Blog

“First, they arrested rioters, and I didn’t say anything because I was not a rioter. Then, they apprehended attendees, but I didn’t attend. Now, they’re subjugating journalists, I am screaming, and no one is listening.” — Tom Darby

The Department of Justice (DOJ) continues to use a heavy-handed approach towards journalists who “fail” to present the Deep State’s alleged facts about the so-called J6 insurrection and withhold news sources from the federal government.

Amidst a backdrop of escalating tensions between the press and the federal government, recent actions have raised serious questions about the erosion of press freedoms and the impartiality of law enforcement agencies. The latest unfolded as Steven Baker, a journalist currently affiliated with Blaze Media, was apprehended by the FBI for his alleged involvement in reporting on the Capitol riot of Wednesday, January 6, 2021. Baker, who had previously admitted to entering the Capitol to cover the incident as an independent journalist, now faces a litany of charges, including entering restricted grounds and disorderly conduct.

Critics continue to lambast the FBI for what they perceive as an overzealous pursuit of individuals connected to the riot, decrying the prolonged detention of suspects and the apparent selective charging of targeted individuals. Baker himself voiced concerns over what he described as “insane corruption” within the upper echelons of the Capitol Police, suggesting a level of unchecked power that surpasses even that of Congress.

Yet, perhaps even more alarming is the deafening silence from mainstream media outlets regarding journalists ensnared in the dragnet. Despite approximately 60 journalists reportedly facing arrest or investigation for their presence at the Capitol on January 6, the media establishment has largely remained mum on the issue. Critics argue that this silence underscores a broader narrative control, one that is enforced not just by federal agencies but also by complicit media entities. Oddly, not one journalist from the New York Times, Washington Post, Reuters, Associated Press, or the Atlantic Journal is among the number taken into custody.

The DOJ’s heavy-handed tactics haven’t stopped there.

In a separate but equally troubling development, veteran investigative reporter Catherine Herridge is being held in civil contempt by a federal judge for refusing to disclose her source regarding a series of Fox News stories. Herridge’s investigative work had delved into the case of a Chinese American scientist investigated by the FBI, raising questions about governmental overreach and the protection of confidential sources.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper’s ruling, imposing hefty fines on Herridge until she reveals her source, has sparked outrage among Constitutional media advocates who argue that such actions undermine the fundamental role of journalism in holding power to account. The decision, they say, sets a dangerous precedent that could deter potential whistleblowers from coming forward with vital information.

The case has further highlighted the precarious position of journalists caught between the demands of federal law enforcement and the imperative to protect their sources. Herridge’s refusal to compromise her journalistic integrity underscores the importance confidentiality has in investigative journalism, particularly when exposing government wrongdoing.

However, the DOJ’s relentless pursuit of Herridge and the judiciary’s complicity in enforcing punitive measures raises troubling questions about the state of press freedom in the U.S. Critics warn that unless decisive action to rein in the excesses of Federal law enforcement agencies and safeguarding the rights of journalists are made the very bedrock of our Constitutional Republic is at risk.

As legal battles over press freedoms continue to unfold, the outcome of these cases will not only shape the future of journalism but also serve as a litmus test for the resilience of Constitutional Republic institutions in the face of encroaching authoritarianism.

Dominion Voting Systems is at the center of controversy again, stemming from testimony before the Michigan Senate Oversight Committee on Tuesday, December 15, 2020.

John Poulos, CEO of Dominion Voting Systems, faced questions regarding the integrity and security of the Dominion Voting machines utilized in Michigan during the November 2020 election. As the hearing unfolded, discrepancies emerged, raising doubts about Poulos’s testimony.

Senator Ed McBroom led, probing whether Dominion’s machines could link to the internet. Poulos contended that while the machine’s design is for connection to tabulators, the responsibility for ensuring security rested with local authorities, leaving questions about potential vulnerabilities, particularly in cases where individuals with ulterior motives might gain access.

Further scrutiny came from then-MI Senator Pete Lucido, who questioned Poulos about remote access to Dominion’s equipment. Poulos initially denied such access but later conceded its existence in some touchscreen voting machines, likening them to “expensive fancy pens” without vote tabulation capabilities.

Attorney Michael J. Smith lodged a criminal complaint, alleging perjury against Poulos based on discrepancies between his testimony and subsequent findings. Smith’s assertions have also prompted calls for investigations into Dominion’s conduct and the broader issue of election security.

