Category: Law & Order

The Big-City Murder Rate Is Falling and the Reasons Won’t Surprise You.

Violent crime — specifically, the murder rate — spiked in 2020 and has been coming down gradually ever since. Now, in 2023, the number of murders in the United States has dropped precipitously. Jeff Asher published a piece in The Atlantic  revealing that “[m]urder is down about 12 percent year-to-date in more than 90 cities that have released data for 2023, compared with data as of the same date in 2022.”

Is defunding the police actually working? Is the prevailing policy of prosecutors giving out light sentences to hardened thugs leading to a “come to Jesus” moment for criminals and causing them to reform?

Not hardly. In the wake of the sky-high violent crime rates from 2020, big-city mayors hired more cops, and many departments reinstituted “aggressive policing methods” to deal with the out-of-control shootings and murders.

“It is possible that police departments have returned to some of the proactive work that they curtailed during the COVID pandemic and after George Floyd, activities that may be inhibiting some gun violence,” Jerry Ratcliffe, a criminal-justice professor at Temple University in Philadelphia, told Asher.

Many cities have used federal COVID-relief money to hire more police officers, and there is some evidence—albeit preliminary—that adding police officers helps to reduce homicide, while also leading to more arrests for low-level offenses. We do not yet know how successful agencies have been at growing their ranks or whether more police officers are resulting in fewer shootings. Murder is down in Chicago, New Orleans, and New York, for example, but Chicago’s number of police officers is virtually unchanged from last summer, while New Orleans’s is down more than 8 percent and New York has roughly 2 percent fewer officers.

More police and more aggressive tactics resulting in fewer murders? Whoda thunk it? Duh.

Continue reading “”

American U. students at odds with D.C. group that favors unarmed police

Some American University students are skeptical at claims made by the District of Columbia’s so-called “Peace Team” that unarmed police are “highly effective” at preventing gun violence — in one of the deadliest cities in the country.

According to its website, the DC Peace Team’s mission is to “cultivate the habits and skills of nonviolence in communities, so [it] can better resist injustice, and thus, build a more sustainable just peace.”

The team is a huge proponent of, and utilizes, restorative justice (which has been growing in the nation’s school systems, much to many teachers’ chargrin) and weaponless “civilian protection units.”

According to Peace Team Board Member Sal Corbin (pictured), such methods “emphasize inclusion rather than exclusion […] and punishment.”A former psychology professor, Corbin told The Eagle he grew up in a violent atmosphere where punishment was “swift and severe.”

As such, he wanted to study an alternative. Corbin believes an unarmed police force is “extremely effective” and involves “deploying teams to events where violence or escalation is a possibility.”

Robert Schentrup of the youth gun reform group Team ENOUGH added that “when victims of [gun] violence don’t get help, their natural response is to traumatize other individuals in that same way.”

The Peace Team notes it will even intervene in certain situations “with their bodies.”

But The Eagle notes some American U. students are wary. One student said even with stricter gun control, criminals will still find a way to possess firearms, so yes, cops should be armed. Another said disarming police when the threat of a mass shooting is ever-present seems like a bad idea.

American, like other colleges in and around the nation’s capital (Georgetown, Howard) have unarmed campus cops. George Washington University, however, recently decided to arm a small percentage of its officers.

Washington DC’s violent crime is up 10 percent so far this year, and is 147 percent higher than the national average. Other crimes in the city occur at a rate 87 percent higher than the national average.

Even Corbin conceded that “clearly there are circumstances where weaponry is needed.”

“Our goal isn’t to replace law enforcement entirely, but rather give an alternative approach to it that doesn’t necessitate, increase or escalate violence,” he said.

As we knew it would be.

Police Handwringing Over Ohio Permitless Gun Carry A Big Nothing Burger

“It has been one year since Ohio loosened its concealed carry weapon law, and community advocates, elected officials and law enforcement alike are reflecting on the changing gun landscape,” NBC4 Columbus reported Tuesday.

“A year ago on Tuesday, Gov. Mike DeWine signed into law Senate Bill 215, which eliminated a concealed carry permit requirement for adult Ohioans who are legally eligible to own and carry a firearm in the state.”

The usual suspects, starting with the Fraternal Order of Police that had unsuccessfully lobbied to kill the bill, are still bellyaching, “argu[ing] that Ohio’s streets are less safe – and so are its law enforcement.”

“When the delegates met at Philadelphia during the sweltering summer of 1787, the task before the Constitutional Convention was almost insurmountable. How, in the face of the revolution just fought, could a coalition of states unite and govern nationally when individual freedom and state sovereignty were paramount?” he asked. “Our founders got it right in 1787. Their model has stood the test of time and history. The Ohio Fraternal Order of Police strongly urges legislators to look to the founders’ model. Maximize individual freedom.”

Through “compromise”? And means testing against this cop union bureaucrat’s arbitrary definition of the proper “balance between public safety and individual freedom”? That’s what the Framers meant by “shall not be infringed”?

That’s some industrial-grade gaslighting right there, Mr. Wolske.

As for specific FOP objections;

“Michael Weinman, director of governmental affairs for the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police, told the House Government Oversight Committee … [I]t would make police jobs harder by removing the requirement to carry documentation, and prevent officers from holding and patting down someone for a firearm… [and] predicted it would lead to more police officers getting shot.”

That’s a version of the old and unfounded-in-reality “blood in the streets/Dodge City over fender benders” argument the gun prohibitionists used when railing against licensed concealed carry.  And note his concern was not for “public safety” but for officer safety.

So: Did his dire prediction come true? Have any of the FOP’s concerns?

Instead, because when you’ve got nothing but aren’t ready to admit you were wrong and have face to save, we’re offered this bit of meaningless blather:

“No conclusive research yet exists about the effects of permitless carry on gun crime in Ohio specifically, but a September 2022 study by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found firearm assaults rose about 10% in states that relaxed restrictions on concealed carry weapons.”

That’s an old junk science trick, and it’s no coincidence we see the Bloomberg name attached to it: Present a correlation/causation fallacy under the auspices of a presumably authoritative name, and everybody, particularly NBC reporters, with a narrative to parrot, is sure to be impressed and not recognize it for the total unsubstantiated BS that it really is.

Crazy, huh?

The U.S. