Fire Hydrant of Freedom

Given Tabbi’s work breaking the Twitter Files I suspect this bodes some very interesting revelations:

Note to Readers: That Eerie Silence
Getcha popcorn ready.
MATT TAIBBI
MAY 21, 2024

“THE AI ELECTION”: Forget Russians, domestic terrorists, or “Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior.” This year’s censorship hobby horse is AI

Subscribe
Racket readers may have noticed it’s been a bit quiet in here of late. That’s because I’ve been spending the last few weeks on an investigative series in cooperation with another site. What seemed like a cut-and-dried report turned into a bit of a rabbit hole on us; hence the delay.

When I first started publishing the Twitter Files in 2022-2023 along with Michael Shellenberger, Bari Weiss, Lee Fang, David Zweig, Paul Thacker, and others, there was an emphasis on speed. Once we saw phrases like “flagged by DHS,” I knew the project was temporary, and guessed we’d probably need to stay ahead of the news cycle in order to avoid seeing material drown in blowback. So, we set aside some explosive bigger-picture storylines to focus on things that could be confirmed and published quickly. There were also topics we didn’t fully understand at the time.

Some of those broader stories will begin coming out now, hopefully starting this week. There’s a reason for working back through this material now. Sources tell me at least two different active groups are working on political content moderation programs for the November election that tactically would go a step or two beyond what we observed with groups like Stanford’s Election Integrity Partnership, proposing not just deamplification or removals, but fakery, use of bots, and other “offensive” forms of manipulation.

If the recent rush of news stories about the horror of foreign-inspired AI deepfakes (“No one can stop them,” gasps the Washington Post) creating intolerable risk to the coming “AI election” sounds a bit off to you, you’re not alone. This is one of many potential threats pro-censorship groups are playing up in hopes of deploying more aggressive “counter-messaging” tools. Some early proposals along those lines are in the unpublished Twitter Files documents we’ve been working on. Again, more on this topic soon.

Also: beginning around the time we published the “Report on the Censorship-Industrial Complex,” Racket in partnership with UndeadFOIA began issuing Freedom of Information requests in bulk. The goal was to identify inexcusably secret contractors of content-policing agencies like the State Department’s Global Engagement Center. The FOIA system is designed to exhaust citizens, but our idea was to match the irritating resolve of FOIA officers by pre-committing resources for inevitable court disputes, fights over production costs, etc. Thanks to UndeadFOIA’s great work, we now have a sizable library of documents about publicly-funded censorship programs (and a few private ones scooped up in official correspondence).

We’ll be releasing those, too, focusing on a few emails per batch, and publishing the rest in bulk. There’s so much material that a quick global summary here would be difficult, but suffice to say that the anti-disinformation/content control world is much bigger than I thought, enjoying cancer-like growth on campuses in particular, in the same way military research became primary sources of grants and took over universities in the fifties and sixties. Some of these FOIA documents are damning, some entertaining, some just interesting, but all of them belong to the public. We’re going to start the process of turning them over, hopefully today.

In any case, thanks to Racket readers for their patience. I’m very appreciative of the commitment every subscriber makes, especially in this narrowing media environment, which is why I want to make sure readers understand what’s usually going on when things go dark around here. My idea of a vacation is one or two days. If you don’t hear from me for six, I’m working on something. Back soon, and thanks again.

https://www.racket.news/p/note-to-readers-that-eerie-silence

Homeless spending grows, so does the size of the homeless population. Only government program managers can’t see there’s something wrong with this set of circumstances:

Why Are Both Homelessness and Homelessness Spending Growing?
May 17, 2024
By CHRISTOPHER J. CALTON

Also published in The Orange County Register Fri. May 17, 2024   Show More »
Over the past decade, homelessness in California has been rising at alarming rates. California already topped the national list in 2014 when it had a homeless population of 114,000, but according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s 2023 Homelessness Assessment Report count, that number has grown to more than 180,000—nearly a 60 percent increase—and an astonishing two-thirds of these individuals are entirely unsheltered. In fact, with a total unsheltered population of 123,423, California is shamefully only about 10,000 shy of the other 49 states combined.

Yet California has spent a record $24 billion fighting homelessness over the past five years, according to a state audit published last month. In other words, the homeless population and homelessness spending have grown in tandem. How is this even possible?

The sad reality is that the current homelessness policy, known as Housing First, virtually guarantees an ever-ballooning homelessness budget, regardless of how effective it is in reducing the homeless population. This is because the measure of success under Housing First is not independent self-sufficiency, but in homeless persons becoming de facto wards of the state.

In 2013, the federal government adopted Housing First as its approach to homelessness, and California followed in 2016. This means that both state and federal homelessness grants are reserved exclusively for providers who comply with Housing First principles.

The Housing First philosophy contends that the most effective way to address homelessness is to offer people immediate, no-strings-attached housing. Service providers forfeit their grants if they make housing conditional on, say, sobriety or participation in treatment programs. In theory, supportive services are voluntary, but in practice they are almost non-existent.

Instead, California’s approach to Housing First entails little more than warehousing people in permanent-supportive housing (PSH) units. PSH residents are not classified as “homeless” for official counts, but they remain dependent on taxpayer support, which is paid out of the homelessness budget.

We did not always treat permanent dependency as the best-case scenario for homeless individuals. When the Clinton administration first established the continuum of care system for homelessness services in 1994, the Department of Housing and Urban Development explicitly stated that “the goal of the comprehensive homeless service system is to ensure that homeless individuals and families move from homelessness to self-sufficiency, housing, and independent living.”

When Sam Tsemberis, a clinical psychologist, conducted the first Housing First experiment in New York City, he altered the measure of success to “housing stability,” achieved not through self-sufficiency, but through perpetual subsidies. Tsemberis found that 88% of his clients remained stably housed, compared to 47% of patients in treatment-oriented programs. However, Tsemberis worked exclusively with people suffering from severe mental illnesses—those who would have been institutionalized in an earlier era—so it is reasonable that perpetually subsidized housing may have been the best possible outcome for this particular subset of the homeless population.

But should permanent dependency be the goal for all homeless persons? In FY 2022-2023, California spent $116 million on permanent-supportive housing for homeless youth. A policy that functionally treats homeless and at-risk children as lost causes is not only financially unsustainable, it’s downright inhumane.

A significant portion of homeless individuals suffer not from incurable mental illness, but from untreated substance-use disorder, and the overdose mortality rate of PSH residents is disturbingly high. But studies of crack-addicted homeless persons in drug-abstinent housing, work therapy, and day treatment programs found that upon completion, roughly half of the participants remained sober, housed and stably employed. Yes, “housing stability” was lower than Housing First experiments, but independent self-sufficiency is an unquestionably better outcome for those capable of achieving it.
We can accept that there will always be people who require permanent assistance, but state policy should not treat this assumption as universal. Even if we could end homelessness by permanently warehousing people, we should strive to do better.

But after following the Housing First playbook for nearly a decade, the results are clear: the more money we spend on this strategy, the faster the homelessness crisis grows.

 
CHRISTOPHER J. CALTON is the Research Fellow in Housing and Homelessness at the Independent Institute.

https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14931

Given Tabbi’s work breaking the Twitter Files I suspect this bodes some very interesting revelations:

Note to Readers: That Eerie Silence
Getcha popcorn ready.
MATT TAIBBI
MAY 21, 2024

“THE AI ELECTION”: Forget Russians, domestic terrorists, or “Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior.” This year’s censorship hobby horse is AI

Subscribe
Racket readers may have noticed it’s been a bit quiet in here of late. That’s because I’ve been spending the last few weeks on an investigative series in cooperation with another site. What seemed like a cut-and-dried report turned into a bit of a rabbit hole on us; hence the delay.

When I first started publishing the Twitter Files in 2022-2023 along with Michael Shellenberger, Bari Weiss, Lee Fang, David Zweig, Paul Thacker, and others, there was an emphasis on speed. Once we saw phrases like “flagged by DHS,” I knew the project was temporary, and guessed we’d probably need to stay ahead of the news cycle in order to avoid seeing material drown in blowback. So, we set aside some explosive bigger-picture storylines to focus on things that could be confirmed and published quickly. There were also topics we didn’t fully understand at the time.

Some of those broader stories will begin coming out now, hopefully starting this week. There’s a reason for working back through this material now. Sources tell me at least two different active groups are working on political content moderation programs for the November election that tactically would go a step or two beyond what we observed with groups like Stanford’s Election Integrity Partnership, proposing not just deamplification or removals, but fakery, use of bots, and other “offensive” forms of manipulation.

If the recent rush of news stories about the horror of foreign-inspired AI deepfakes (“No one can stop them,” gasps the Washington Post) creating intolerable risk to the coming “AI election” sounds a bit off to you, you’re not alone. This is one of many potential threats pro-censorship groups are playing up in hopes of deploying more aggressive “counter-messaging” tools. Some early proposals along those lines are in the unpublished Twitter Files documents we’ve been working on. Again, more on this topic soon.

