This video is almost genius in its simplicity: Joe Biden as Joe Rogan, interviewing Joe Biden, all populated exclusively with actual Biden audio.
I’m not going to do a blow-by-blow recap, since the video is short and you’ll probably recognize most or all of the snippets. And who doesn’t love the loopy Corn-Pop/rusty razors in rain barrels story?
The creators missed an opportunity to spoof the theme music, though. “The Joe Biden Experience! 10-4 all day! None at night!”
In many states, Democrats can’t win unless they cheat, and that’s why they want easily-abused universal mail-in voting to become to the norm. To that end, Democrats sued Texas (yet again) over mail-in voting limitations, and once again their lawsuit against election security laws was denied by the Supreme Court.
An attempt to revive the Texas Democratic Party’s 2020 challenge to the state’s mail-in ballot restrictions was denied this week by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari from Joseph Cascino, Marie Sansing, and Brenda Li Garcia — residents of Texas who do not qualify for mail-in voting under current law. They filed their petition back in December.
In Texas anyone may vote early in person, but only those aged 65 or older, disabled, or out of their county of residence during the election may vote by mail.
The trio of petitioners argued that their right to vote is impinged by those limitations and that the 26th Amendment bars any such division of classification between voters.
The case was originally made in 2020 by the Texas Democratic Party, which secured a temporary victory in the trial court. The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision and the Supreme Court denied an appeal of that reversal.
Represented by the Office of the Attorney General (OAG), Secretary of State Jane Nelson countered, “Some States endorse no-excuse absentee voting; others require in-person voting with narrow exceptions.”
“This diversity of approaches reflects a healthy federalism and accords with the uncontroversial notion that ‘government must play an active role in structuring elections.’”
The court did not issue any opinion or reasoning with the dismissal.
“Many states irresponsibly and unconstitutionally changed their voting policies prior to the 2020 election,” Attorney General Ken Paxton said of the dismissal. “Fortunately, we did things differently in Texas: we fought hard to uphold Texas law and defend the integrity of elections in this State.”
Texas did change its voting policy during the 2020 election — Gov. Greg Abbott used disaster powers to unilaterally extend early voting by a week — and while no ruling declared it unconstitutional, the extension was done without input from the Legislature, which was the very contention of Paxton’s 2020 election suit against other states who similarly changed voting laws through executive order.
Two state senators, Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller, then-Texas GOP Chair Allen West, and a bevy of then-current or former state representatives sued over the action. The Texas Supreme Court denied their motion for an emergency stay as Paxton was named as one of the attorneys for Texas Secretary of State Ruth Hughs.
Another argument that was denied back in 2020 was that the threat of contracting COVID-19 constituted a disability under the state Election Code; it was also ultimately rejected.
The practical onus for the original lawsuit was Harris County Clerk Chris Hollins’ unsolicited mailing of absentee ballot applications to all voters. That action was halted by the Texas Supreme Court in October 2020.
In Harris County, I’m sure that Lina Hidalgo is very disappointed that vote tabulation sites won’t be able to pull out boxes of miraculously overlooked mail-in ballots to alter tallies at 3 AM on November 5th…
— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) March 29, 2024
I was particularly struck by the phrase “fundamentally unwifeable.” Add “social justice” to “feminism” for the reason. As for “Disney Princess programming,” the Disney Princess thing has been around for over half a century. So why have things gotten so much worse on that front over the last 20 years?
On the flipside, here’s a 20-something girl complaining that she can’t afford rent. She apparently deleted the original tweet, but she said her rent had jumped from something like $1,200 a month to $1,600 a month, and she was having trouble affording food. Thanks, Joe Biden! Rent inflation is real, especially in blue cities where regulation prevents new housing being built to meet demand, but if your rent is that much, then you either need to move further out, find roommates to share rent with, or you need to consider moving to a less expensive city entirely.
During an Austin City Council meeting on public safety, Austin-Travis County Emergency and Medical Services (EMS) spoke about the rising rates of opioid deaths in the county.
“Travis County now has twice as many opiate overdose deaths than any other county in Texas, per capita,” said Steven White, acting assistant chief for Austin-Travis County EMS.
White explained how the opioid crisis began in the community in 2016, “with a severe increase in 2017.”
White elaborated that in 2018 there were about 30 overdoses per month, and “now we’re averaging about 100 overdoses a month.”
He went on to show a heat map of where the overdoses are occurring, stating that “opioids do not seem to be contained by geographic barriers or financial barriers.”
“It really gets into every part of our community and touches every family [and] at some point will be affected by the opioid crisis.”
White also highlighted that “30 percent of all the opioid users who die of an overdose, at some point had contact with EMS in the previous 12 months before their death, which gives us an intersection point where we’re actually meeting these patients who have the potential to overdose and die.”
Another statistic he presented is that “patients that receive Narcan in the field by EMS have a 10 percent chance of having a fatal overdose in the next 12 months.”
At the request of CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook officials developed a program called In-App Action Panel (IAAP) that they deployed in 2016 and which was in use through mid-2019, according to the documents, which include internal emails.
The program utilized cyberattacks to intercept information from Snapchat, YouTube, and Amazon. The program then decrypted the information.
“Facebook’s IAAP Program used nation-state-level hacking technology developed by the company’s Onavo team, in which Facebook paid contractors (including teens) to designate Facebook a trusted ‘root’ certificate authority on their mobile devices, then generated fake digital certificates to redirect secure Snapchat analytics traffic (and later, analytics from YouTube and Amazon) from Snapchat’s servers to Onavo’s; decrypted these analytics and used them for competitive gain, including to inform Facebook’s product strategy; reencrypted them; and sent them up to Snapchat’s servers as though it came straight from Snapchat’s app, with Facebook’s Social Advertising competitor none the wiser,” lawyers said in one of the documents.
This is a clever attack in several ways. If you can create and get a program/device to accept a false signing certificate, you bypass having to break a company’s encryption altogether. The program trusts your fake certificate and creates a secure connection to your backend, using your encryption, thinking it’s transmitting information back to the targeted company. Also, analytics data doesn’t have to be sent and received in real time, so a significant delay in gather and receive times may not tip off the targeted company to the attack.
None of this is a walk in the park, but it’s something like ten orders of magnitude easier than breaking the targeted company’s encryption stream on a live session to seamlessly hack it in real time, which is the sort of God-level hacking limited to those with NSA-level computing power, or fictional characters.
The lawyers, representing plaintiffs in a lawsuit that accuses Facebook of anti-competitive behavior, were describing emails they obtained through discovery.
In one email, Mr. Zuckerberg wrote that there was a need to receive information about Snapchat but that their traffic was encrypted. “Given how quickly they’re growing, it seems important to figure out a new way to get reliable analytics about them. Perhaps we need to do panels or write custom software. You should figure out how to do this,” he wrote.
After Facebook employees started working on figuring it out, Facebook Chief Operating Officer Javier Olivan wrote that the program could pay users to “let us install a really heavy piece of software (that could even do man in the middle, etc.).”
Man in the middle refers to a type of cyberattack where attackers secretly intercept information.
More specifically, it’s where a third party successfully inserts itself into the communication stream between two other parties, relaying (and possibly altering) both ends of the communication without either party knowing.
“We are going to figure out a plan for a lockdown effort during June to bring a step change to our Snapchat visibility. This is an opportunity for our team to shine,” Guy Rosen, founder of Onavo, later wrote. Onavo was started in Israel and bought by Facebook in 2013.
In a presentation on the program when it was being finalized, it was stated that there would be “’kits” that can be installed on iOS and Android that intercept traffic for specific sub-domains, allowing us to read what would otherwise be encrypted traffic so we can measure in-app usage.”
Documents and testimony obtained in the case showed the program was launched in June 2016 and continued being used through 2019.
The program initially targeted Snapchat but was later expanded to Google’s YouTube and Amazon, according to the documents.
A few quick points:
This is all from Snapchat’s court documents, so you have to put an “allegedly” on all this.
That Zuckerberg himself is (allegedly) directly implicated in deliberately breaking federal law is pretty breathtaking. He could be looking at serious jail time. Or would be, if he weren’t such a big Democratic Party Donor. (We’ll see how much time Sam Bankman-Fried catches today.)
Snapchat is one thing, but targeting fellow tech behemoths Google (which owns YouTube) and Amazon with this sort of attack would seem to be…unwise. (Maybe Google’s forgiveness was covered in the secret deal the two companies allegedly signed with each other.)
The timeframe is important here. Back in 2016-2019, the handling of digital signing certificates was a lot more loosey-goosey than it is now. A whole lot of things have been tightened up. I wouldn’t say it’s impossible to carry out such an attack now, but it would be harder.
We’ll see if the whole thing jumps from litigation land to the feds actually going after Facebook, but at a time when Facebook is being sued by all manner of plaintiffs (including Texas and other state attorney generals) over privacy violations and anti-competitive practices, the Snapchat revelations could certainly provide more fuel for the fire…
There’s a scam sweeping New York City. And by “New York City,” I mean “the New York City mayor’s office.” Instead of feeding the illegal aliens New York has lured there as a “sanctuary city,” Eric Adams has decided to just hand out preloaded debit cards.
These are theoretically to replace buying food for them. Theoretically.
Handing out free money to illegal aliens paid for with citizen taxpayer dollars is unconscionable enough.
But let me ask the obvious question that no one seems to be asking: How do we know these debit cards will actually be handed out to illegal aliens? How do we know it won’t just be handed out to friends of Eric Adams, leftwing activists, etc.? At least with real food there are receipts. I’m betting there is not a rigorous, auditable, traceable system where the illegal aliens are required to show ID and sign off on receiving the cards.
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that no two-factor authentication is going on here. Being cash-equivalent debit cards, I’m also guessing there’s no way to keep them from being used in liquor stores.
Here Adams is declaring there he’s going to start handing the 21st century equivalent of “walking around money” and we just have to trust him when he says its going to the illegal aliens so they can buy food.
Yet another reason Democrats love illegal aliens is that, like the homeless, they have no support network to speak up for them when welfare state goodies get diverted into the pockets of leftwing activists.
I hadn’t intended to use so much of this week talking about Texas elections, but a lot of news is dropping and the primary looms next week, so let’s tuck in:
After mainly remaining on the sidelines ahead of the primary, casino companies seeking to turn Texas into a piggy bank are spending big to back the current House Speaker and his allies.
Chief among these out-of-state interlopers is Las Vegas Sands, giving through its “Texas” Sands PAC. The largest beneficiary of Sands’ money in the latest filing period is embattled House Speaker Dade Phelan (R-Beaumont).
The casino outfit gave $200,000 to the Speaker, his second-largest donation in the latest filing period. Another gambling behemoth, Penn Entertainment Inc., gave Phelan $20,000. The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma donated $10,000.
Gambling special interests have long targeted Texas but have been rebuffed for decades following failed promises of the Texas Lottery. During the 2023 legislative session, the Texas House advanced gambling measures that the Texas Senate ignored.
In this latest period, Sands gave $1.8 million to Texas politicians. This money went exclusively to members of the Texas House, with Republicans taking $1.34 million and Democrats $457,500. This is potentially a preview of a deluge of money that big gambling may spend in the lead-up to the 2025 legislative session.
State Rep. John Kuempel (R-Seguin), a key proponent of growing the gambling footprint in Texas, received the second-highest total from Sands at $110,000. Like Phelan, Keumpel finds himself up against a field of challengers, including Alan Schoolcraft who enjoys the endorsement of Gov. Greg Abbott and heavy financial backing.
Texas Republican Party Chairman Matt Rinaldi says the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) has paid a company House Speaker Dade Phelan manages three times the market value.
