour waiting period to obtain an a******n unconstitutional.

The lower court had relied on the 2018 case concluding access to a******n is a fundamental right and therefore any law that impacts that right must undergo strict scrutiny from the court to be upheld.

Mansfield and the other justices joining in his ruling disagreed.

“The Iowa Constitution is not the source of a fundamental right to an a******n necessitating a strict scrutiny standard of review for regulations affecting that right,” Mansfield wrote.

The justice determined that the “undue burden” standard laid out in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey was applicable but that the 24-hour waiting period did not violate that standard.

Mansfield rejected the stare decisis argument made by some legal scholars that the Iowa Supreme Court’s reversal on a******n after only four years makes the court look political or capricious.

Stare decisis is a legal doctrine that literally means “to stand by things decided,” also known as precedent.

“We do not agree that every state supreme court decision is entitled to some minimum try-out period before it can be challenged,” Mansfield wrote.

“Courts must be free to correct their own mistakes when no one else can,” he added, quoting from a legal review article.

The only Democratic appointee to the court, Justice Brent Appel, wrote in a dissenting opinion, “The right to reproductive autonomy should not be eviscerated by narrow textualism.”

Reynolds celebrated Friday’s decision.

“Today’s ruling is a significant victory in our fight to protect the unborn. The Iowa Supreme Court reversed its earlier 2018 decision, which made Iowa the most a******n-friendly state in the country,” she said in a statement.

“Every life is sacred and should be protected, and as long as I’m governor that is exactly what I will do.”

According to the AP, Iowa had been one of six states — including Alaska, Florida, Kansas, Montana and Minnesota — where a******n was considered a right by the state’s high court.

Democratic Iowa House Minority Leader Jennifer Konfrst said Friday’s ruling was a “step backwards for Iowa families,” USA Today reported.

“Iowans should always have the final say in making their own healthcare decisions,” she said in a statement, “including a******n, without interference from politicians.”

If the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe, the Iowa Supreme Court ruling would clear the way for state legislators to pass pro-life laws aimed at restricting or ending a******ns altogether in the Hawkeye State.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
========
If people want to have sex without having babies, they should use a contraceptive or be spayed/neutered!

Tom Rice, John Katko, Fred Upton, Adam Kinzinger and Anthony Gonzalez. Five Republican members of Congress who v**ed to impeach President Donald Trump.

Rice lost in a recent Republican primary and the rest are not running for re-e******n.

Political decisions have consequences. The careers of Rice, Katko, Upton, Kingzinger and Gonzalez are examples of that.
https://www.westernjournal.com/one-year-later-5-republicans-v**ed-trump-impeachment-learned-cost/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=WJBreaking&utm_campaign=ct-breaking&utm_content=western-journal&ats_es=2d5749f8b6fe9ee541438a0ee5fba951

HAWTHORNE, Calif. (AP) — SpaceX, the rocket ship company run by Tesla CEO Elon Musk, has fired several employees involved in an open letter that blasted the colorful billionaire for his behavior, according to media reports.

https://centurylink.net/news/read/category/news/article/the_associated_press-spacex_reported_to_fire_employees_critical_of_ceo-ap?sc_cid=webmailpo

As a Christian, I would use the term 'sad' for both of them. The difference in the f**gs being that one represents (to most people) an old and vile way of looking at people of color, one we rejected as a nation at great cost. Something from the uncivilized past, and thankfully gone.
The other f**g represents (again, to most people) life choices that are physically harmful, spiritually immoral, and unnatural in concept and activity. It, unfortunately, is in the process of being normalized in our country.
Both are signs of a sick and demented culture sliding quickly towards it's death.
Sad.

"The U.S. C*****l P****e arrested a group of nine staffers from CBS’s The Late Show with Stephen Colbert for allegedly trespassing in the U.S. Capitol on Thursday night, according to Fox News."

"On June 16, 2022, at approximately 8:30 p.m., U.S. C*****l P****e (USCP) received a call for a disturbance in the Longworth House Office Building. Responding officers observed seven individuals, unescorted and without Congressional ID, in a sixth-floor hallway. The building was closed to visitors, and these individuals were determined to be a part of a group that had been directed by the USCP to leave the building earlier in the day. They were charged with Unlawful Entry. This is an active criminal investigation, and may result in additional criminal charges after consultation with the U.S. Attorney."

Fox News’s Jesse Watters reported that the Colbert staffers were let into the House office building by Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Jake Auchincloss (D-MA).

There have been calls for Schiff to resign from his post on the J****** 6 C*******e over this breach of security. In addition, many want to see Colbert’s staffers arrested and charged with the same crimes as those who entered the Capitol on J****** 6. Hey, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

“If they aren’t charged criminally the same as J6 defendants, then more evidence of selective prosecution arises,” Mike Cernovich tweeted. “Judges can only rig stuff so much before the judiciary loses all legitimacy. Throw the book at these trespassers.” Bet you didn't see this splashed all over the major media sites did ya?


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/06/17/report-stephen-colbert-staffers-arrested-for-breaching-u-s-capitol/

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/group-associated-with-stephen-colbert-arrested-and-charged-with-unlawful-entry-at-capitol/ar-AAYBnSa?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=2d657bb3cdb246b1960aff6943b8c99f

People associated with Stephen Colbert's late-night comedy show were arrested on the U.S. Capitol grounds on Thursday night, according to a new report.

Group associated with Stephen Colbert arrested and charged with unlawful entry at Capitol
© Provided by Washington Examiner, by Daniel Chaitin, Jerry Dunleavy

Members of the group, initially on location around the time of a J*** 6 c*******e hearing, were charged with unlawful entry and released after they were found in Longworth House Office Building after it closed to the public, Fox News reported Friday. The C*****l P****e did not identify who was arrested but did acknowledge charges.

“On June 16, 2022, at approximately 8:30 p.m., U.S. C*****l P****e (USCP) received a call for a disturbance in the Longworth House Office Building," C*****l P****e said in a statement obtained by the Washington Examiner. “Responding officers observed seven individuals, unescorted and without Congressional ID, in a sixth-floor hallway.”

“The building was closed to visitors, and these individuals were determined to be a part of a group that had been directed by the USCP to leave the building earlier in the day," the statement added. “They were charged with Unlawful Entry. This is an active criminal investigation, and may result in additional criminal charges after consultation with the U.S. Attorney.”

Among those arrested and charged was Robert Smigel, known for being the voice of Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, a congressional source told Fox News.

The Late Show Stephen Colbert is a late-night comedy show that airs on CBS. The Washington Examiner reached out to CBS media representatives for comment.