Also: beginning around the time we published the “Report on the Censorship-Industrial Complex,” Racket in partnership with UndeadFOIA began issuing Freedom of Information requests in bulk. The goal was to identify inexcusably secret contractors of content-policing agencies like the State Department’s Global Engagement Center. The FOIA system is designed to exhaust citizens, but our idea was to match the irritating resolve of FOIA officers by pre-committing resources for inevitable court disputes, fights over production costs, etc. Thanks to UndeadFOIA’s great work, we now have a sizable library of documents about publicly-funded censorship programs (and a few private ones scooped up in official correspondence).

We’ll be releasing those, too, focusing on a few emails per batch, and publishing the rest in bulk. There’s so much material that a quick global summary here would be difficult, but suffice to say that the anti-disinformation/content control world is much bigger than I thought, enjoying cancer-like growth on campuses in particular, in the same way military research became primary sources of grants and took over universities in the fifties and sixties. Some of these FOIA documents are damning, some entertaining, some just interesting, but all of them belong to the public. We’re going to start the process of turning them over, hopefully today.

In any case, thanks to Racket readers for their patience. I’m very appreciative of the commitment every subscriber makes, especially in this narrowing media environment, which is why I want to make sure readers understand what’s usually going on when things go dark around here. My idea of a vacation is one or two days. If you don’t hear from me for six, I’m working on something. Back soon, and thanks again.

https://www.racket.news/p/note-to-readers-that-eerie-silence

Fills in some blanks re the various, competing Mexican cartels:

SWJ El Centro Book Review – CJNG: A Quick Guide to Mexico's Deadliest Cartel

John P. Sullivan

CJNG Quick Guide
Chris Dalby, CJNG: A Quick Guide to Mexico's Deadliest Cartel. Virtual: World of Crime, 2024 [ISBN:  978-9083423913 paperback, 978-9083423906 eBook, 170 Pages]

The Cártel de Jalisco Nueva Generación (CJNG), or Jalisco New Generation Cartel is one of Mexico’s major criminal cartels. It is locked into a major contest for dominance of Mexico’s illicit economy with the Sinaloa Cartel (Cártel de Sinaloa). Indeed this competition is increasingly global and involves numerous smaller conflicts with other rival cartels and gangs in Mexico and beyond. Both the CJNG and CDS, Mexico’s largest criminal groups, exercise territorial control and criminal governance and effectively rule over large segments of Mexico’s populace, economy (markets), and spaces. This places the CJNG in direct confrontation with its criminal rivals and the state in the areas it controls or seeks to control. This contest for power and profit is often punctuated by violence. It is also colored by myth and misunderstanding of the nature of these contests,

Chris Dalby, a seasoned journalist, formerly with InSight Crime, has analyzed Mexico’s criminal landscape along with its crime wars and criminal insurgencies for many years. Now Director of World of Crime, a think tank based in the Netherlands with a global virtual remit, has published a resource guide capturing the salient aspects of the CJNG story. The guide, CJNG: A Quick Guide to Mexico's Deadliest Cartel, is built upon years of field work, research, and reportage.

Early Days

After a brief introduction, the text is divided into thirteen substantiative chapters followed by a list of “essential resources.” Each chapter describes a distinct aspect of the CJNG’s activities, from their economic ventures to their threats and a description of their geographic reach.

The first topical chapter, “The CJNG’s Origins,” looks at the foundation of the CJNG in the Milenio Cartel under Armando Valencia Cornelio, briefly recounting the early links to the so-called Guadalajara Cartel under Miguel Ángel Félix Gallardo, and influence of Pablo Escobar and the Colombian Medellín Cartel. These early seeds set the stage for the rise of “El Mencho” or Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes the CJNG’s founder and current leader. This emergence is punctuated by the rise of “avocadonomics” or the boom in avocados as a cash crop that became integral to Michoacán’s economy and ripe for exploitation by the CJNG.

The next chapter, “The CJNG’s Many, Many Wars,” recounts criminal conflicts with a number of groups, including the Cárteles Unidos and La Familia Michoacana in Michoacán, the Gulf Cartel in Tamaulipas and Veracruz, the Mezcales in Coloma, the Cártel de Santa Rosa de Lima (CSRL) in Guanajuato, and the Zetas Vieja Escuela in Tamaulipas. This is followed by “The Matazetas,” which examines the story of a counterforce to the Zetas that many report as a part of the emergence of the CJNG. Yet, the true story is more nuanced and complicated.

The Cult of El Mencho

The next chapter details the emergence of “The Cult of El Mencho.” Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, aka “Mencho,” is the notorious leader of the CJNG.  El Mencho eschewed the mantle of social bandit, cultivated by Sinaloa kingpin El Chapo Guzmán, and “Cultivated an aura of fear, devotion and anonymity.”(p. 50) This section recounts Mencho’s early years, when he was connected to the Valencia family and the Milenio cartel; his time in the United States (both in California and in federal prison in Texas); and his return to Mexico where he became a cop, before he reconnected with the Valencia Family and the Milenio Cartel in time for the war with Los Zetas.

The Rise and Fall of the Cuinis and the Next Generation

The legacy of "Los Cuinis” is told in “The Rise and Fall of the Cuinis” which describes the symbiotic relationship between the CJNG and the Cuinis, led by Mencho’s brother-in-law known as “El Cuini.” This group, or faction, were dominated by the González Valencia family. Money laundering, funding expansion into the global methamphetamine trade were hallmarks of the Los Cuini era. After several notable arrests the Cuini power faded. The next chapter “The Next Generation of CJNG Leaders” assesses potential successors to “El Mencho” amid speculation that he is seriously ill and dying or already dead (his actual fate is unknown at the time of this book’s release and this review).

Money Laundering and Branding

“The CJNG’s Money laundering Empire” looks at the financial services component of the CJNG. From front businesses to real estate transaction, trade-based money laundering helps convert the profits from the global meth, fentanyl, and heroin trade into portable capital. The early rise of this business center to its connections to the Chinese shadow banking system and use of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies is briefly reviewed before turning to public affairs. “The CJNG’s Gift for Public Relations” examines the CJNG’s use of social media—including generating a fan base and associated trademark “purple devil” (😈) emoji—and propaganda are described emphasizing “narcoculture,” machismo, hyper-violence, battle images, and cults of personality to reinforce the CJNG brand.

Synthetic Pharma, Other Profit Centers, and Geospatial Reach

The next two chapters focus on the CJG trade in illicit pharma or drugs. “The CJNG and Methamphetamine” sets the stage with a description of the cartel’s innovation in producing its own product through a network of meth labs to form a power base. The global connections derived from this endeavor were the foundation for the next phase, fentanyl. “The CJNG and Fentanyl” describes the growth and current state of the fentanyl trade and its impact in Mexico. The next chapter, “How Else Does the CJNG Make Money?” Looks at the Avocado trade, Extortion, Fuel Theft (Huachicoleo), Illegal Fishing, Illegal Logging and Timber Trafficking, Migrant Smuggling, and Timeshare Fraud. The final two chapters” “Where is the CJNG in Mexico” and “The CJNG Across the Americas” briefly ok at the CJNG presence in each of Mexico’s states and Mexico City (CDMX) and the United States, Canada, Colombia, Ecuador, and Guatemala. The text ends with a short list of reference resources.

Assessing the Text

CJNG: A Quick Guide to Mexico's Deadliest Cartel is a quick read. While it is not a comprehensive account of the CJNG, an exhaustive investigative account, and in-depth ethnology or political economic assessment, it provides an accessible, synopsis of the CJNG’s rise, operational context, and geographic reach. While specialists may miss detailed accounts of social network analysis and conflict analysis, both specialists and generalists will find this an accessible and succinct overview of the CJNG’s major characteristics. Journalists and senior leaders seeking to prepare themselves to understand current events and more detailed research and operational analyses will likely find this a good primer or “essential A–Z” on the Jalisco New Generation Cartel’s background. The author states that this is the first of many potential World of Crime “quick guides” with future volumes on the Tren de Aragua an the Chapitos in preparation. I look forward to seeing those released as companions to this text.

Categories: El Centro
About the Author(s)

John P. Sullivan
Dr. John P. Sullivan was a career police officer. He is an honorably retired lieutenant with the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, specializing in emergency operations, transit policing, counterterrorism, and intelligence. He is currently an Instructor in the Safe Communities Institute (SCI) at the Sol Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California. Sullivan received a lifetime achievement award from the National Fusion Center Association in November 2018 for his contributions to the national network of intelligence fusion centers. He completed the CREATE Executive Program in Counter-Terrorism at the University of Southern California and holds a Bachelor of Arts in Government from the College of William and Mary, a Master of Arts in Urban Affairs and Policy Analysis from the New School for Social Research, and a PhD from the Open University of Catalonia (Universitat Oberta de Catalunya). His doctoral thesis was “Mexico’s Drug War: Cartels, Gangs, Sovereignty and the Network State.” He can be reached at jpsullivan@smallwarsjournal.com.

https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/swj-el-centro-book-review-cjng-quick-guide-mexicos-deadliest-cartel

No dots to connect here:

https://nypost.com/2024/05/16/us-news/nih-director-admits-taxpayers-funded-gain-of-function-research-in-wuhan-four-years-after-covid-pandemic-began/

It seems the charging cables electric vehicles use to power up are popular targets of thieves:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/05/ev-charging-stations-across-the-nation-are-targeted-by-thieves-for-their-copper/?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=ev-charging-stations-across-the-nation-are-targeted-by-thieves-for-their-copper

Quite the tale!