On February 16, 2023, an exclusive Texas Scorecard investigative report examined a lease between HHSC and 3105 Executive, LLC—a company Phelan and members of the Phelan family manage and direct. From December 2017 to December 2023, state taxpayers paid this company $2.3 million through HHSC. The original lease ran from January 2014 to December 2023 but has been extended to August 2029. Phelan was first elected to the Texas House in 2014 and began serving in 2015. He was elected Speaker by fellow House members in 2021.
On February 17, Rinaldi took to social media platform X, noting that the 2023 rent HHSC paid Phelan is three times the market value.
“This looks like a $268,000 windfall to the Speaker’s business paid for money appropriated by the House, which is a big deal,” he wrote. “My next question would be how many other income streams are there like this one?”
Brent Money for House District 2, a seat only recently filled by Jill Dutton in a special election
Joanne Shofner, who is challenging State Rep. Travis Clardy (R-Nacogdoches) for House District 11
Steve Toth (R–Conroe), who is the current representative for House District 15
Janis Holt, who is challenging State Rep. Ernest Bailes (R-Shepherd) for House District 18
Gary Gates (R–Richmond), who is the current representative for House District 28
Wes Virdell for House District 53, which is an open seat following the retirement of State Rep. Andrew Murr (R-Junction)
Hillary Hickland, who is challenging State Rep. Hugh Shine (R-Temple) for House District 55
Stormy Bradley, who is challenging State Rep. Drew Darby (R-San Angelo) for House District 72
Don McLaughlin for House District 80, which is an open seat following the retirement of Tracy King (D-Uvalde)
John Smithee (R–Amarillo), who is the current representative for House District 86
Caroline Fairly for House District 87, which is an open seat following the retirement of Four Price (R-Amarillo)
Barry Wernick, who is challenging State Rep. Morgan Meyer (R-Dallas) for House District 108
Bailes, Darby, Shine, and Meyer all voted to impeach Attorney General Ken Paxton—a close ally of Trump. Gates also voted for impeachment but later apologized and contributed $15,000 to Paxton’s campaign fund.
Bailes, Darby, Clardy, and Shine all voted against Gov. Greg Abbott’s school choice program. Abbott has endorsed Trump’s 2024 presidential bid.
A consensus is forming among a broad front of Republicans (Trump, Abbott, Patrick and Paxton) on who to vote for on Tuesday, and Phalen’s pals ain’t it.
And Paxton is out on the campaign trail supporting challengers to the Phelan-aligned reps who voted for his impeachment.
Ten years into his career in the Texas House, state Rep. Gary VanDeaver (R-New Boston) now faces the very same challenge he mounted a decade ago — a newcomer hoping to unseat an incumbent.
VanDeaver faces two challengers — the Gov. Greg Abbott-backed Chris Spencer and Attorney General Ken Paxton-backed Dale Huls — in his bid for a sixth term in the Legislature.
He is one of 15 House Republicans seeking re-election who voted both for Paxton’s impeachment last May and to strip education savings accounts (ESA) from the House education omnibus bill last November, and for those he’s become a top target. Abbott and the pro-school choice groups wading into Texas House races have an eye toward flipping the seat, and Paxton is bent on exacting retribution.
Snip.
VanDeaver is in a dogfight, primarily against Spencer, the former chairman of the Sulphur Springs River Authority who loaned himself $300,000 at the campaign’s outset and is benefitting greatly from outside money.
According to ad buy data provided to The Texan from Medium Buying, a national GOP placement agency, Spencer and the groups backing him have reserved $116,000 of ad space on cable and broadcast television from Monday through the election next week. That dwarfs the $12,000 spent by VanDeaver’s camp during the same period.
Most of Spencer’s ad space was purchased either by Abbott’s campaign or the School Freedom Fund, a PAC affiliated with the national group Club for Growth.
As of the eight-day reporting period, VanDeaver has $450,000 cash-on-hand after raising $684,000 from January 26 through February 24. During that same period, Spencer raised $257,000 and has $166,000 left on hand. Huls is far behind the other two with $16,000 raised and $7,000 remaining in the bank.