Complicating matters, a report by NBC News shed light on vulnerabilities within election systems concerning the modems used to relay unofficial results. Despite assurances from voting machine manufacturers, experts warn of potential breaches and manipulation risks associated with internet connectivity.

Kevin Skoglund, a senior technical advisor, emphasized the severity of the issue, stating that online election systems pose a significant threat to democratic processes. Echoing Skoglund’s concerns, Princeton computer science professor Andrew Appel highlighted the potential for future election manipulation if voting machines remain susceptible to external interference. The National Institute of Standards and Technology’s guidelines also caution against wireless network connections in voting systems.

Beyond the warnings and cautions, the question remains: why are Dominion Voting machines still being used? Answer: to cheat during elections.

A new paid family and medical leave requirement for companies seeking tax breaks in Nevada has sparked debate among economic development officials, who argue that the policy is impeding efforts to attract and retain businesses in the state.

Under the mandate, companies with over 50 employees must offer paid family and medical leave to workers who have completed at least one year of service. This requirement, which took effect as part of a session bill in June, mandates that employees receive at least 55 percent of their salary for up to 12 weeks, surpassing the federal standard set by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which is unpaid.

Tom Burns, Executive Director of the Governor’s Office for Economic Development (GOED), expressed concerns about the impact of the new requirement. He cited a specific case where a company opted against relocating its headquarters to Southern Nevada due to the obligation to provide paid leave, stating that they were unwilling to offer the benefit selectively across different states of operation.

Burns emphasized that the requirement was starting to influence relocation decisions negatively. Tina Quigley, President and CEO of the Las Vegas Global Economic Alliance, echoed these concerns, noting that the policy surpassed California standards, making it challenging to attract businesses from neighboring states.

The move aligns with a broader trend, with thirteen states and the District of Columbia already having mandatory paid family and medical leave laws for private employers. However, the stringent nature of the Nevada policy has raised eyebrows within the business community.

Despite criticism from economic development officials, supporters of the policy, including State Sen. Edgar Flores, argue that it promotes a balance between pro-business initiatives and family-friendly practices. Flores championed the bill during legislative sessions, framing it as a means to attract socially responsible businesses to the state.

However, further concerns about the healthcare coverage provided by companies benefiting from tax breaks are also in question. State Sen. Fabian Donaté asked whether companies are covering their employees adequately, pointing to statistics showing a significant number of employees enrolled in Medicaid despite working for companies receiving substantial tax breaks.

GOED’s tax abatement programs mandate that businesses cover 65 percent of employee health insurance premiums, exceeding the Affordable Care Act requirement of 50 percent. Despite this, concerns persist about the affordability of healthcare for some workers, leading to reliance on Medicaid.

in the heart of nowhere, where the dust
kisses the sky, and the sun sets slowly,
there’s a whisper in the wind,
the kind that carries tales of old.

live by the dirt road code,
etched in the lines of time,
where the rhythm of life
moves to a simpler rhyme.

here, where the trees lean close,
their secrets shared in whispers,
and the stars above
watch over with ancient eyes.

it’s a place where time slows down,
and worries fade away,
where the measure of a person
is the kindness in their gaze.

live by the dirt road code,
where honesty is currency,
and a handshake seals a bond
stronger than any decree.

in these fields, where the earth
holds the stories of generations,
we learn to walk with reverence,
and listen to nature’s invitations.

for in this humble expanse,
where the dirt road winds and bends,
we find the essence of living,
and the code that never ends.

Representative Mark Amodei and Senators Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen have issued a letter of opposition to Postmaster General Louis DeJoy against a proposed plan by the United States Postal Service (USPS) to relocate mail operations from Reno to Sacramento.

The decision follows concerns voiced by various organizations, including a unanimous vote against the move by the Washoe County Commissioners earlier this week. Additionally, Washoe County Interim Registrar Cari-Ann Burgess expressed apprehensions, particularly regarding the potential impact on the upcoming general election’s mail-in ballots.

Last week, Burgess spoke of being worried about the move’s implications for election integrity. She cautioned that the transfer of mail processing operations to California could severely disrupt the electoral process, urging voters to consider alternative methods of ballot submission.

The bipartisan delegation’s letter underscores the significant repercussions on mail service reliability, local economies, and employment prospects within the community. Moreover, it criticizes the USPS for its lack of transparency in the decision-making process, citing the absence of substantial data and analysis regarding the local ramifications of the relocation.