And yes I sometimes forget how annoying many non-lawyers find being subjected to Socratic lines of questioning whereas for me it is simply a search for getting to definition of terms and clarity in what is being asserted.

In addition to my various misadventures in interaction with law enforcement (nowhere near those of your brother!) I regularly work with law enforcement during which I am exposed quite a bit to what the world looks like from an LEO perspective.

I do not deny the potency of your argument, but in equal measure as a general principle I find it quite implausible to suggest that police need to be as subject to lawsuits as anyone just walking around.  I could be mistaken, but it seems like that is where you are or are heading.

It's not a justice system, it is a legal system. 

Even when one "wins" litigation is a significant emotional event with high costs in emotion, time, energy, and money.   The plaintiff gets his lawyer with a contingency agreement, but someone must pay for the defendant's representation.

Yes it had our little burg north of Chicago all aflutter back in the 1970's. Cop had a last name of Bruce, but my google-fu isn't letting me pull anything up. It was reported in the Chicago Tribune IIRC, but they won't let you search their archives for free.

These misadentures drove my brother Randy into basically an outlaw biker lifestyle, an element I believe in his premature death due to all his motorcycle crashes, bar fights, and general hard living. Some of the stupidest things I ever did involved hanging with him at the Kenosha biker bar he favored as aggravated assualt seemed the hobby of many there, while the rules that crowd lived by were quite difficult to discern though unwitting violations of 'em had ugly, even fatal, consequences.

With that said, I don't think I've argued for setting LEOs up for more lawsuits, but do feel when they cross the line as noted in the piece I posted:

"The two officers then release both men, allowing the obviously intoxicated DD to drive home in his pickup truck. Two days later, the officers, Michael Garcia and Joshua Few, swear out a thoroughly rotten probable‐​cause affidavit in which they credit DD’s incoherent and contradiction‐​riddled story that GS impersonated a police officer during the encounter on the highway. Warrant in hand, they then go to GS’s house at 3 a.m., wake him up with a ruse, and arrest him for felony impersonation of a police officer—for which he is duly charged and prosecuted until the charges are quietly dropped a few months later."

... thus forcing a law abiding citizens to stare down the barrel of felony charges and attendant huge legal bills. Those officers ought not be able to cite QI as a reason they aren't taken to task for their crimes or don't have to endure what the Samaritan did. Sure, it's a legal system, one that was weaponized via QI against a law abiding citizen and Good Samaritan, something that is neither just or legal and hence ought not incentivize so perverse an outcome IMO.

This piece contains some deeply subversive to the "Progressive" point of view elements. I'd paste it here, but there is more italicized text than I can format at the moment, and seeing the italics are important to understanding the piece:

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/05/21/what-is-sex/

This could go in more than one place, but given how elemental the American creed is to the gent's campaign and point of view I'll drop it here. And, FWIW, Recoil is the only gun rag worth subscribing to, both for pieces like this and for the fact it's the only one out there that isn't a de facto industry shill:

The American Sheriff: Mark Lamb About Upholding the Constitution, Border Security, and His Run for Senate
Patrick McCarthy
May 21, 2024 Join the Conversation

For most Americans, the security of the southern border is a subject to debate from afar. While the ripple effects of drug smuggling and human trafficking reach throughout our nation, reading news articles and studying statistics doesn’t yield the same perspective as witnessing the problem firsthand.

Since his election in 2017, Sheriff Mark Lamb has been serving at the forefront of this complex situation. His jurisdiction — Pinal County, Arizona, which covers a large area between Tucson and Phoenix — is smack dab in the middle of one of America’s most active trafficking corridors, and the problem is only getting worse.

In February of 2023, Lamb testified at a House Homeland Security Committee hearing that human trafficking incidents in Pinal County had quadrupled during the previous two years, and that seizures of fentanyl pills had grown six-fold in the same time frame.

He said to the committee, “Our biggest frustration stems from being told by this administration and the media that there is not a crisis at our southern border, and the lie that our southern border is secure. Clearly, our statistics tell a different story.” A few months later, Lamb announced he’s taking the fight to Washington by running for U.S. Senate.

In addition to his strong stance on border security, Lamb has been an outspoken advocate of Second Amendment rights and the sworn duty of a sheriff to preserve the constitutional freedoms of fellow countrymen, leading to the nickname “The American Sheriff.”

As an extension of that viewpoint, during the COVID-19 pandemic, he openly defied a stay-at-home order issued by Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, refusing to arrest or cite owners of businesses that remained open.


With a total area of 5,300 square miles, much of which is agricultural land and open expanses of desert, catching traffickers as they pass through Pinal County is a constant battle.
We met Sheriff Lamb one morning outside a U.S. Border Patrol field office near Interstate 10 and hopped into his truck for a brief ride-along. After cruising around the county for a few hours, we returned to his office and sat down to discuss his background, views, and senatorial ambitions to “yank the chain back on the federal government.”

RECOIL: Tell us a little bit about your upbringing.

I was born and raised in Hilo, Hawaii — the Big Island. We lived there until I was 11 years old, then we moved to the Philippines and lived there for another year. Everybody asks, was my dad military? No, he was a graduate of Thunderbird, which is an international business school here in Arizona. He loved international business. So, we lived abroad and then had to regroup, and came back to Chandler, Arizona, which is where my dad was from. I went to junior high and high school in Chandler.

While I was in high school, my family moved to Panama, Central America. So, I spent a lot of time every summer there, and spent Christmases there. I was in Panama when the United States invaded during Operation Just Cause in 1989, rolling into ’90. I stood on guard with a gun out front of my building for multiple days. Then, I served a mission for my church in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

I spent a lot of time outside of the United States, so much so that the first chapter in my first book I wrote was “Welcome to America.” As kids, it really gave us a good understanding of what it’s like to live abroad and what poverty really looks like. You gain a real appreciation, a deep love for America and the freedoms that we have.

What led you to pursue a career in law enforcement?

It was happenstance. I never thought about being a police officer, didn’t grow up thinking I wanted to be one. Nobody in my family or my wife’s family is a police officer.

I was 33 years old and had my own business. I knew I was missing something in my life. Both my wife and I knew that I could be doing more, needed more purpose. So, my neighbor asked me if I wanted to do a ride-along one night. I never would have guessed that I would find my purpose on that ride-along, but I went anyway.

It was at the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, on the Indian Reservation near Mesa, Tempe, and Scottsdale. It was a graveyard shift, and I remember that on one of the calls — I tell this story all the time — we went to the house of a guy who found a 20-year-old with his 14-year-old daughter. They got into a little physical altercation, the kid runs out the back, and we show up. He lets me out of the car, and I'm armed with a flashlight and courage out there, just looking for this guy.

On the reservation, you might have a house and then nothing behind it. At this particular house, there was an old, abandoned travel trailer out in the desert behind the house. I walk up to it with the flashlight, look in the window, and I see what I think is a quarter-sized area of skin amongst all the trash and clothes and debris in this trailer. I tell those guys, hey, I think he's in here. Sure enough, they go in, tase him, dig him out, and put him in cuffs.

The next morning, I woke up my wife and said, “I'm going to be a cop.” Six months later, I was in the academy, and I found what I love. I love the rule of law. I think it is the most important thing to our republic, which the founding fathers established in the preamble to the Constitution. The very first charge is to have justice.

I'm unapologetic about how much I think the rule of law means to this country. So, I take it very seriously and I've enjoyed every bit of my career since then. That ride along really changed the trajectory of my life.


As you worked your way up through the ranks, what was your ultimate goal?

I started with the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and became a gang and drug detective within a couple of years. I really loved it. But unfortunately, I felt the president and the administration at the time were really undermining the rule of law. President Obama, his administration, I just thought they were doing things that were tearing away at the fabric of trust that society has in law enforcement. And things were changing. Social media was coming about. I thought, you know, somebody's got to do something about this.

The other thing that I noticed is in law enforcement, unfortunately, you don't always have the best leaders. You have supervisors. You don't always have leaders. And I saw things I thought I could do better. Instead of being that guy that was just going to sit and complain about it and run my mouth, I decided to do something about it. So, one day I told all the guys that I worked with, “I'm going to run for sheriff.” They thought I was crazy. [laughs]


I lived in Pinal County already, traveled into work every day. And I said, “No, I'm serious. I'm going to run for sheriff!” And they said, “Nah, you're crazy.” Well, six months later, I took a job here at Pinal County with the purpose of running for sheriff. I was here for a couple years working as a deputy, then as a reserve, and then I left so that I could run for sheriff.

I also started another business, made some money that would put me in a position to be able to do that. And then I ran for sheriff at the end of 2015 all through 2016, and was fortunate enough to win the primary 63 to 37 percent. And then go on to win the general election 60 to 40 percent.

