One Citizen Speaking

Previous month:
June 2, 2024 - June 8, 2024

Next month:
June 16, 2024 - June 22, 2024

THE PERPETUALLY OUTRAGED ALPHABET PEOPLE ARE AT IT AGAIN

It’s not homophobia, it’s disgust…

Yes, I am disgusted when the perpetually outraged alphabet people (I.e., the LGBTQIA+XYZMFW# community) find that they, and they alone, are upset with a commonplace traffic sign that they demand must be removed in order to protect their sensibilities and feelings in this cold, cruel, heterosexuals' world.

I couldn’t even begin to imagine the level of self-indulgent narcissism and political pandering that would cause the Los Angeles City Council to order the removal of innocuous, standardized, State-certified U-Turn traffic signs in a particular part of Los Angeles.

It appears that Los Angeles City Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez, himself a pandering progressive communist democrat activist, believes that, “the ‘No U-turn’ and ‘No Cruising’ signs in the Silver Lake neighborhood were installed in 1997 to ‘target and persecute’ the LGBT community.”

Anti-gay ‘No U-turn’ signs come down in LA’s LGBTQ-friendly Silver Lake
Removing a sign you had to walk past daily 'means a lot,' says a member of LGBTQ+ community

About 27 years after “No U-turn” signs were posted along Griffith Park Boulevard in Silver Lake in an attempt to keep gay men from cruising the neighborhood to pick up other gay men, members and allies of the LGBTQ+ community joined two Los Angeles city councilmembers on Monday, June 10, as they took down the last two remaining “No U-turn” signs that were put up in the 1990s.

The removal of the signs took place at Griffith Park Boulevard and Fernwood Avenue, which straddles Los Angeles City Council Districts 4 and 13.

Getting rid of the signs was long overdue for many, including Donovan Daughtry, a gay man who five years ago moved to Silver Lake, known as being LGBTQ-friendly.

Two years ago, Daughtry reached out to L.A. City Councilmember Nithya Raman’s office about the signs after learning about them from a podcast hosted by Chris Cruse, founder of queermaps.org, an online archive of 150 years of queer history in L.A. On Monday, moments after he helped take down the last sign, Daughtry said, “This is a small effort, but just to have a sign that I would have to walk past with my dog every day be taken down meant a lot.”

Before the signs came down, city elected officials and community members gathered nearby at the AT Center, a recovery and wellness center for the LGBTQ+ community, to mark the occasion with speeches and performances. <Source>

Remember when the politicians and their chosen scientific authorities lied about AIDS to “protect” the homosexual community?

Unlearned AIDS Lessons for Covid
In the 1980s, Fauci and Redfield sowed fear about a heterosexual epidemic that never happened.

When AIDS spread among gay men and intravenous drug users four decades ago, it became conventional wisdom that the plague would soon devastate the rest of the American population. In 1987, Oprah Winfrey opened her show by announcing, “Research studies now project that 1 in 5—listen to me, hard to believe—1 in 5 heterosexuals could be dead of AIDS in the next three years.” The prediction was outlandishly wrong, but she wasn’t wrong in attributing the scare to scientists.

One early alarmist was Anthony Fauci, who made national news in 1983 with an editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association warning that AIDS could infect even children because of “the possibility that routine close contact, as within a family household, can spread the disease.” After criticism that he had inspired a wave of hysterical homophobia, Dr. Fauci (who in 1984 began his current job, as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases), promptly pivoted 180 degrees, declaring less than two months after his piece appeared that it was “absolutely preposterous” to suggest AIDS could be spread by normal social contact. But other supposed experts went on warning erroneously that AIDS could spread widely via toilet seats, mosquito bites and kissing.

Robert Redfield, an Army physician who would later direct the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during the Covid pandemic, claimed in 1985 that his research on soldiers showed AIDS would soon spread as rapidly among heterosexuals as among homosexuals. He and other scientists became much-quoted authorities for the imminent “heterosexual breakout,” which was proclaimed on the covers of Life in 1985 (“Now No One Is Safe from AIDS”) and the Atlantic in 1987 (“Heterosexuals and AIDS: The Second Stage of the Epidemic”).

In reality, researchers discovered early on that transmission through vaginal intercourse was rare, and that those who claimed to have been infected that way were typically concealing intravenous drug use or homosexual activity. One major study estimated the risk of contracting AIDS during intercourse with someone outside the known risk groups was 1 in 5 million. But the CDC nonetheless started a publicity campaign warning that everyone was in danger. It mailed brochures to more than 100 million households and aired dozens of public-service announcements, like a television ad with a man proclaiming, “If I can get AIDS, anyone can.”

The CDC’s own epidemiologists objected to this message, arguing that resources should be focused on those at risk, as the Journal reported in 1996. But they were overruled by superiors who decided, on the advice of marketing consultants, that presenting AIDS as a universal threat was the best way to win attention and funding. By those measures, the campaign succeeded. Polls showed that Americans became terrified of being infected, and funding for AIDS prevention surged—much of it squandered on measures to protect heterosexuals.

Scientists and public officials sustained the panic by wildly overestimating the prevalence of AIDS. Challenging those numbers was a risky career move, as New York City’s health commissioner, Stephen C. Joseph, discovered in 1988 when he reduced the estimated number of AIDS cases in the city by half. He had good reasons for the reduction—the correct number turned out to be much lower still—but he soon needed police protection. Activists occupied his office, disrupted his speeches, and picketed and spray-painted his home. <Source>

As I remember it…

First came the activist push to de-stigmatize homosexuality in the broader community. Then came the activist push to normalize homosexuality in the broader community. Then came the activist push to legalize homosexuality by rationalizing existing laws concerning marriage and the rights of partners. So far, all was well with a “live and let live” philosophy.

But now, we are being asked by the activists to openly celebrate and promote the homosexual culture, even to young children who have no interest in sex. This is wrong.

Even worse, we find the progressive communist democrats exploiting the alleged victimhood of homosexuals in order to grow their coalition of the disaffected to gain or maintain political power.

Not a joke…

One of the more prominent members of the Silver Lake Neighborhood Council, which initiated the sign removal, is a local drag queen and politician named Maebe A. Girl (she/they).

MAEBE A. GIRL – At-Large Representative; Board Treasurer; Budget & Finance Committee Co-Chair

I’ve been a proud resident of diverse Silver Lake since 2013, living in Region 5, and I’m involved with the Lyric-Hyperion Cafe and Theatre, where I host and produce a weekly, all-ages drag show. I want Silver Lake to remain a safe and welcoming place for people of all backgrounds. LGBTQIA and Homelessness issues are my passion, and I encourage everyone to get involved. <Source>

Bottom line…

It is time to kill intersectionality that is being exploited by progressive communist democrats in their attempt to gain perpetual political power.

And, since we are removing the traffic control impediments that prevent cruising for homosexual partners, can we expect that the Los Angeles City Council also remove the traffic signs in the Hollywood area to facilitate heterosexuals' cruising?

It’s time to elect officials who will represent the people and not some intersectional coalition.

We are so screwed.

-- Steve

BTW: Will the sign removal create more rear-end collisions as people suddenly stop to chat with those on the curb?

“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS

Permalink | Comments (0)

MERRICK GARLAND POINTS HIS FINGER AT YOU!

Like previous Democrat Attorneys General, notably former President Bill Clinton’s Janet Reno and former President Barack Obama’s Eric Holder, Attorney General Merrick Garland is deeply conflicted.

On one hand, upholding his Oath of Office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States… and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter,” and on the other hand, the instructions given to cabinet-level officers by the President of the United States.

Opinion: Merrick Garland: Unfounded attacks on the Justice Department must end

Conspiracy theories, falsehoods and threats of violence against DOJ personnel are not normal.

Last week, a California man was convicted of threatening to bomb an FBI field office where hundreds of agents and other employees work. In one of his threats to the FBI, the man wrote: “I can go on a mass murder spree. In fact, it would be very explainable by your actions.”

These heinous threats of violence have become routine in an environment in which the Justice Department is under attack like never before.