The USPS’s Initial Finding of its Mail Processing Facility Review for the Reno P&DC, released on Tuesday, February 6, outlined plans to downsize the facility to a Local Processing Center (LPC) and transfer outgoing mail operations to Sacramento. However, the document failed to furnish adequate justification or detailed assessments of the proposed changes.

Of particular concern are the potential delays in mail delivery, especially for the over 220,000 Nevada veterans reliant on mail-order prescriptions. Furthermore, the delegation highlights the adverse impact of winter weather conditions between Reno and Sacramento on meeting USPS’s two-day mail delivery standard.

The officials echo Burgess’s apprehensions regarding mail-in voting, emphasizing the logistical challenges of routing ballots out of state before returning them to Northern Nevada. Washoe County Commissioner Mike Clark denounced the USPS’s decision as ill-timed and lacking sufficient public engagement, drawing parallels to a previous unsuccessful attempt.

Meanwhile, a winter storm is hitting the Sierra Nevada with up to 10 feet of snow, causing crashes over Donner Pass, forcing roadway closures, and stalled traffic as chains are required, with blizzard warnings in effect through Sunday, March 3.

Recent revelations shed light on concerning practices in the food industry, particularly regarding the labeling and pricing of eggs.

The high price of “cage-free” or “free-range” eggs is a scam by American regulatory agencies.

There is a significant increase in the price of these eggs at the local supermarket, with the cost skyrocketing from $1.79 to a staggering amount. And the only discernible change in the product is the addition of the “cage free” label.

But what do “cage-free” “and “free range” really mean?

According to industry standards, “cage-free” implies that hens can go outdoors. However, there is no guarantee that the hens actually do or can even reach the outdoors in the first place. Similarly, the label “free-range” carries a similar ambiguity, with consumers paying premium prices for eggs that may not differ significantly from conventional options.

Then, there is the disparity in pricing between the special-labeled eggs and more affordable alternatives. For instance, eggs labeled as “cage-free” or “free-range” can fetch prices ranging from seven dollars to $10 per dozen, compared to the mere two dollars per dozen for plain white eggs at certain retailers.

Moreover, there are limited options available, with grocery stores setting a minimum price of four bucks per dozen for eggs, eliminating affordable choices for budget-conscious consumers. The difference raises questions about the transparency and fairness of pricing in the egg market.

The 1864 pardon of Moses Robinette, great-great-grandfather of President Joe Biden, by President Abraham Lincoln, has prompted reflections on the current legal tactics employed by the Biden family.

Drawing parallels between past and present, observers note a pattern of adeptly sidestepping legal consequences, reminiscent of the Bidens’ legendary knack for evading accountability. The Bidens have become synonymous with navigating legal troubles unscathed, often leveraging political connections and media influence to thwart investigations or negotiate favorable outcomes.

This enduring trait, evident across generations, resembles the circumstances surrounding Robinette’s pardon.

Robinette’s encounter with the law dates back to charges of intoxication, incitement of a quarrel, violating military discipline, and attempted murder, stemming from a violent altercation with fellow civilian employee John Alexander. Despite being convicted on multiple counts, including intoxication and violating military discipline, Robinette managed to evade the charge of attempted murder.

His sentence of two years of hard labor on a remote island near Florida ended in a commutation when influential friends appealed to West Virginia Republican Senator Waitman T. Willey to petition President Lincoln for clemency. Lincoln subsequently granted Robinette a pardon on Thursday, September 1, 1864.

Critics point to instances such as President Biden’s evasion of charges related to the retention of classified material and the media’s dismissal of controversies surrounding his son, Hunter Biden’s, laptop. These examples, among others, are a consistent theme echoing the actions of Moses Robinette over a century ago.

The proverbial apple did not fall far from the family tree.

As Election Day 2020 drew near, alterations within the United States Postal Service (USPS) sparked controversy, raising concerns among lawmakers and citizens alike about the removal of official USPS mailboxes, high-speed mail sorting machines taken out of service, and reduced hours for postal workers across the country, prompting accusations of political maneuvering and threats to the integrity of the electoral process.