So, that's how I got to this point. It was really just saying, I don't like what it is, and I want to be part of the solution. And so I went through some very uncomfortable times, made some hard, hard decisions. Really took some hits financially as a family to get to this point. But we knew what the target was, what the end goal was, and so we stayed focused on that. And with hard work, determination, and faith in God and the process, we were fortunate enough to be in this position.

You’ve been very outspoken about your support of the Second Amendment, but many legislators are working to dismantle it with unconstitutional laws. How can you and others in your line of work preserve 2A rights?

You know, that's a great question because I get labeled as a constitutional sheriff all the time. I think they mean it to be an insult. I don't take it as an insult.

First of all, as a sheriff, when I swore an oath — when I put my hand on that Bible and was elected, I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. And I always say to these reporters, you're referring to me as a constitutional sheriff. I swore the same oath as every other elected official. What you should be asking them is, why are they not upholding their oath?

Now, one of the challenges that a sheriff runs into that's different than a normal elected official is I am part of the executive branch. I don't make the laws. I don't judge on the laws.

I basically am an executive piece of it. So, what happens is you will have, like in many states, where they push to undo the Second Amendment, to subvert it, to infringe upon it. That’s what they’re really doing. Then, it puts a sheriff in a very tough spot. The sheriff has to make a decision.

Do you follow the state law that the men passed, which we have seen time and time again that the Supreme Court has upheld that they were wrong, or do you follow the Constitution?

I believe in the Constitution being the supreme law of the land, and I believe that it ultimately will always supersede. So, that's a long way of telling you that as long as I'm in a position of authority in government, I will always fight vehemently to defend the Second Amendment.

That's great to hear.

And let me take one more step further, because let me explain. Take the guns out of it. Let's just talk Second Amendment. It's an amendment to the Constitution. I wouldn't let you change the First Amendment or the Third or the Fourth or the Fifth or the Sixth or the Seventh and so on and so on.

I would not let you change those. What they've done is they've made it about a gun as opposed to making it about an amendment to the Constitution, because if you allow them to change the Second Amendment because you don't like guns, I promise you what is next is they will tell you that you can only speak freely on Wednesdays and you can only go to church once a month, or maybe the press can only write a paper on Sunday.

Or maybe — and you may think I'm being over-the-top — I would think that over the last few years this government and people in power have proven time and time again that wherever they can, they will take from you, and they won't give it back.

Above and beyond wanting to protect guns because I think they are imperative for our freedom, above and beyond that, taking the guns out of it, it is an amendment to the Constitution, and I will not let you change any of those amendments to the Constitution. If you want to pass another amendment, good luck. I won't be up for that either unless it's something that reduces the size of government and government's power.

When Arizona Governor Doug Ducey passed a statewide “Stay Home, Stay Healthy” order in response to COVID, you refused to enforce that order, citing the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. What responsibility do LEOs have to make choices like these in the face of possible legal and career-ending consequences?

I think we have a solemn responsibility. They have entrusted the sheriffs to not only protect you from the bad guys, but to protect you from government overreach. It is my job to make sure that you are not trying to pass off a mandate or an order as a law, and unjustly pass things. The executive branch doesn't make laws.

The judicial branch shouldn't make laws, but they continue to rule. And by judgments, they’ve been making laws. But the sheriff has a solemn responsibility to defend the people's constitutional rights and their freedoms. And I viewed the lockdowns as a serious and egregious violation of people's rights. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say, “on behalf of a health emergency” or “because it's what's safe for people,” we can subvert or put the Constitution aside or put it on the bench for a little while. It's not the way it works. The Constitution is there. It is the supreme law of the land.

What they were doing, in my opinion — and I think ultimately it was proven, it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out — they were violating people's constitutional rights. So, we told the governor, no, we weren't going to do that here in Pinal County.

I think the majority of the citizens appreciated the bold stance. I had some that didn't. But when I explained my stance to them, at least I took the time to say, I'm going to listen to you, and then I want you to listen to me as to where my stance is. And I have no doubt we stood on the correct side as we watched as the majority of places across this country violate people's constitutional rights.

We had a saying in SWAT: you will not rise to the occasion, you will only rise to the highest level of your training. Whatever it is that you do in life — whether it's photography, shooting guns, being a police officer — if you are not honing your craft, you will only be as good as whatever training you've taken or whatever time you've put into your craft.

So, I would say to anybody, especially somebody who is in law enforcement and carries a gun, make sure you are spending ample time training because I think it's important to the people that you're serving. I think it's important to yourself, so that you can come home safe to your family. For anybody else out there that carries a gun, an average citizen, I thoroughly support that. I pull people over and ask them if they have guns in the car. And if they say no, I say, “Well, why not? You should. It's dangerous out there.”

I fully support people's right to exercise their Second Amendment rights. I also tell them, please go out and get training so that you don't hurt yourself or somebody else, and so that you know when you can and cannot use deadly force. So, please educate yourself, get trained, carry a gun — do all of those things.

Defunding the police has become a topic of debate in many metropolitan areas throughout the U.S. What short-term and long-term effects will this have?

We've seen the short-term effects. The short-term effects have been catastrophic. I mean, we've seen cities literally being burnt to the ground. We're seeing crime on the rise in major cities. We're seeing police agencies that basically either abandoned sections of their jurisdiction or — because they don't want to be sued or they don't want to get in trouble — they've made the determination that they're going to be more of a cleanup crew than a proactive stopping crime crew. Part of me can't hardly blame them, but the other part of me says, no, look, you’ve still got to fight. You can't raise the white flag.

Those are the short-term effects. The long-term effects are what I said in the beginning. They’ve eroded the trust in law enforcement, and now anytime you allow something to be pervasive, it is much harder to get it out and fix it than if you would have just kept it out in the first place. When they do want a course correct, society is not going to like the outcome of how hard it's going to be to take the law and order back in this country. Plus, you have the long-term effect of hiring, finding people who want to do this job.

America's strength — everything that we have, all of it — was what the founding fathers said in the preamble to the Constitution. We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice. And number two was ensure domestic tranquility. They knew how important the rule of law was to America. And if we lose that — defunding the police is a way to do that — we ultimately will pay the price as citizens, and we may lose our republic because of it.

With that in mind, what do law enforcement agencies in the United States need most right now?

Strong leadership. Right now, you need strong leadership. In times of trouble and in times of stormy waters, you need a captain that will grab hold of the helm, that will stay on the course, that will protect the crew, and make sure that the crew's needs are met.

What we're seeing is weak leadership, abandoning their troops, firing people because of the social pressure that might come along with a decision that a police officer makes in a split second. I tell people very frankly, we are not in the business of good optics. If we show up, the optics of what we have to do to restore balance and order to chaos is not always good.

But my job is not to worry about the optics of it, my job is to worry about the outcome of it. And my job is to restore balance and order to chaos. And we do the best we can to prevent crime in every situation, but we will also hold you accountable if you break those laws. Should you choose to be violent with us, we are more than prepared to be violent with you as well.

This is the reality of the business we're in, and I stand with my people when they do what's right. When they know that you’ll have their back if they do what's right, they make better decisions. The police officers who make bad decisions are hesitating for a split second because they're not sure if they're going to get in trouble. And those split seconds, not only do they create bad decisions, they also are getting cops hurt across this country. And families are losing loved ones because they made that split-second pause to determine whether or not they were going to get in trouble.

We need leadership to stand against these social pushes that we're seeing in this country of defunding the police, of saying that only one race or one skin color matters, and those types of things. Those are all social constructs, and they are not true to what this country is. Nobody cares more for people than we do, because that's why we go out and put on a gun and a badge and we're willing to protect people every day.

What advice would you give to someone who is considering beginning a new career in law enforcement?

Do it. You know, we need warriors now more than ever. I'm not going to sit here and tell you it's not a challenging job. It is a challenging job; it is a stressful job at times. It will bring the best out of you, though. It makes you a better person.

If you take this job, go out and enjoy it, work hard at it, and don't let the things that you see consume you. The average police officer, they say, will experience between 400 and 700 traumatic incidents in their career.

The average citizen only experiences two to four in their entire lifetime. The impact that this will have on us personally, and on our families is substantial. So, if you're going to do the job, do it, but make sure you have an anchor in your life. Whether it's religion, your family, or something else that anchors you so that your ship doesn't set off to sea with no rudder.

It's a great career. I think it is the most important and honorable career for this country, for maintaining our republic. Now is the time where you need warriors more than ever.

You’ve called the situation at the southern border “the greatest threat to national security right now.”

How has your experience here in Arizona led you to that conclusion?

We've been saying this for a while. This is not something that is new to us. October 7, 2023, really exposed just how vulnerable we are. I think a lot of Americans woke up to the fact that we are exposed.

We saw Hamas go into a very protected and very secure Israel and do what they did. Atrocities. Terrorism. And we see those same types of people coming into our borders all the time — 160 to 180 terrorists being caught a year, 16,000 criminals last year that were convicted of crimes in this country or wanted by law enforcement in this country trying to get back into America.

We're getting gang members from other countries. We're getting people that are coming from places like Mauritania that has become one of the leading breeding grounds for Al-Qaeda. We have Senegal, Chad, China. We have Chinese nationals coming across to the tune of over 30,000 in a year. And then we have the FBI telling us they found 10 makeshift Chinese police headquarters across this country.

This is the point that we're at. We're allowing these people to just walk across our border and give them carte blanche in our country. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when that rears its ugly head. So that's one piece of it. The second piece — probably even more important because it's affecting American lives every day — is the fentanyl piece. China is bringing fentanyl precursors, giving it to the cartels. The cartels are then making it into pills and powder. And they are bringing that fentanyl across our border. And it has become the leading cause of death amongst Americans between the ages of 18 to 45. We have lost over 100,000 Americans per year to fentanyl poisonings.

Let me put that into perspective. If you would drop a bomb on Phoenix and kill 100,000 people, what would we do as a country? We went to war for 20 years over 9-11. We're losing 100,000 civilians and our government is doing nothing. As a matter of fact, not only are they doing nothing, they’re pulling back even more so that the border is more unsecure than it has ever been.

We are seeing unprecedented amounts of people and drugs coming across while we are losing 100,000-plus American civilians, that could have been stopped, by the hands of people that are really enemies to this country. China and the cartels who have zero regard for human life. So, when we talk about the greatest threats to America, I'm the simple guy. I look at it and say, what's killing the most amount of Americans? Fentanyl.

So, I don't see how everybody else doesn't see that this is the greatest national security threat. This is what's claiming more American lives every day, and we are putting more Americans at risk every day with the amount of people that we are letting in here, many of them who hate America.

That’s why I say it is the greatest national security threat. There's nothing that's happening in the Middle East and there's nothing that's happening in Taiwan that affects me and my family more than what is happening at the southern border.



During the ride-along, we stopped in a field near an unassuming farm road where the landscape was scattered with dozens of empty water jugs, food cans, and carpet shoes left behind by illegal immigrants.
What would you say is the biggest misconception about the state of the southern border right now?

Well, I don't know that it’s a misconception — I think it's intentionally misleading. I think you have a government that is intentionally downplaying, and in most cases lying to the American people. They're standing at a podium telling you that the border is secure. They're telling you that people aren't just walking across the border. They are lying. They are. And they're doing nothing about it.

And the media — that’s why I say this is purposeful misleading — the media is covering for them. If you bring it up, then they want to quickly try to debunk what you say. Case in point, I just released a video recently where I said that a lot of these people crossing the border were getting cell phones, they were getting plane tickets to wherever they wanted to go in the country, getting Visa cards with $5,000.

The media could not work harder and faster to try to debunk me. Not to say, hey, we should look into this. They wanted to debunk me. And where did they go for their source? They went to the federal government, the same people that are actually giving our tax dollars to them. They do it through non-governmental organizations. And those non-governmental organizations or NGOs are the ones giving them the money. So, you have a complicit media that is covering for them.

The founding fathers would be turning over in their grave to know that the media betrayed the people. That is why the freedom of the press is in the First Amendment with the freedom of speech and religion and the right to assemble, because they knew how important the press would be in holding the government accountable. Not necessarily siding with the people but telling the people the truth. We don't have that anymore. And so that's one of the great threats to the American people. It's not even a miscommunication. It's flat-out misleading and lying to them.

We sat down with Mark Lamb to talk about his run for office, protecting the people of Arizona, and where to get a good cowboy hat.
Why did you make the choice to run for Senate?

I didn't want to. This was not on my list of things to do. I love being sheriff. I had a plan, not just as a sheriff but beyond that. But I just started seeing the way the country was going, and people were saying, hey, sheriff, you should run for Senate. So, I actually went to my wife and said, we've got to come up with a list of reasons why not to do this. And in that process, we started feeling very compelled to do it.

Then, we had a tragic thing that happened to us. I got a knock at the door at 8:30 at night on December 16, 2022. And it was a sheriff from Maricopa County, two of my chiefs, and two guys from Gilbert PD. My wife and I had been wrapping presents, and I had been out at a dinner and shopping and came home. I'd been home for maybe 20, 30 minutes and got the knock on the door.

I opened the door and immediately knew something wasn't right. One of my chiefs, who's known my kids for a long time — my middle son, Cooper, had a fiancée and an 11-month-old daughter. And the only thing my chief could say was, “Cooper and the baby are dead.” And so immediately, in the snap of a finger, I lost my son, I lost my 11-month-old granddaughter, and I lost my daughter-in-law.

I didn't want to do anything at that point. Didn't want to run for Senate, didn't want to run for sheriff, didn't want to even get out of bed. But a few weeks later, somebody said something to me that just sparked something. Going through this with my son reminded me: there is no guarantee for tomorrow, and the only thing we take with us in this life is what we do. And I could not stand on the corner and watch the building burn to the ground, especially when I knew I had the capability and the ability to do it.

There's an old Danish saying that I love: “Whoever has the ability has the responsibility.” Well, I have the ability on the border stuff and on crime. And I run a large agency with a budget of over $60 million with over 600 employees. And I have been working on trying to protect national security within my county for a long time. I have the ability, and I felt like I had the responsibility.

I always tell people, look, this country's in chaos. We can't get along. Politics is in chaos. The world's in chaos, frankly. And if your house was on fire or there were thieves in your house or there was a domestic situation where mom and dad can't get along, are you going to call a politician? No. You're going to call your sheriff. Why? Because we are trained and experienced in restoring balance and order to chaos. It is what we do every day.

You call us in the worst moments of your life. And in minutes, we are expected to start to restore balance and order to chaos. And this government, this country, this world needs men and women that are experienced and trained in restoring balance and order to chaos. So, I'm determined to be free, I'm determined to preserve America, and I'm going to Washington, D.C. for that.

When you ask me why I wanted to do it, I can't say that I wanted to do it. But I felt compelled to do it. And you better believe I'm going to go 100 percent and do what I have to do, because ultimately our country's on the line.


What will be some of your top priorities as a senator?

Securing the border. I mean, that's something we've got to do day one. Securing the border.

We've got to start restoring our energy independence. That's one of the ways we're going to dig our way out of the economic crisis we're in as well. We can't do that without energy independence because it takes energy to make a product, to ship a product, and to sell a product. It takes energy. And when you increase the cost of energy to the American people and to those industries, those costs will ultimately be absorbed by us. Whether it's in increased prices or through inflation, we will end up absorbing those costs.

Americans are going deeper in debt. Forty percent increase in credit card debt over the last year, from $765 billion to $1.1 trillion. We're at an all-time high on vehicle delinquencies. We're at a 20-year high on mortgage rates. I mean, our economy is in rough shape. We've got a lot of issues that this administration has bungled. But let's start by securing our border and fixing what is the greatest threat to our national security. Let's start there.

Let's stop the flow of fentanyl. Let's start to work on our economy immediately. And as it relates to crime, as a senator, my job is not to go out and tell local law enforcement and states what to do. I believe in the 10th Amendment. My job as a U.S. senator will be to yank the chain back on the federal government. We need to do some serious, serious oversight on federal law enforcement and really evaluate whether these agencies

even need to exist at this point. I hope to be digging into that really quick as well, because I think the American people would expect that of me as well.

Many Americans have become disillusioned by politicians who make promises but don't follow through, seemingly putting their own careers above their responsibility to their constituents.

How will you navigate the political swamp without getting bogged down in it?

Well, I think the key is not getting involved in the political swamp. That's the key. I'm not a politician. You know, I've taken stands when I was the only one standing for these things. Nobody else was there standing with me, and it was not easy.

But I will tell you, for me, it actually was easy, because the line is so distinct between what is right and wrong and what is constitutional and not constitutional. I hope to be that person that stands up for the American people. The way I avoid the political swamp is not be political.

I think what people will expect is for me to be the genuine person I've been for the last seven years as sheriff, and take that same no attitude to Washington, D.C., and start to fix some of this nonsense.

And I'm not sitting here saying it's going to be easy, but I think that the clearest path is to just stay on course — follow God, family, freedom, the Constitution. Those are my things. And I think that's what's going to keep me grounded, that's what's going to keep me weathering the pressures and the political storms in Washington to stand up for the people.


Where can readers learn more about you and your campaign?

Please go to sherifflambforsenate.com. If you live in Arizona, sign the petition. If you don't live in Arizona, you can still donate to my campaign.

You can share my messages online. You can go to Instagram, @americansheriff on Instagram. On Twitter, it's @sherifflamb1. On Facebook, it's Sheriff Lamb. And on TruthSocial, it's American Sheriff as well. But yes, please go support. Share the messages. Tell your friends. Donate some money if you've got a few bucks.

And sign the petition if you can. That's what it takes. Politics is not an easy thing.

Here's what I'm asking. My wife and I, my family, we have slid all of our chips into the center of this table on this hand. And we're asking that you throw a couple chips on the table with us. I'll do the rest of it. I'm just asking for a couple chips to help us as we bet all of it on this.

https://www.recoilweb.com/the-american-sheriff-mark-lamb-184541.html

Yes.  What is far right?  As you say, to them it is anyone who opposes the crazy Direction they are trying to take us in.