I’m not one to vote for a Republican incumbent just because they’re a Republican incumbent. That, and the fact that the operations of the Texas Railroad Commission are seldom reported on and mostly opaque to me, have heretofore kept me from backing Christi Craddick’s reelection bid, especially since she has four challengers this year.
Nor have her multiple direct mail flyers (with so few competitive races this year, she’s one of the few sending them) saying all the right things, sold me either. Nor did endorsements from the Williamson County Republican Party, or the Texans United for a Conservative Majority PAC, do the trick. (I’m inclined more toward the latter, simply because it agrees with GOA endorsements.)
So I was still looking for a sign. And lo and behold, one was given unto me.
Once upon a time (say 40 odd years ago), the Chronicle, much like the city it was published in, was reliably conservative and Republican. That hasn’t been true for a long time. Today they suffer from the same far left myopia that infects the rest of the MSM, and they seem to have endorsed Matlock for his regurgitation of some well-debunked Gaslands anti-fracking talking points. (Oh, they also endorsed Nikki Haley, because of course they did.)
The fact that Craddick’s most prominent opponent is far enough off-base to be endorsed by the Houston Chronicle is enough to make me back her…
Hillsboro is a large town/small city of some 8,000+ people that most Texans have probably driven through at some point. They’re a county seat, sit smack dab in the great plains agricultural belt and have some light manufacturing, but their main economic advantage is being right where I-35E and I-35W join/split to I-35 traveling south to Waco, Austin and San Antonio. Hillsboro is perfectly positioned to be a road trip snack and restroom break stop.
For years one of Hillsboro’s most notable features was its outlet mall, with a variety of national brands. I bought a Fossil watch from their store many, many years ago.
Well, I traveled through there to and from the Metroplex for a funeral, the outlet mall is dead. Though the two open air mall segments have space for some 86 stores, there’s now precisely one open, a Bath and Body Works. The Hillsboro outlet mall was already ailing before the Flu Manchu lockdowns, but that seems top have accelerated the decline. (San Marcos outlet malls, also on the I-35 corridor, seem to done a much better job weathering the economic headwinds.) This would suggest Hillsboro has entered a period of economic stagnation and decline.
This is the point where I’m supposed to insert some pithy “when one door closes another opens” aphorism. But I rather strongly suspect this particular mall closing scenario plays out very differently in a blue locale like New York or California, where everyone with the means to do so is moving away from those failing high-tax, high-crime states as fast as they can.
As early voting begins in the Republican primary election in Texas, former President Donald Trump has issued a series of endorsements of candidates running for the Texas Legislature.
In a series of posts on Truth Social on Tuesday, Trump revealed the endorsements, which included four challengers to incumbent members he called “RINOs” (Republicans in Name Only).
Those candidates include:
Mike Olcott, challenging State Rep. Glenn Rogers (R–Staford) in House District 60
Helen Kerwin, challenging State Rep. DeWayne Burns (R–Cleburne) in House District 58
Alan Schoolcraft, challenging State Rep. John Kuempel (R–Seguin) in House District 44
Liz Case, challenging State Rep. Stan Lambert (R–Abilene) in House District 61 [Note: This is typo. Case is running in District 71. — LP]
Trump gave his “complete and total endorsement” to each candidate, citing their opponents’ votes to impeach Attorney General Ken Paxton and opposition to school choice as reasons for doing so.
Additionally, Trump endorsed Brent Hagenbuch for the open Senate District 30 being vacated by retiring State Sen. Drew Springer (R–Muenster).
After I post this, I’m going to go back and add the Trump endorsements to yesterday’s roundup.
So here is a list of every contested Republican state House race, whether the incumbent voted to kill school choice or impeach Paxton, and who their challengers are:
District 1: Gary VanDeaver:
Voted to kill school choice? Yes
Voted to impeach Paxton? Yes
Dutton is listed as the incumbent because she won the special election for the seat of the expelled and disgraced Bryan Slaton. But she wasn’t in office to vote for or against school choice or the Paxton impeachment.
As Speaker of the House, Phalen voted Present on the school choice gutting and Paxton impeachment votes, but is known to be the motivating factor behind both.