The then-new postmaster general and proven Deep State actor, Louis DeJoy, defended the changes as necessary to enhance efficiency and financial stability within the USPS. However, critics, particularly Democrats, argued that the alterations represent an attempt by then-President Donald Trump to hinder mail-in voting, a method increasingly favored politicians amid the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

The USPS’s warning to states regarding potential delays in mail-in voting intensified scrutiny of the agency’s operations. Thomas Marshall, USPS general counsel, cautioned state officials about the incompatibility between state election deadlines and USPS delivery standards, raising concerns about timely delivery of mail-in ballots.

Trump’s opposition to additional funding for the USPS, coupled with his concerns about mail-in voting facilitating voter fraud, fueled accusations of voter suppression. Democrats in Congress pushed for $25 billion in additional funding for the USPS as part of the coronavirus relief package, yet bipartisan cooperation remained elusive.

In response, the USPS announced a halt to mailbox removals in some states until after the election. Additionally, plans to remove high-volume mail processing machines have drawn scrutiny, with USPS defending the changes as routine business adjustments aimed at retiring outdated equipment.

DeJoy came under particular scrutiny after implementing operational changes without consultation with Congress. Shortly afterward, efforts got underway to address the controversy, with a plan to introduce legislation to reverse operational changes.

Meanwhile, USPS employees seen hauling away mailboxes on flatbed trucks and sealing convenient drop slots sparked widespread concerns among Oregon residents regarding the presidential election. The removal of the mailboxes, often used for mail-in voting, ignited fears of limited access to crucial postal services when reliance on mail-in voting was the only way one was allowed to vote.

The USPS confirmed the removal of some mailboxes from neighborhoods, citing a need to streamline operations and address declining first-class mail volume because of the ongoing pandemic. A USPS spokesperson explained that removing “duplicate” boxes in areas with multiple collection points is part of efforts to optimize service efficiency.

However, residents in Eugene and Portland voiced concerns about dwindling access to contactless mailing options, with some reporting locked shut outbound mail slots in neighborhood mailboxes. One resident highlighted the impact of these changes, noting the inconvenience faced by communities without individual mailboxes who now struggle to find alternative mailing options.

The developments came amid broader controversies surrounding the USPS, including the appointment of DeJoy, whose implementation of cost-cutting measures, like reducing overtime and holding mail during staffing shortages, fueled concerns about potential delays in the mail-in voting process.

Trump’s remarks regarding emergency funding for the Postal Service have further stoked apprehensions. Trump’s statements suggest a reluctance to allocate necessary funds for the USPS to handle the anticipated surge in mail-in ballots, raising suspicions about his administration’s stance on nationwide mail-in voting.

Less than four years later, and just months ahead of the 2024 Presidential elections, the USPS is gearing up for significant upgrades to its operation at the Reno Processing and Distribution Center, again stating it is for efficiency and service quality. Among the proposed changes, the USPS intends to repurpose the Reno facility from its current role as a Processing and Distribution Center (P&DC) to a Local Processing Center (LPC).

The proposed upgrades include an investment ranging between $12 million and $14 million into the Reno local processing center for modernizing its infrastructure and operations. The restructuring includes transferring mail processing operations to the Sacramento post office.

Washoe County leaders took a stand against the USPS’ controversial proposal, which could disrupt mail delivery throughout northern Nevada. During a recent county commission meeting, officials unanimously passed a letter of opposition while engaging with Nevada representative Mark Amodei to explore federal intervention.

So far, Amodei has not released a statement on the situation.

At the heart is the fear that essential mail items, like medications, mail-in ballots, bills, and government documents, could be delayed because of unpredictable factors like inclement weather and road closures.

Washoe County leaders underscored the severity of the issue by highlighting regional statistics, focusing on the frequent closure of Interstate 80 during winter months in the Sierra. Last winter, I-80 experienced complete closures in both directions on 15 occasions, with chain controls in effect for approximately 900 hours. Such disruptions could potentially lead to multi-day delays in mail service.

Moreover, the looming specter of the 2024 Presidential Election amplifies anxieties among local leaders, given that nearly 150,000 northern Nevada residents utilized mail-in ballots during the previous election cycle. Any disruption in mail service could undermine the integrity of future electoral processes, further underscoring the gravity of the situation.

While the USPS asserts that the proposed changes are primarily motivated by cost-saving measures, estimated to yield annual savings of at least $3 million through transportation and maintenance efficiencies, Washoe County leaders remain steadfast in their opposition, prioritizing reliable and timely mail delivery services for their constituents.

And finally, a bit of commentary as Nevada gears up for the 2024 election cycle and about a lack of integrity in the electoral process now amplified by a perfect storm of willful incompetence epitomized by Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar’s leadership.

Aguilar’s recent plea to lawmakers to combat misinformation and conspiracy theories rings hollow against the USPS’s controversial decision to shift local mail sorting operations from Reno to Sacramento. The USPS’s move is a recipe for disaster, as it jeopardizes the timely delivery of mail-in ballots between Nevada and California.

Yet, while Northern Nevada voters face the looming threat of mail delays due to inclement weather, Aguilar remains conspicuously silent, failing to address the real challenges posed by the USPS’s decision. Aguilar’s belated concern over misinformation and conspiracy theories comes in the face of a tangible threat to the electoral process.

The decision to centralize mail sorting operations in Sacramento, without accounting for the logistical hurdles presented by adverse weather conditions, reflects a stunning disregard for the democratic rights of Nevada voters. Moreover, Aguilar’s track record of mishaps, including the recent technical error exposing voters to incorrect voting history information, shows his office’s incompetence in safeguarding the integrity of elections.

In light of the USPS controversy, Aguilar’s leadership, or lack thereof, has come under renewed scrutiny, pointing to his indifference toward Nevada voters.

Maybe it is time for me to stop watching all those YouTube videos about shapeshifters, skinwalkers, werewolves, and wendigoes. I say that with tongue-in-cheek jest, as it won’t happen — at least not anytime soon.

It was 5 a.m., and I had gone to my truck to start it and warm it up to melt the skin of ice it was encased in, especially the windshield. As I closed the truck door, I heard a hoarse barking, looked up, and saw a rather large dog come racing at me.

A second later, I realized it was a neighbor’s pup, Henry, a Mastiff-Cane Corso mix. Slowly catching up came the dog’s human, jogging, huffing, and puffing as she ran after the friendly beast.

A butt scratch, a rub behind the ears, and a short chat with my neighbor, and it was back inside for me to get warm. Besides, she and the dog were on a morning walk for exercise.

Ten minutes later, I climbed in the cab, slammed and locked the door behind me, snapped my seat belt across my body, released the parking brake, and slipped the truck in gear. It drove up the street, still adjusting the heater, the wipers, and my radio.

Approaching the top of the hill, I saw someone standing next to a tree in the corner yard.

“What in the…” I started to say.

The person had one arm outreached, leaning on the tree, head lifted and sniffing a bag of birdseed hanging from a branch. Then it looked at me, and I saw the damned antlers on it.

My brain screamed in panic, and I ran through all the Creepy Pasta stories I had heard over the last three or four years as my bladder leaked some yellow juice before shouting, “Wendigo!”

Instinct said — drive faster, faster, you fool, you fool — as I spun out on a patch of ice in the intersection. Then the cryptid sprinted by me — slow enough for me to realize it was a White Tail buck with his tail up as a warning.

Odd, he should think he was so scared, feeling it necessary to warn whatever other fellow deer were in the area with his raised tail like a flag because I’m the one who returned home to change skivvies.

Over the past three years, the woke regime and Biden Administration have launched a relentless assault on freedom of speech, viewing it not as a fundamental right but as a hindrance to its political agenda.

Under the guise of promoting group quotas over individual merit and constitutional liberties, the regime has erected a sophisticated apparatus of information control unprecedented in human history. The advent of the digital age has provided the woke regime with unparalleled tools for censorship and manipulation.

By outsourcing speech and information control to private entities and using cutting-edge technologies such as artificial intelligence, opinions, and thoughts are suppressed or silenced. Central to this information control apparatus is what has been termed the “Censorship-Industrial Complex,” a convergence of government agencies, media outlets, tech giants, academic institutions, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that operate to construct pseudo-realities where truth is labeled “disinformation,” serving to further the regime’s narrative and stifle dissent.

In testimony before the House Select Committee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, Michael Shellenberger likened this complex to Eisenhower’s warning about the dangers of the military-industrial complex. Just as Eisenhower feared the undue influence of defense contractors, Shellenberger highlights the threat posed by the censorship-industrial complex to constitutional government and individual liberty.

The transition of censorship from a foreign concern, such as Russian disinformation, to a domestic one, under the guise of protecting democracy, has been meticulously orchestrated. To wit: Merely questioning the legitimacy of an election, once considered an exercise of free speech, is now equated with attacking critical infrastructure and has been deemed domestic terrorism in some cases.