To me, conservative is short for common sense conservatism.  If it isn't aligned with common sense, it probably isn't conservative.

Same goes for libertarian. Supporting Liberty is the default position. Opposing tyranny, same.

None of that means anarchy or no government.  Just the opposite. If Government stopped doing all the other things, they could focus so much better on basic governing, roads, libraries and providing for the common defense.

All this other stuff is the extremism. Taking from some to give to others, spending 40% more than we take in, scraping the genitals off of children and calling it gender affirmation.

They think opposing all of that is extremism. Are they f'ing nuts?

They control nearly 100% of all information flow, from K through 12 to college to the networks to the Big Tech' social media, and they still can't get 50% support for the craziness.

George Orwell had no idea what he was starting.

If they couldn't cast aspersions they'd run out of "arguments" pretty darn quickly. It's amusing how the side of the aisle that can find "racist dogwhistles" just about anywhere if they look hard enough feign oblivion to a far more concrete tactic they embrace that claims some sort of tangential association is proof positive right wing authoritarianism.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/how-to-defeat-left-wing-racialism

z

Great piece. Thx.

Twitter is not posting for me, but I think myself sufficiently informed as to the point to heartily agree.  Witness e.g. what they have done to John Eastman.

Here's a quick, greasy cut and paste:

LAWFARE: Will there be any Republican Lawyers Left to Ensure Election Integrity in November?
Democrats have aggressively targeted over 400 Republican lawyers and politicians with criminal charges, civil lawsuits, and disbarment proceedings ahead of the upcoming presidential election. They have successfully jailed Peter Navarro, with Steve Bannon expected to join him shortly. In multiple states, Democrats have pursued criminal charges against dozens of Republican lawyers and politicians, including:
Georgia: 19 Republicans arrested and charged
Arizona: 18 Republicans arrested and charged
Michigan: 16 Republicans arrested and charged
Nevada: 6 Republicans arrested and charged
Pennsylvania & Wisconsin: Are still conducting criminal investigations into as many as 30 Republicans who have yet to be charged
In addition to these criminal trials, Democrats are pursuing numerous efforts to have Republican lawyers disbarred. The Soros-backed 65 Project has filed disbarment proceedings against more than 100 Republican lawyers, which prevent many of these lawyers from working until the proceedings are concluded. In almost every case, the charges lack merit, but they have three primary impacts: a chilling effect that discourages other Republican lawyers and politicians from helping Trump, a financial drain on the resources of Republicans who might otherwise use their funds to help elect Trump, and a time drain that physically keeps them busy during the campaign.
This weekend, Arizona Democrats even crashed Rudy Giuliani's 80th birthday party to serve him with a criminal indictment. One day earlier, the same Democrats arrested John Eastman, President Trump's former attorney. His indictment and arrest are shocking because he was never involved with any litigation or hearings in Arizona and never talked to anyone there during or after the election. Additionally, he's facing disbarment in California after a judge recommended his removal as a lawyer.
Make no mistake, the Democrats are conducting a well-funded, well-organized effort to remove as many Republicans as possible from the November election process. Their goal is to prevent Republicans from ensuring the integrity of the election and protecting the sanctity of your vote. This is a war on the 6th Amendment—everyone, including President Trump and Republican candidates, deserves the right to legal representation. Democrats are working overtime to ensure that doesn’t happen in November.
UPDATE: Some people have asked for some details about the people who have been targeted. Here is a partial list:
Georgia:
Donald Trump - Former President
Rudy Giuliani - Former New York Mayor and Trump attorney
Mark Meadows - Former White House Chief of Staff
John Eastman - Conservative lawyer, former dean of Chapman University Law School
Kenneth Chesebro - Lawyer involved in election manipulation plans
Sidney Powell - Attorney involved in hiring forensic experts for voting system breaches
Jeffrey Clark - Former DOJ official
Jenna Ellis - Trump lawyer
David Shafer - Former chairman of the Georgia Republican Party
Shawn Still - Georgia state senator
Harrison Floyd - Leader of "Black Voices for Trump"
Trevian Kutti - Publicist, former associate of Kanye West
Robert Cheeley - Georgia trial lawyer
Mike Roman - Trump campaign official
Stephen Lee - Lutheran pastor
Ray Smith - Lawyer who represented the Trump campaign in Georgia
Scott Hall - Bail bondsman involved in the Coffee County voting system breach
Cathy Latham - Former Coffee County GOP chair and fake elector
Misty Hampton - Former Coffee County elections supervisor involved in the voting system breach
Arizona:
Rudy Giuliani - Former Trump attorney, involved in promoting false claims of election fraud.
Mark Meadows - Former White House Chief of Staff.
John Eastman - Lawyer who devised legal strategies to overturn the election.
Christina Bobb - Attorney associated with Rudy Giuliani and a Republican National Committee official.
Jenna Ellis - Lawyer who worked with Giuliani.
Boris Epshteyn - 2020 Trump campaign aide.
Mike Roman - Director of Election Day operations for the Trump campaign.
Tyler Bowyer - Republican National Committee member and COO of Turning Point Action.
Nancy Cottle - Chair of the Arizona Republican Presidential Electors.
Jake Hoffman - Arizona state senator.
Anthony Kern - Arizona state senator.
James Lamon - 2022 U.S. Senate candidate and chair of Depcom Power.
Robert Montgomery - Former Cochise County Republican Committee chair.
Samuel Moorhead - Former Gila County Republican Party head.
Loraine Pellegrino - Secretary of the Arizona Republican fake presidential electors.
Gregory Safsten - Former Executive Director of the Arizona Republican Party.
Kelli Ward - Former Arizona Republican Party chair and former state senator.
Michael Ward - Republican activist and husband of Kelli Ward.
Michigan:
Kathy Berden - Michigan Republican National Committee member.
William (Hank) Choate - Former chair of the Jackson County Republican Party.
Amy Facchinello - Trustee on the Grand Blanc Board of Education.
Clifford Frost - GOP activist from Warren.
Meshawn Maddock - Former co-chair of the Michigan Republican Party.
Marian Sheridan - Grassroots vice chairwoman of the Michigan Republican Party.
Kent Vanderwood - Mayor of Wyoming, Michigan.
Stanley Grot - Shelby Township clerk.
Rose Rook - GOP activist from Paw Paw.
John Haggard - Former GOP candidate for state representative.
Mari-Ann Henry - GOP activist from Brighton.
Timothy King - GOP activist from Ypsilanti.
James Renner - GOP activist from Lansing.
Mayra Rodriguez - GOP activist from Grosse Pointe Farms.
Ken Thompson - GOP activist from Orleans.
Michele Lundgren - GOP activist from Detroit.
Nevada:
Michael McDonald - Chair of the Nevada Republican Party.
Jim DeGraffenreid - Nevada GOP national committeeman.
Jesse Law - Chair of the Clark County Republican Party.
Eileen Rice - GOP activist.
Durward James Hindle III - GOP activist.
Shawn Meehan - GOP activist.
Disbarment (65 Project):
John Eastman
Rudy Giuliani
Sidney Powell
Jenna Ellis
Cleta Mitchell
Stefan Passantino
Michael McDonald
Jim DeGraffenreid
Jesse Law
Emily Newman
Kurt Olsen
William Olson
Lynn Fitch (Mississippi Attorney General)
Steven Marshall (Alabama Attorney General)
Patrick Morrisey (West Virginia Attorney General)
Leslie Rutledge (Arkansas Attorney General)
Derek Schmidt (Kansas Attorney General)
Eric Schmitt (Missouri Attorney General)
Tim Fox (Former Montana Attorney General)
Sean Reyes (Utah Attorney General)
Herbert Slatery (Former Tennessee Attorney General)
Jeff Landry (Louisiana Attorney General)
Curtis Hill (Former Indiana Attorney General)
Mike Hunter (Oklahoma Attorney General)
Douglas Peterson (Nebraska Attorney General)
Ashley Moody (Florida Attorney General)
Alan Wilson (South Carolina Attorney General)
Kevin Koons
William Bock
Jeffrey Gallant
Daniel Eastman
Michael Dean
Robert Citak
James Knauer
Richard Coleson
Courtney Milbank
Howard Kleinhendler
Brandon Johnson
Melana Siebert
Julia Haller
James Bopp
Kenneth Klukowski
Kenneth Chesebro
Stefanie Lynn Junttila Esq. (MI) - Disbarment Letter12
Gregory Rohl Esq. (MI) - Disbarment Letter13
Scott Hagerstrom Esq. (MI) - Disbarment Letter14
Julia Z. Haller Esq. (DC)
Brandon Johnson Esq. (DC)
Lin Wood Esq. (GA)
Howard Kleinhendler Esq. (NY)
Emily Newman Esq. (VA)
Sidney Powell Esq. (TX)
Kurt Olsen Esq. (MD) - Disbarment Letter16
William Olson Esq. (VA) - Disbarment Letter17
John Eastman Esq. (DC) - Disbarment Letter18
Kenneth Klukowski Esq. (DC) - Disbarment Letter19
Kenneth Chesebro Esq. (NY) - Disbarment Letter20
Jenna Ellis Esq. (PA & CO) - Disbarment Letter21
Linda Kerns Esq. (PA) - Disbarment Letter22
Bruce Marks Esq. (PA) - Disbarment Letter23
James Bopp Esq. (PA) - Disbarment Letter24
Ronald Hicks Esq. (PA) - Disbarment Letter25
Carolyn B. McGee Esq. (PA) - Disbarment Letter26
Anita Milanovich Esq. (PA) - Disbarment Letter27
Marc Scaringi Esq. (PA)- Disbarment Letter28
Brian Caffrey Esq. (PA) - Disbarment Letter29
Walter Zimolong Esq. (PA) - Disbarment Letter30
Senator Ted Cruz Esq. (TX) - Disbarment Letter31
Cleta Mitchell Esq. (DC) - Disbarment Letter32
Joseph diGenova Esq. (DC) - Disbarment Letter33
Boris Epshteyn Esq. (NY) - Disbarment Letter34
Paul Davis Esq. (TX) - Disbarment Letter35
William Calhoun Esq. (GA) - Disbarment Letter36
James Troupis Esq. (WI) - Disbarment Letter37
There are many more... I've written about the effort in multiple places:
https://politiquerepublic.substack.com/p/the-lefts-war-on-the-6th-amendment?utm_source=publication-search