In recent weeks, we have seen an escalation of attacks that go far beyond public scrutiny, criticism, and legitimate and necessary oversight of our work. They are baseless, personal and dangerous.

These attacks come in the form of threats to defund particular department investigations, most recently the special counsel’s prosecution of the former president.

[OCS: Why would such a request, made only to Congress as the people’s representatives, be inappropriate given the appearance of massive wrongdoing, including domestic spying on American citizens, withholding or manipulating exculpatory evidence, and selective prosecutions that appear to be deliberate interference with the upcoming presidential election?]

They come in the form of conspiracy theories crafted and spread for the purpose of undermining public trust in the judicial process itself. Those include false claims that a case brought by a local district attorney and resolved by a jury verdict in a state trial was somehow controlled by the Justice Department.

[OCS: It is a fact that most conspiracy theories, so branded by agency personnel and media outlets, have been proven true, and, in fact, worse than originally imagined.

Why is it that the Department of Justice struggles mightily to withhold documents and testimony requested by legitimate Congressional oversight committees?

How is it that a ranking DOJ official resigned his position to become the chief prosecutor in the State case and that Committee and FOIA requests for communications between the State and the DOJ are being denied?]

They come in the form of dangerous falsehoods about the FBI’s law enforcement operations that increase the risks faced by our agents.

[OCS: Knowingly sending armed agents into an area secured and controlled by the United States Secret Service without deconfliction and vetting the individual agents is not a routine “law enforcement operation” and multiplies the risks to agents should they deliberately or inadvertently endanger a federal protectee.]

They come in the form of efforts to bully and intimidate our career public servants by repeatedly and publicly singling them out.

[OCS: While it is common to blame the herd for individual wrongdoing, individuals must be held accountable for their actions—if not officially by the agency, then by Congress and the media. Questioning low-level individuals to reveal wrongdoing by upper-echelon managers is a routine and necessary investigative technique.]

They come in the form of false claims that the department is politicizing its work to somehow influence the outcome of an election. Such claims are often made by those who are themselves attempting to politicize the department’s work to influence the outcome of an election.

[OCS: The DOJ, and other federal agencies, were caught red-handed running a hoax to influence an election (Russia, Russia, Russia), disseminating disinformation to influence an election (Hunter Biden’s laptop), and attempting to influence charges against Hunter Biden (including those violating the Espionage Act) to influence an election by protecting President Biden, and altering transcripts and withholding audio tapes of Biden’s interview to, wait for it, influence an election.

As for others calling out such malfeasance, it is pure projection when you blame the opposition for your own behavior in politicizing the department’s work.]

And media reports indicate there is an ongoing effort to ramp up these attacks against the Justice Department, its work and its employees.

[OCS: As per past practice, certain media outlets lack credibility because they are willing stenographers for departmental propaganda and leaks and cannot be trusted. Chief among them are the New York Times and The Washington Post.]

We will not be intimidated by these attacks. But it is absurd and dangerous that public servants, many of whom risk their lives every day, are being threatened for simply doing their jobs and adhering to the principles that have long guided the Justice Department’s work.

[OCS: You have the guns and jails, so the only intimidation that you really face is being held accountable for your past criminality should there be a regime change in the next election. Perhaps you should explain why the House of Representatives voted 216 to 207 to hold you in contempt of Congress to provide requested information to Congress.]

In my first job at the Justice Department some 45 years ago, I worked on what would become the department’s first edition of the Principles of Federal Prosecution. That set of rules for prosecutors enshrined what every department employee lives by every single day: an unwavering commitment to the fair and impartial application of our laws. That commitment has been sustained by dedicated career professionals who serve across administrations of both political parties.

[OCS: Sounds great, but nobody cares what you did 45 years ago. They care what you are doing months before a presidential election.]

The Justice Department makes decisions about criminal investigations based only on the facts and the law. We do not investigate people because of their last name, their political affiliation, the size of their bank account, where they come from or what they look like. We investigate and prosecute violations of federal law — nothing more, nothing less.

[OCS: This is a lie! I give you former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Vice President Joe Biden, and various others who refuse to uphold federal laws.]

We do this not only because of the principles that have long guided our work, but also because we know that our democracy cannot survive without a justice system that ensures the equal protection of law for all its citizens.

[OCS: Your party has done more to destroy democracy than at any other time after the Civil War. You have made a mockery of our Justice system and almost all of the other democratic institutions that activist progressive communist democrats now run.]

The Justice Department will continue to uphold its obligation under the Constitution to fiercely defend the right of all Americans to peacefully express opinions, beliefs and ideas. Disagreements about politics are good for our democracy. They are normal.

[OCS: How do you explain targeting Catholics and parents who complain at school board meetings? How do you ignore domestic terrorist groups like Black Lives Matter and Antifa?]

But using conspiracy theories, falsehoods, violence and threats of violence to affect political outcomes is not normal. The short-term political benefits of those tactics will never make up for the long-term cost to our country.

[OCS: Then tell the DOJ and FBI to quit interfering in our elections before we turn into a banana republic.]

Continued unfounded attacks against the Justice Department’s employees are dangerous for people’s safety. They are dangerous for our democracy. This must stop. <Source>

[OCS: What must stop is the persecution of Donald Trump and the restoration of our judicial system in America.]

Want to see how it works?

DOJ memo says Garland cannot be prosecuted for contempt over Biden-Hur audio
An internal Justice Department (DOJ) memo argued Attorney General Merrick Garland would be protected from prosecution for contempt of Congress given President Biden’s assertion of executive privilege over audio tapes Republicans have sought by subpoena.

The 57-page memo from the department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), obtained by The Hill, lays out the case for Garland’s refusal to turn over the audio of Biden’s conversation with special counsel Robert Hur. The GOP already has a transcript of the interview.

The OLC, which operates as a legal adviser for the department, wrote that no administration official has been prosecuted for failing to comply with a subpoena when the president has claimed executive privilege.

“The president has waived any executive privilege over these audio recordings by releasing a transcript of the entire interview to the public,” House Oversight and Accountability Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) said during a House Rules Committee meeting Tuesday.

[OCS: The Department of Justice has already admitted that they have manipulated the transcript.]

But the OLC refuted that argument in the memo.

“Because the committees have the transcripts of the special counsel’s interviews, the needs the committees have articulated for the recordings are plainly insufficient to overcome a privilege claim grounded in these important separation of powers concerns,” according to the memo. <Source>

[OCS: The legislative purpose of Congress is gathering facts for an impeachment inquiry, and the Biden interview is the basis for not prosecuting Biden for various criminal activities involving stolen classified documents. Another example of two-tier justice. Both Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro are subject to jail for refusing to break Trump's assertion of executive privilege regarding a Congressional subpoena.]

As expected...

Justice Department won’t prosecute Garland for contempt, says refusal to provide audio wasn’t crime

Attorney General Merrick Garland will not be prosecuted for contempt of Congress because his refusal to turn over audio of President Joe Biden’s interview in his classified documents case “did not constitute a crime,” the Justice Department said Friday.

The department’s decision was revealed in a letter to Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson, citing the agency’s “longstanding position and uniform practice” to not prosecute officials who don’t comply with subpoenas because of a president’s claim of executive privilege.

The Democratic president last month asserted executive privilege to block the release of the audio, which the White House says Republicans want only for political purposes. Republicans moved forward with the contempt effort anyway, voting Wednesday to punish Garland for refusing to provide the recording.

Assistant Attorney General Carlos Felipe Uriarte noted that the Justice Department under presidents of both political parities has declined to prosecute in similar circumstances when the president has claimed executive privilege.

Accordingly, the department “will not bring the congressional contempt citation before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute the Attorney General,” Uriarte said in the letter to Johnson. The letter did not specify who in Justice Department made the decision. <Source>

[OCS: I'm sure this will bring great comfort to Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, both of whom refused to honor their subpoenas based on Trump's executive privilege claim. Clearly, we have a two-tier justice system, and the Attorney General is a liar.]