FRIDAY, JUNE 27, 2025
Hegseth kept failing to answer: He never did answer the question.
We refer to Secretary Hegseth. Also, to the question he avoided three separate times during yesterday morning's gonzo press event.
During the 42-minute event, General Caine conducted himself in a thoroughly professional manner. By way of contrast, Secretary Hegseth staged one of the most remarkable serial meltdowns of his short time in the cabinet.
Thanks to the invaluable Rev, you can peruse a transcript of yesterday's event simply by clicking here. The transcript is accompanied by videotape of the event, or you can access C-Span's videotape.
Rev has transcribed the full event. Remarkably, here's what happened:
Hegseth burned the first ten minutes away with a deeply silly scolding of the assembled press corps. After General Caine's introductory statement, questions were finally permitted, at roughly the 30-minute mark.
At the 37-minute mark, the following question was asked. It was a blindingly obvious question. It would be asked three times:
REPORTER (6/26/25): Just a quick question. There's public imagery available saying that highly enriched uranium was moved out of Fordow before the strikes. Is that accurate? Have you seen that?
Had uranium been squirreled away before last Saturday's attack? After General Caine spoke to a separate question, Hegseth was prompted to respond to that—and this is what he said:
REPORTER: And the highly enriched uranium?
HEGSETH: There's nothing that I've seen that suggests that we didn't hit exactly what we wanted to hit in those locations.
We'll score that as an obvious "non-answer answer." For that reason, Jennifer Griffin of Fox News quickly followed up.
Jennifer Griffin is highly experienced. Continuing directly from above, she now posed the obvious question for the second time:
GRIFFIN (continuing directly): That's not the question though. It's about highly enriched uranium. Do you have certainty that all the highly enriched uranium was inside the Fordow Mountain or some of it—because there were satellite photos that showed more than a dozen trucks there two days in advance. Are you certain none of that highly enriched uranium was moved?
Unacceptably, Griffin had dared to tell this high priest that he hadn't answered the question. He responded with an astonishing meltdown directed at Griffin herself.
Hegseth responded by savaging Griffin. With respect to the actual question, he took a dive once again:
HEGSETH (continuing directly): Of course, we're watching every single aspect. But Jennifer, you've been about the worst, the one who misrepresents the most intentionally what the president says...
[Personal attack on Griffin]
We're looking at all aspects of intelligence and making sure we have a sense of what was where.
We're watching every single aspect! We're looking at all aspects of intelligence and making sure we have a sense of what was where!
Setting the personal attack to the side, that was Hegseth's second non-answer answer. That was his second attempt to dodge the question at hand.
Another reporter now stepped in to question the mighty member. After he had scolded her for her alleged obsession with DEI, she became the third reporter to raise the unanswered question.
In this exchange, in Biblical fashion, the secretary refused to answer for what was now the third time:
REPORTER: Are you certain that the uranium wasn't removed from the facility before the B2s struck?
HEGSETH: So I'm not aware of any intelligence that I've reviewed that says things were not where they were supposed to be, moved or otherwise.
We're cleaning up an imperfection in the Rev transcription. But in that string of argle-bargle, we have the secretary's third refusal to answer this obvious question. That said, this third refusal to answer the question did, in fact, serve as an answer:
No, Virginia! Despite the rantings of President Trump, the administration doesn't know, at this point in time, whether "highly enriched uranium was moved out of Fordow before the strikes." That would be the obvious conclusion we would take from Hegseth's refusals to answer.
At this point, the administration doesn't know if enriched uranium was taken away in the days before the strike. Even as he kept melting down, the secretary's three (3) refusals to answer had finally seemed to provide the answer.
For now, we've skipped past the content of Hegseth's several meltdowns, including his remarkable attack on Griffin herself. We're also skipping the ridiculous performance, later that day, by press secretary Karoline Leavitt, in which she savaged CNN's Natasha Bertrand in ways which made zero sense.
So it goes as a group of warfighters go to war on behalf of the current commander. For now, we'll offer a brief overview of Griffin's tenure at Fox News—and we'll briefly note the conceptual difficulties Blue Americans face with respect to this new breed of furious tribal warfighters.
Yesterday, at the 38-minute mark, there came his 19th nervous breakdown of the day's press event.
Griffin dared to note that he'd failed to answer the question. Hegseth responded with this:
GRIFFIN: That's not the question though. It's about highly enriched uranium. Do you have certainty that all the highly enriched uranium was inside the Fordow Mountain or some of it—because there were satellite photos that showed more than a dozen trucks there two days in advance. Are you certain none of that highly enriched uranium was moved?
HEGSETH: Of course, we're watching every single aspect. But Jennifer, you've been about the worst, the one who misrepresents the most intentionally what the president says...
Before his second full refusal to answer, Hegseth continued along from there, battling Griffin's objections to that characterization. After his ad hominem attacks on Griffin, he again failed to answer.
For the record, who is Jennifer Griffin? As a general matter, we'll tell you this:
Even now, the Fox News Channel employs a certain number of people who provide high-end, nonpartisan news reporting. Griffin has been cast in that role at Fox since 1999—or maybe since 1996. The leading authority on her career starts with this overview:
Jennifer Griffin
Jennifer Griffin is an American journalist who works as Chief National Security Correspondent at the Pentagon for Fox News. She joined Fox News in October 1999 as a Jerusalem-based correspondent. Prior to the posting, she reported for three years from Moscow for Fox News.
Since 2007, Griffin has reported daily from the Pentagon where she questions senior military leaders, travels to war zones with the Joint Chiefs and Secretaries of Defense, and reports on all aspects of the military...
And so on from there.
We'll admit that that initial chronology doesn't quite seem to parse. Did Griffin "join Fox News in 1999?" Or did she hire on three years prior to that?
The chronology there doesn't quite make sense. In fairness to the leading authority, its chronology was taken, live and direct, from the jumbled chronology posted by Fox News itself.
At any rate, Griffin has long been one of the Fox News Channel's handful of competent, non-partisan news reporters. By all accounts, she's highly regarded by others in the field.
For that reason, Hegseth's personal attack seemed especially odd—but also made an obvious type of sense. That said, Hegseth is a person filled with anger—a person who seems to run on a remarkable sense of grievance. In fairness, Leavitt's later attack on Bertrand may have been even nuttier than the Hegseth's attack on Griffin.
As at Troy, so too here. A new group of tribal warfighter have been coming over the walls since President Trump was elected again last November.
Their claims and their behaviors are often very strange. (One might say, are often highly unfamiliar.) It's very hard to find the language with which to describe their attitudes and their work.
Hegseth is part of this tribal group. So is the routinely ridiculous Leavitt, this aggressive warfighting tribe's frequent scolder-in-chief.
Ages and ages hence, someone may be telling this story with a sigh—or then again, possibly not! Starting on Monday, we'll attempt to find the language with which to describe the attitudes and the behaviors of this profoundly aggrieved new group.
At Troy, the Achaeans finally came over the walls; astonishing violence followed. Today, it's fighters like Hegseth and Leavitt who proceed in their wake.
Our foolishness in Blue America helped put these players in place. That said, they almost seem to be a whole new type of aggregation. It's hard to find a recognizable way to describe their relentless conduct.
Secretary Hegseth is gripped by a sense of grievance which won't seem to leave him alone. It's hard to find the language with which to describe his furious conduct.
Having said that, we can tell you this:
No, Virgina! From President Trump on down, it seems that these players simply don't know if uranium was carted away before last Saturday's strike.
It's only one of many possible questions at this point. But their fury seems to know no bounds, and it won't permit them to simply say that they don't actually know.
Their fury has them by the throat. It won't seem to let them go.
ReplyDeleteReally, Bob? So many words because a politician wouldn't directly answer a very specific question? Are you nuts, Bob? Show me one American politician who would answer a question like that?
Heh, this reminds me of one Colin Powell shaking a vial at the United Nations, turning himself into world's laughing stock, poor fella.
Umm no, show me where Hegseth and Powell have ever held an elected office. The boys be administrating not politizing. But they both had to cover for histories two dumbest Presidents, who have made some of the worst decisions in the countries history. I almost felt bad for Powell, but fuck the drunk.