This is good news. It's been a long fight with many discouraging turns, but it appears the NRA has cleaned house and jetisoned a lot of the people that had made dubious decisons and then dug their heels in:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20240520/bob-barr-elected-nra-president-doug-hamlin-elected-to-serve-as-nra-executive-vice-president-ceo

I draw your attention to this:

"Your passion on this issues seems to not notice the word "qualified"-- so far neither of us have engaged on the parameters of that qualification."

In other words, I am not holding myself out as better than you. 

I do not propose a definitive answer precisely because IMHO one is not possible.

Okay, so the point of this less than Socratic exercise is…?

Again, I’ve provided specific examples where the “Q” in ‘QI lead to outcomes that don’t appear just to me. Are my breadcrumbs not leaving a distinct enough trail?

And yes, I am passionate about this. Growing up my brother was considered the teenage mastermind of area crime and hence we were subject to all manner of rousts, with numerous post facto LEO lies being part of it. My late brother developed a deep hatred of the police due to this, and took to harassing them as he felt he was being harassed. In one case he broke into an LEOs car and stole a bunch of vending machine tins filled with change. He insisted this proved the LEO was involved in a rash of burglaries that he was forever being pulled in for … which proved correct, eventually at least, with the officer eventually being convicted and jailed. I won’t even get started regarding what was then called the Metropolitan Enforcement Group’s tactics back in my telephone hotline days. Suffice to say they weren’t shy about ignoring search and seizure rules and then lying about it in pursuit of what they considered justice.

So yeah, I’m a fan of accountability generally—my brother did his share of prison time and deserved it—and don’t much like incentives that have perverse outcomes, with the piece I posted documenting one such instance and inspiring you to initiate this exchange. I dunno, perhaps this is a once burnt reaction on my end as there was a time when posting about police misconduct or the utter failure of current drug laws would result in endless badgering and little illumination and I’m not finding any light shone here.

As that may be, if there is a specific element of the Q you’d like non-lawyer me to speak to feel free to spell it out and if I feel I can engage intelligently I will.

Is the tide perhaps turning?

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/05/camp_of_the_dumbbells.html

A bit of a personal attack saying "I have no problem etc". 

I'm well aware that police sometimes act quite badly; indeed many years ago I was arrested and the officers lied on the stand but my attorney was able to put doubt as to their testimony in the judge's mind.   As the only white member of a nine man band, I''ve been roused roughly by police etc.

Your passion on this issues seems to not notice the word "qualified"-- so far neither of us have engaged on the parameters of that qualification.

Hmm, the "personal attack" feels two edged on my end. Having confessed I don't have the legal background required to formulate an elegant system for ensuring that malfeasant and/or illegal acts by police officers are not underwritten--when something is underwritten you tend to get more of it, don'tcha know--by the state/feds/whomever, you persists in implying the wheels on the law enforcement bus will fall off unless we continue to do just that, even in the face of examples I've provided, examples you have not spoken to where the "Q" is indeed a factor, labeling comments that I view as staying in my lane as "unresponsive," acting as though I don't understand guilt or innocence needs to be established before a penalty phase is entered into, and generally persisting in asking me to provide a solution in a complex area in which I've no expertise, though you do.

So yes, penalties can't be assigned in advance of a trial, but once guilt is established and we get to the penalty portion of the trial financial penalties such as court costs can be assigned, yes? Perhaps if LEOs know they will have to bear those costs if found guilty that may inspire the benefits and costs of illicit behavior to be weighed differently, at least if one assumes, as the criminal justice system does, that assigning accountable costs to crime has an impact on criminal behavior.

At the end of the day a system of justice that appears to support official misconduct that a citizen would undoubtedly be penalized for has its share of downsides and can be used by agitators to inspire conflagrations as we saw occur across the country in the wake of the George Floyd incident and subsequent gross exaggeration and sacrifice on the SJW altar, as I feel was the case, where Thomas Lane in particular is concerned. QI and spineless LEO administrators ought to bear that onus IMO, and I also have no problem in my lay view with coming up with a means of ensuring those types of expedient metaphorical defenestrations don't occur, or at least the officer(s) involved have access to the sorts of resources to counter the weight of political expediency, something I feel would have far more bearing on LEO retention and willingness to engage in proactive law enforcement than modifying QI to disincentivize illegal behavior in an official capacity.

Again as noted, I view my perspective as something of a tautology: bad motivating factors lead to bad outcomes. I assume you don't take issue with that statement, leaving me to wonder what you are arguing for? The status quo? Increasing the protections offered by QI? As it stands I'm left making a point I feel is an obvious one while be asked to offer a solution I don't have the training or background to intelligently craft while you defend ... I'm not sure exactly what, though you've the ol' Esq. to fall back on as the issue is discussed.

This is hardly the first time someone on this list has tried to drag me into their area of expertise, whereupon they can showcase my admitted ignorance, but it's the first time you have done so, and I'm not sure to what end.

Astounding the Biden admin keeps playing pattycake w/ Iran, given their behavior.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/iran-america-october-massacre

Nope, not arguing that at all AND my question remains 

Alrighty then. Yes the officer gets a lawyer. And should felonious actions be proven, the cop in question can pay those costs back as part of her/his punishment. At least in my non-lawyer it-ain’t-justice-if-taxpayers-foot-the-bill-for-wanton-criminal-behavior opinion. As someone far better acquainted with how these wheels turn feel free to suggest a method whereby felonious behavior isn’t underwritten and hence tacitly supported. I’m not a lawyer and hence don’t see a percentage in stating much beyond what ought to be acknowledged as a tautology: when criminal behavior is supported you get more criminal behavior, and that’s a bad thing.

" qualified immunity does not attach to acts that are criminal, grossly negligent, our outside the bounds of department policy and academy training."

Not sure I am following.  Forgive the smartassery, but guilt is established after a trial, yes?  So, does the officer get his lawyer paid for or not?

Well pardon the smartassery back at ya: in one of the instances cited the LEOs framed a Good Samaritan, stating he had impersonated a police officer thus throwing the gent’s life into a pretty scary place. We give these cops a walk, or do we establish some sort of procedure where qualified immunity is only granted to those qualified to receive it?

Far too many government employees do very shabby things that throw a citizen’s life into a tailspin for reasons that are difficult to defend, with those wretched acts occurring because the bad actors are insulated from the consequences of their actions. Are you arguing we should avert our gaze and not attach consequences to malfeasant acts because somewhere, sometime, a false claim might be made? Do we tell the relatively powerless to suck it up because the guy with the gun and all the armed companions might face a false claim if not insulated from the consequences of their unlawful actions?

As the original piece notes, the Fifth Circuit is notorious for leaving QI in place for acts that are difficult to justify. Are you arguing that even when this court is astounded by the actions of an LEO that they waive QI it should be nonetheless kept in place to dissuade others from making false claims? If so can the word “justice” be ascribed to choices like that?

I get that, but OTOH false accusations are made against officers everg fg day.  Are they to pay for their legal fees?

Last thing I am or want to be is a credentialed second guesser, i.e. a lawyer, but I imagine it would be handled in a manner similar to other claims. Insurance companies aren’t expected to pay out when the arson their policy covers is set by the policy holder; concealed carry insurance companies don’t cover costs associated with the criminal use of firearms; the contracts I write and manage all have clauses rendering them null and void if specific requirements aren’t met; and qualified immunity does not attach to acts that are criminal, grossly negligent, our outside the bounds of department policy and academy training.

Hopefully there is a lawyer out there smart enough to create an employment agreement that makes clear that tasing a gasoline soaked suspect may void your qualified immunity if gross negligence can be proven, etc. And hey, I’m comfortable creating some sort of reciprocal requirement: if an action can be shown to be congruent with the training an LEO received then qualified immunity attaches and the department is required to cover all ensuing legal costs even if that’s not politically expedient, which would perhaps address some of the bad outcomes associated with the Floyd/LEO convictions.

moved to here:

https://firehydrantoffreedom.com/index.php?topic=1173.new#new

An interesting approach taken here is examining the supposed earnings disparities by using success rates of IVF treatments and comparing it against earning ability. More to it, but this appears to be a powerful refutation of sundry gender driven tropes:

https://www.maximum-progress.com/p/is-there-really-a-child-penalty-in?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=856102&post_id=144641993&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=5b6e5&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

The buried lede here is comeuppance. The Old Gray Hag rooted out diversity of thought and opinion, and now the current crop of reporters are chaffing over the poor reception their journalistic views are given. Cry me a freakin’ river & don’t dish it out if you can’t deal w/ it:

https://nypost.com/2024/05/15/media/new-york-times-reporters-slam-executive-editor-joe-kahn/

So our story so far: Church of Anthropomorphic Climate Apocalypse has been making dire predictions for 40 years, none of which have come to pass; science is embroiled in a well documented replicability crisis where numerous studies, many of them seminal, have been shown to be irreproducible (for those playing at home, if it ain’t reproducible it ain’t science); and now we learn that science journals have been deluged with fake papers (no doubt none of them having to do with global warming or whatever the CACA panic mongers find it expedient to label it today, far chance).

So tell us, CACA promulgators, is it okay to be skeptical about climate change, and indeed is skepticism allowed in politically charged areas of science?   

Flood of Fake Science Forces Multiple Journal Closures

Wiley to shutter 19 more journals, some tainted by fraud

Fake studies have flooded the publishers of top scientific journals, leading to thousands of retractions and millions of dollars in lost revenue. The biggest hit has come to Wiley, a 217-year-old publisher based in Hoboken, N.J., which Tuesday will announce that it is closing 19 journals, some of which were infected by large-scale research fraud. 

In the past two years, Wiley has retracted more than 11,300 papers that appeared compromised, according to a spokesperson, and closed four journals. It isn’t alone: At least two other publishers have retracted hundreds of suspect papers each. Several others have pulled smaller clusters of bad papers.

Although this large-scale fraud represents a small percentage of submissions to journals, it threatens the legitimacy of the nearly $30 billion academic publishing industry and the credibility of science as a whole.

The discovery of nearly 900 fraudulent papers in 2022 at IOP Publishing, a physical sciences publisher, was a turning point for the nonprofit. “That really crystallized for us, everybody internally, everybody involved with the business,” said Kim Eggleton, head of peer review and research integrity at the publisher. “This is a real threat.”

The sources of the fake science are “paper mills”—businesses or individuals that, for a price, will list a scientist as an author of a wholly or partially fabricated paper. The mill then submits the work, generally avoiding the most prestigious journals in favor of publications such as one-off special editions that might not undergo as thorough a review and where they have a better chance of getting bogus work published. 
World-over, scientists are under pressure to publish in peer-reviewed journals—sometimes to win grants, other times as conditions for promotions. Researchers say this motivates people to cheat the system. Many journals charge a fee to authors to publish in them. 

Problematic papers typically appear in batches of up to hundreds or even thousands within a publisher or journal. A signature move is to submit the same paper to multiple journals at once to maximize the chance of getting in, according to an industry trade group now monitoring the problem. Publishers say some fraudsters have even posed as academics to secure spots as guest editors for special issues and organizers of conferences, and then control the papers that are published there. 

“The paper mill will find the weakest link and then exploit it mercilessly until someone notices,” said Nick Wise, an engineer who has documented paper-mill advertisements on social media and posts examples regularly on X under the handle @authorforsale.

The journal Science flagged the practice of buying authorship in 2013. The website Retraction Watch and independent researchers have since tracked paper mills through their advertisements and websites. Researchers say they have found them in multiple countries including Russia, Iran, Latvia, China and India. The mills solicit clients on social channels such as Telegram or Facebook, where they advertise the titles of studies they intend to submit, their fee and sometimes the journal they aim to infiltrate. Wise said he has seen costs ranging from as little as $50 to as much as $8,500.

When publishers become alert to the work, mills change their tactics. 
“It’s like a virus mutating,” said Dorothy Bishop, a psychologist at the University of Oxford, one of a multitude of researchers who track fraudulent science and has spotted suspected milled papers.

For Wiley, which publishes more than 2,000 journals, the problem came to light two years ago, shortly after it paid nearly $300 million for Hindawi, a company founded in Egypt in 1997 that included about 250 journals. In 2022, a little more than a year after the purchase, scientists online noticed peculiarities in dozens of studies from journals in the Hindawi family.

Scientific papers typically include citations that acknowledge work that informed the research, but the suspect papers included lists of irrelevant references. Multiple papers included technical-sounding passages inserted midway through, what Bishop called an “AI gobbledygook sandwich.” Nearly identical contact emails in one cluster of studies were all registered to a university in China where few if any of the authors were based. It appeared that all came from the same source.

“The problem was much worse and much larger than anyone had realized,” said David Bimler, a retired psychology researcher in Wellington, New Zealand, who started a spreadsheet of suspect Hindawi studies, which grew to thousands of entries.
Within weeks, Wiley said its Hindawi portfolio had been deeply hit. 

Over the next year, in 2023, 19 Hindawi journals were delisted from a key database, Web of Science, that researchers use to find and cite papers relevant to their work, eroding the standing of the journals, whose influence is measured by how frequently its papers are cited by others. (One was later relisted.)

Wiley said it would shut down four that had been “​​heavily compromised by paper mills,” and for months it paused publishing Hindawi special issues entirely as hundreds of papers were retracted. In December, Wiley interim President and Chief Executive Matthew Kissner warned investors of a $35 million to $40 million revenue drop for the 2024 fiscal year because of the problems with Hindawi.

According to Wiley, Tuesday’s closures are due to multiple factors, including a rebranding of the Hindawi journals and low submission rates to some titles. A company spokesperson acknowledged that some were affected by paper mills but declined to say how many. Eleven were among those that lost accreditation this past year on Web of Science.

“I don’t think that journal closures happen routinely,” said Jodi Schneider, who studies scientific literature and publishing at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.

The extent of the paper mill problem has been exposed by members of the scientific community who on their own have collected patterns in faked papers to recognize this fraud at scale and developed tools to help surface the work. 

One of those tools, the “Problematic Paper Screener,” run by Guillaume Cabanac, a computer-science researcher who studies scholarly publishing at the Université Toulouse III-Paul Sabatier in France, scans the breadth of the published literature, some 130 million papers, looking for a range of red flags including “tortured phrases.”

Cabanac and his colleagues realized that researchers who wanted to avoid plagiarism detectors had swapped out key scientific terms for synonyms from automatic text generators, leading to comically misfit phrases. “Breast cancer” became “bosom peril”; “fluid dynamics” became “gooey stream”; “artificial intelligence” became “counterfeit consciousness.” The tool is publicly available. 

Another data scientist, Adam Day, built “The Papermill Alarm,” a tool that uses large language models to spot signs of trouble in an article’s metadata, such as multiple suspect papers citing each other or using similar templates and simply altering minor experimental details. Publishers can pay to use the tool.   

With the scale of the paper-mill problem coming into ever better focus, it has forced publishers to adjust their operations.
IOP Publishing has expanded teams doing systematic checks on papers and invested in software to document and record peer review steps beyond their journals.

Wiley has expanded its team working to spot bad papers and announced its version of a paper-mill detector that scans for patterns such as tortured phrases. “It’s a top three issue for us today,” said Jay Flynn, executive vice president and general manager of research and learning, at Wiley.

Both Wiley and Springer Nature have beefed up their screening protocols for editors of special issues after seeing paper millers impersonate legitimate researchers to win such spots.

Springer Nature has rejected more than 8,000 papers from a suspected paper mill and is continuing to monitor its work, according to Chris Graf, the publisher’s research-integrity director. 

The incursion of paper mills has also forced competing publishers to collaborate. A tool launched through STM, the trade group of publishers, now checks whether new submissions were submitted to multiple journals at once, according to Joris van Rossum, product director who leads the “STM Integrity Hub,” launched in part to beat back paper mills. Last fall, STM added Day’s “The Papermill Alarm” to its suite of tools.

While publishers are fighting back with technology, paper mills are using the same kind of tools to stay ahead.
“Generative AI has just handed them a winning lottery ticket,” Eggleton of IOP Publishing said. “They can do it really cheap, at scale, and the detection methods are not where we need them to be. I can only see that challenge increasing.”

Write to Nidhi Subbaraman at nidhi.subbaraman@wsj.com

https://apple.news/AoYmlvK-fSxyNcsTrdj44QQ

Biden Admin removers coffee--which has shot up significantly in cost--from the consumer price index. Guess that's one way to "control inflation...."

https://x.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1790733260005499383