Delete"At this point, the administration doesn't know if enriched uranium was taken away in the days before the strike. "
ReplyDeleteSomerby thinks he knows what the situation is. His preferred narrative is that Hegseth doesn't know and doesn't want to admit to not knowing. But it is also plausible that Hegseth does know that the uranium was moved and doesn't want to say so because it would mean that Trump wasted 12-14 bunker buster bombs for nothing. It might also mean that Trump warned Iran to move the uranium and they did so.
Somerby is usually careful not to say anything definite. We have no evidence that Hegseth DOESN'T KNOW whether the uranium was moved. He has the same pictures as others do, showing trucks lined up and moving stuff from the site. Why would Somerby be saying this about Hegseth's ignorance when Somerby himself cannot know what is in Hegseth's head for sure, what he knows or doesn't know, what he believes or doesn't believe?
This looks like Somerby attempt to blame the press for demanding info from Hegseth that Hegseth doesn't have (according to Somerby).
Somerby concludes:
"Having said that, we can tell you this:
No, Virgina! From President Trump on down, it seems that these players simply don't know if uranium was carted away before last Saturday's strike.
It's only one of many possible questions at this point. But their fury seems to know no bounds, and it won't permit them to simply say that they don't actually know."
They don't want to say they don't know, just as they don't want to say the uranium is gone, because it would undercut Trump's victory and reduce his chances of being given the Nobel Peace Prize. But it is certainly worse to admit that this whole attack was staged and Iran was warned to remove the uranium ahead of time. That's why Somerby must admit that Hegseth doesn't know anything, never considering the possibility that Hegseth is dodging because HE DOES KNOW and the answer isn't pretty, reflects badly on both himself and Trump (who will have hoaxed everyone with Iran and Russia's collusion). But that has happened before and that makes it the most likely scenario, even if Somerby refuses to consider it.
The biggest giveaway is Somerby's certainty about Hegseth's knowledge, when Somerby never claims to be certain about anything, even when Trump tells whoppers.
It might also mean that Trump warned Iran to move the uranium and they did so.
DeleteMore likely, Trump called Putin and said: "Vlad, we are thinking of bombing the uranium enrichment facility. What do you think?". Putin: "Go for it, comrade Trump".
Good analysis.
Griffin's question was a trap that Hegseth avoided.
ReplyDelete1. The point of this mission was to demolish Fordo. It succeeded brilliantly. The mission was not about what material was where.
2. Certainty is impossible. She asked, "Are you certain none of that highly enriched uranium was moved?" Of course he couldn't be certain. So why ask the question this way?
3. Suppose Hegseth had said he wasn't certain. Today's headline would be, Hegseth Not Certain All Uranium Removed. That headline would have helped create a narrative that there's reason to believe that some or all of the uranium was removed, even though there are no facts supporting this hypothesis.
P.S. People worried about material being moved should appreciate Trump attacking on Day 2, when he had talked about 2 weeks. That was a way to trick Iran into not moving all the uranium right away
Hegseth should go back on the bottle, dickhead. Go fuck yourself.
Delete1. This suggestion is ridiculous. The military doesn't go around demolishing warehouses just for the fun of it. Of course it was about what material was there.
Delete2. Certainty is certainly possible. That's what the inspections in Obama's treat were for. Asking whether Hegseth was certain no uranium was moved is her way of asking whether the strike was successful and destroyed uranium that was there.
3. Somerby thinks Hegseth should have expressed uncertainty. I agree that Hegseth wouldn't want to do that, but if he had actually destroyed uranium he could have said so, in support of Trump's claims. That he refused is telling. There IS a reason to believe some or all of the uranium was removed. That idea is supported by the photos of trucks lined up to do so. They aren't removing lab equipment or paper supplies. Why would they be there if they weren't removing something Iran didn't want bombed?
Trump told Iran that he was going to bomb them. What day he did it is irrelevant given the pictures of Iran evacuating the contents of the site. The main trickery was that the Pentagon tried to withhold the strike date from Trump so that he wouldn't leak it, but they were too late for that.
You need to learn to listen to what people don't say, not just what they say. Hegseth refused to support Trump's claim that uranium was destroyed, when he was given three chances to support Trump and evaded all three.
if (1) was the objective, then Hegseth should simply answered: we don't care about the enriched uranium; we only care about damaging the facility. To what extent it was "destroyed" is also unclear.
DeleteOf course, this is ludicrous, as the conversation has been about the uranium enrichment program.
(3) That's what today's headlines are, David. Additionally, we get to see that DefSec is an angry, immature drunkard. That, of course, is not news.
The president declared that Iran's nuclear weapons program was completely and totally obliterated. Questions about whether components of the program survived are valid.
DeleteDavid is forgetting bullet point No. 4: "The right-wing Washington Times reported that at a press conference at the NATO Summit in the Netherlands on Wednesday, Trump revealed that he had given Iran permission to bomb the U.S.’s Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar in retaliation for the American bombing of their nuclear sites."
DeleteNo problem with killing our boys and girls Mr. Mullah, just give Jared a billion or two and nominate me for the Nobel Peace prize. I mean what the fuck do I care about the welfare of US soldiers? Suckers and losers, the whole lot of them.
"The mission was not about what material was where." It is this level of ridiculousness that makes me wonder how DiC made it to old age. I mean shouldn't this level osf acute stupid have killed him by now?
DeleteAre we still judging how bad Trump is by how the stock market is doing? Or do just save that for when it's not going well?
ReplyDeletewomp womp
get back to us when the tariffs hit, fuck face maggot
DeleteThere was bad financial news just yesterday, when gdp growth was revised downward to 1.4 from 1.8 (which is still lower than Biden's numbers). The headline was about the emergence of Trump's economy, which also has lower job growth and higher unemployment. This was reported in the context of Trump's demand that Powell lower the interest rate, explaining Powell's reluctance to do so in the face of these worsening indicators.
Deletewomp womp indeed. Record high.
DeleteToday's market is 2000 below the record high and 1000 below the market at the end of Biden's term. Perhaps you are saying that it is a record high for Trump, but that isn't saying much.
Delete2000 what? 1000 below what? What is the base rate? You're a fool!!
DeleteIt was always a drop dead dumb data point to use as a criticism. Like your advice to short TSLA. Drop dead dumb.
DeleteDow is down 1k below where Biden left it, TSLA is way way down from where it was a couple of months ago.
DeleteTypical of Trump, he breaks things and then when they return to normal, return to where they were before he broke them, he claims success, LOL!!!
Trying to gaslight on metrics that are easy to look up is never effective.
TSLA is currently the BEST stock to short, you do not understand how shorting/day trading works.
Personally, I have made about $30k this year short selling TSLA, the stock bounces around like no other stock, nearly every day at some point it drops $8-10. Even if you short only 100 shares, that's an easy $1k/day.
womp womp
What is the base rate of the 1K figure?
DeleteShort selling high volatility stocks is about the dumbest strategy anyone could have so that does make sense.
DeleteBut congrats on the 30k and the *easy* 1k a day! ;)
DeleteFrom where the Dow was when Biden left office.
Deleteduh.
You do not day trade a stock that does not have volatility, your ignorance is breathtaking.
You seem jealous.
Jealous of someone advocating day trading high volatility tech stocks ? Hehe. Yeah. I'm filled with envy. ;)
DeleteWhen you incorporate the base rate of the $1,000 figure you're talking about a 2% difference.
You really are dumb and full of shit. Bye.
um TSLA is one of the most popular stocks to day trade/short sell, you do not know what you are talking about.
DeleteThe Dow is currently 1000 points under where it was at the end of Biden's term, and about 3-5k off it's trajectory under Biden, this is a significant under performance.
Again, you haven't a clue.
Sorry about your jealousy. Bye.
Jennifer Griffin says on her own podcast that she joined Fox News in 1997, shortly after the network's formation, reporting from Moscow. In 1999 she signed a multi-year contract and became their Jerusalem correspondent. Since 2007 she has reported from the Pentagon as a national security correspondent.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't hard to find this out and there is no discrepancy involved, just different places reporting her background differently (depending on what aspect of her experience they wish to emphasize).
If Somerby cannot use a search engine to answer such questions, he doesn't deserve to write a blog. Instead he murkily implies there is some controversy about her background when there is none. Even Somerby must know that job titles change and that journalists sometimes work freelance at the beginning of their careers. It also seems obvious that Fox might start its network with more tenuous contracts than it could later offer, after it became a more successful enterprise.
The point is that Griffin has plenty of foreign affairs experience, even if it is mostly with Fox News. Or is Somerby trying to imply that his own confusion means she wasn't reporting her own background consistently?
Somerby is pointing out that on Fox's own website the information about Griffin is muddled and inaccurate. No one should have to do any research to get the basic info on when a journalist was hired.
DeleteExpecting accuracy from Fox's own website is a fool's errand.
Delete10:58 makes a good point.
"has plenty of foreign affairs" - Why doesn't Griffin date American men? Why does she hate the USA?
DeleteSupreme Court limit's universal injunctions...a little
ReplyDelete"Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts. The Court grants the Government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue."
Trump would have preferred injunctions only apply to each plaintiff who DID sue. That's traditionally the way injunctions work. But this is a step forward (or a step backward, if you oppose Trump.)
go fuck yourself, dickhead in cal, you liked the injunctions when that hack judge in Texas was handing them out, you fucking hypocrite. when is Prince Orange Chickenshit going to appeal the actual constitutional right to birthright citizenship, you fucking racist maggot fascist freak???
DeleteIsn't that one of the decisions being handed down today -- birthright citizenship?
DeleteThe moving finger writes and having writ moves on...as David changes the subject and moves the goalposts.
Delete11:18, The criminal administration has not appealed the actual ruling that Prince Orange Chickenshit is in violation of the Constitution. They don't want the SC to take that case up because they are fucking evil.
DeleteThey said it is not their job to determine whether the President is allowed to ban birthright citizenship. That throws the issue back to Congress. The court did uphold the previous decisions on the 14th Ammendment by upholding the injunctions in the current cases limited to the states and plaintiffs (and others with standing to sue) but not beyond that. It means Trump cannot prohibit birthright citizenship in the states suing.
DeleteNow it is up to Congress to impeach Trump for failure to uphold the Constitution with his Executive Orders that have tried to modify the Constitution via executive fiat.
It is not their job to rule on the constitutionality of a tyrannical president wiping his corrupt fat ass with our Constitution? Wow, who knew.
Deleteleaving it up to Congress to do what, a new Amendment to the Constitution???? What the fuck? LOL
DeleteNo, impeachment of Trump for failure to uphold the current laws. The president doesn't get to issue Executive Orders that contradict the Constitution. It violates his oath of office. Congress needs to do its job, not pass this off onto the Supreme Court.
Delete"Congress needs to do its job"
DeleteYou are flagged for erroneous use of the word "Congress" when you mean corrupt lying bastard republicans
The USSC seems to have gone seriously fucking Nazi and shit. Chilling. But at least we know we are every bit as sick and twisted as Nazi Germany in 1933. People are cruel and will always rally to punch down on others. Especially the fundy (anti) Christians who can't be bothered to listen to Christ and dump the old book not featuring JC. ie: Nasty fucks. But they home school their children.
Delete@12:33 punches down the SC and fundamentalist Christians in a post decrying punching down others.
DeleteExactly how do you “punch down” on the SC DiC? They are literally at the top of the ladder.
DeleteDavid, what's the difference between plaintiffs who sued and plaintiffs with standing to sue?
DeleteOne becomes a plaintiffs by suing. A plaintiffs must have standing to win. Both conditions are necessary for an injunction.
Exactly how do you “punch down” on the SC DiC?
DeleteThe Dickhead in Cal is perpetually aggrieved, always the fucking victim.
Just to clarify your proposal, David: every person needs to sue for their citizenship?
DeleteThe ruse here is obvious. The only people who can sue are the same people who would open themselves up for deportation. Even if it's someone here legally on a student visa, they can be deported immediately.
The silver lining is that hospitals for the most part will ignore the citizenship. If hospitals are forced to verify parents' status, maybe they can sue. Hopefully, they will have standing, as it creates an undue burden on them. Eventually, this has to be resolved by SCOTUS. They are just hoping Trump will croak soon and the whole matter will disappear.
The USSC and the fake Christians (trump the most glaring example) are running the show. I was punching up not down you lying deceitful dufus.
DeleteThe level of flip/flopitude on the right is simply staggering. Trump is the dove, Hillary the Hawk, morphs to damn right we should turn Iran to glass in three seconds. Fucking toads.
DeleteTrump does not know what the fuck he is doing.
DeleteTrump's phony rhetoric may have fooled some, but his actions are clear: Trump is your standard issue neoliberal neocon Republican.
Trump further aligns with Republicans by being totally incompetent, his bombings in Yemen and Iran being total failures, and worse he killed innocent civilians, including children, in cold blooded fashion.
"Trump's phony rhetoric may have fooled some,..."
DeleteDon't be ridiculous. No one is fooled. The Right just loves Trump's bigotry.
Maybe the Iranians are producing depleted uranium for armor-piercing shells. The enriched uranium is a byproduct.
ReplyDeleteMaybe they have learned to use every part of the pig, even the ears and tail...
DeleteTrump’s ear is damaged, and he doesn’t have a tail.
DeleteIt's stumpy, but the felon does have a tail.
DeleteTo treat Trump's hemorrhoids he has to use the bunker busting version of a suppository.
DeleteTrumpers don't need to add Trump to Mt Rushmore, we already have a replica of his massive ass with all it's painful and intricate details, minus the horrible stench - the Grand Canyon.
"But their fury seems to know no bounds, and it won't permit them to simply say that they don't actually know."
ReplyDeleteThe fury arises because Trump sees his chances of receiving a Nobel Peace Prize trickling away over these doubts about the success of his mission, and the aftermath. If Trump cannot say for sure that his mission was accomplished, why should he get a prize for a failed attempt to bully Iran into submission to Israel? Trump sees that he has made the situation worse and won't be getting any accolades. That is why he is furious.
Trump hates Obama. More than that, he hates that Obama was a better president, with his fancy health care plan and his successful treaty to limit nuclear proliferation. As further evidence of Trump's peevish hatred of Obama, there is this:
"As of April 2025, Donald Trump's White House replaced Barack Obama's official portrait with a painting of himself. The new painting depicts Trump with his fist raised after the assassination attempt in Pennsylvania.
The painting of Obama, created by Robert McCurdy in 2022, was moved to the entrance hall of the White House state floor. It is normally displayed in the Grand Foyer and is considered the most recent official presidential portrait. "
Trump is furious because a black man was a better president than he has been. Now his own attempt to manipulate himself into a peace prize is going down the drain. Of course he is angry, even while he lies about it.
Obama is also a better human.
DeleteThe real Replacement Theory concerns incompetent White men being replaced by competent women and people of color.
DeleteAmy bodied DEI Ketani, the dumbest justice in US history.
ReplyDeleteIn her majority opinion for the Supreme Court nuking universal injunctions, Amy Coney Barrett also juked Kentanji Brown Jackson from orbit.
“We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”
the judiciary is only imperial when the corrupt 6 say it is imperial.
DeleteAs David quotes: "The Court grants the Government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue."
DeleteThis means that an injunction in one state can apply to plaintiffs in other states and only the broader injunctions that would apply to plaintiffs beyond those suing are excluded.
This is not much of a win for Trump. It affirms the widening of an injunction to include all plaintiffs with standing to sue, not just those named by the suit at hand. It is a compromise decision.
The snide remark aimed at Jackson may appease conservatives but it is otherwise meaningless, especially since no one really thinks Jackson wants an "imperial Judiaciary".
"Ketani, the dumbest justice" DUI hire Kavanaugh would like a word with you. Jackson Brown is another strong woman you knuckle draggers can't handle being better than you in every measure the matters. "In 1992 she graduated magna cum laude from Harvard with a bachelor’s degree in government. In her senior year she wrote an honors thesis examining the role of coercion in plea bargaining.
DeleteAfter working for one year as a journalist and researcher at Time magazine, she entered Harvard Law School, graduating with a juris doctor (J.D.) degree in 1996. While there she served as a supervising editor of the Harvard Law Review"
And you damn well know that being a black women in a country stocked full of sexist racist assholes like yourself she has to be three times better than any white man to get the same job. DEI hire my ass.
The dumbest justice does happen to be black, but it’s Clarence Thomas.
DeleteThomas ain't stupid, he just plays dumb to keep the million dollar g(r)ift's rolling in.
DeleteSCOTUS rules Montgomery County School Board’s use of LGBTQ+ storybooks without opt-out VIOLATES Free Exercise Clause
ReplyDeleteSchools MUST notify parents & allow opt-outs
The Court held that reading these books in elementary classrooms imposes a "very real threat" to parents’ rights to direct their children’s religious upbringing.
Schools can't get their deviant hands on defenseless children whose families can't afford private schools.
This is why it is so important to pack the SC with Christo-fascists working to turn our country system of government into a true theocracy./
DeleteSorry about the bad news. SCOTUS says you won't be able to ply children with porn.
Deleteright, you can go on raping them in your churches though
DeleteMost schools include an opt-out. The issue is that those suing (aided by the Supreme Court) don't want LGBTQ+ people to be a normal part of society. Children's books about gay characters are not porn unless you are a twisted bigot. The Bible doesn't mention homosexuality much less prohibit it. This is not a religious issue but an issue of people wishing to pass their bigotry on to their children without contradiction or questions, parental rights to indoctrinate vs school rights to serve all children, even those with two daddies or two mommies. When the court sides with the bigots it guarantees that we will still be dealing with this issue a hundred years from now.
DeleteBetter for the little boys to have "hands-on" learning about fags by getting buggered by Southern Baptist Camp Counselors, Catholic Priests, and Boy Scout Troop leaders. These boys don't need no book learning don't cha know?
DeleteDemocrats want public schools grooming children about gay sex so their Boy Scout or church leaders can easily abuse them. Good parents steer children away from sodomy. We won't be dealing with this in a hundred years in the developed world because the perverts and groomers will be driven out on a rail and remembered as another deranged attempt to reverse the progress of civilization.
DeleteNo one has two daddies or two mommies. Every human being has one parent of each sex. There are two sexes. Men are male, women are female.
DeleteMen are male, women are female, and assholes are assholes.
DeleteThere are more than two sexes, and there are many genders.
DeleteNeither sex nor gender are related to sexual orientation.
Dems can think, Repubs are dumb; there's your binary.
Everywhere men, especially gay men, have access to children, abuse rates are high. Highest in public schools.
DeleteThe Catholic Church has ended its abuse as has the Boy Scouts, but public schools still protect abusers, provide legal representation, and move them around in addition to grooming students through curriculum.
Catholic Church: The 2002 John Jay Report documented about 11,000 allegations of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in the U.S. over 50 years (1950–2002), involving roughly 4.4% of priests. A 2018 German Bishops’ Conference study found 1,670 clergy abused 3,677 minors (1946–2014). In Australia, the 2017 Royal Commission reported 7% of Catholic priests (1950–2010) were alleged perpetrators.
Estimates suggest 0.1–0.8% of children in religious settings experience abuse, with boys more affected (0.8% vs. 0.1% for girls in Australia).
The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) faced 82,209 claims in its 2020 bankruptcy, covering decades of abuse by 7,800 suspected perpetrators (1944–2016).
With millions of scouts over decades, precise rates are unclear, but the 82,209 claims suggest a significant per-capita impact compared to the Catholic Church’s 10,667 U.S. claims.
A 2002 Department of Education report estimated 6–10% of public school students (roughly 4.5 million) experience sexual misconduct (from comments to rape) by graduation. A 2004 report by Charol Shakeshaft suggested 9.6% of students face educator misconduct, surpassing Catholic priest abuse in scale. Teachers have prolonged access to children, and cover-ups (e.g., reassigning accused teachers) mirror church and BSA practices.
Public schools: 6–10% of students (0.06–0.1 per student).
Catholic priests: ~4.4% of priests implicated, affecting ~0.01% of U.S. Catholics (10,667/77.4 million).
Boy Scouts: No precise per-scout rate, but 12,254 confirmed victims over decades suggest a lower per-capita rate than schools but higher than churches.
Public schools likely have the highest raw numbers and per-capita rates (6–10%) due to scale and access, followed by Boy Scouts (significant but lower per-capita impact), and churches (lowest per-capita).
SCOTUS upholds Texas age verification law for porn sites, 6 - 3. All three liberals dissent, defending the exposure of children to porn.
ReplyDeleteChildren don't care about porn. It is the adults who want to find porn on the internet who will be inconvenienced by this decision. There are many obscene things on the internet that I might want to prohibit other adults from pursuing. This one just privileges the abridgement of adult feedoms because people can't figure out how to use the parental controls on their computers.
DeleteYou don't care as you already have VPN software you skeavy perv.
DeleteChildren have always had access to porn, back in the day kids would find their dad's stash of porn magazines, and every kid knew how to futz with the cable descrambler to watch porn on cable.
DeleteThe number one use of the internet is porn.
Studies show that access to porn is healthy.
What is unhealthy is kids getting abused by others, others that could use porn as an outlet instead of messing with kids.
Look at these Democrats defending exposing children to porn and sodomy.
DeleteSounds like a personal problem. Democrats do not do that, or even think like a sick perv that way. Why do you think like a sick child perv? Issues you would like to share. A cry for help? There are resources available to help you. Don't crush a poor child's soul you sick bastard.
DeleteSounds like Republicans are defending pedophiles.
DeleteVery on brand.
Trump is explaining away the trucks by saying that they were there to pour concrete and seal off the tunnels in anticipation of a raid they supposedly didn't know was coming.
ReplyDeleteYou can see the picture of the trucks here:
https://www.jefftiedrich.com/p/fox-news-dunk-tank-clown-totally
Three year old boys can tell the difference between a concrete mixer truck and a moving van.
DeleteI don't know if DUI hire Whiskey Pete has enough brain cells left to be able to think like a 3 year old.
Delete"It's hard to find a recognizable way to describe their relentless conduct."
ReplyDeleteNot at all when one considers that they are playing for a party of one. They're similar to the US Supreme Court in that regard.
That said, Hegseth is a person filled with anger—a person who seems to run on a remarkable sense of grievance.
ReplyDeleteHegseth is anger is fueled by insecurity. That insecurity stems from his complete lack of wherewithal to do his job. He's a lost little boy. I understand that he was kept in the dark about this operation, understandably so as he would've blabbed about it on Instagram.
Perhaps, even more importantly, he cannot possibly say anything other than the operation was a complete success. To do so would incur the wrath of Trump. There are no facts in this administration; there are only "Truths".
Hegseth and Leavitt are legitimately angry at pundits who slant the news to hurt Trump IMO. I'm angry too.
DeleteHere again, Bob doesn't analyze whether their anger is legitimate. He jumps right to personal insults.
Trump Lickspittle says he is angry. You're always fucking angry, Dickhead in Cal. Perpetually Aggrieved. You own all branches of the government yet you are the victim, Go fuck yourself, you fascist freak
DeleteYou can't handle the truth David.
DeleteThe question was as straightforward and judgement-free as one could imagine: was the enriched uranium moved before the strike. Where is the slant here, David?
DeleteThe slant was only America hating reporters ask questions of the big dummy that require thought to respond. Unfair!!! He is not capable of rational thought, so lay off him already!
DeleteImagine What It Must Feel Like to Be a Democrat
ReplyDelete▪️USAID is defunded
▪️DOW is skyrocketing
▪️Rogue judges’ power limited
▪️Iran nuclear capability stifled
▪️Zohran is the leader of their party
▪️RNC has 5 times more cash on hand than DNC
▪️Criminal illegal aliens are being deported
▪️President Trump is brokering peace deals
▪️States will begin defunding Planned Parenthood
▪️128 democrats voted AGAINST impeaching President Trump
▪️White males, like David Hogg, are being kicked out of leadership positions
"RNC has 5 times more cash on hand than DNC"
Delete5 times zero is zero.
Agreed, watching Dems tears over the destruction of the world's oldest Democracy is so fulfilling. Especially fun when brown people get tossed to Sudan. Can wait for them to target the Jews. Haha, that'll be even more fun.
Delete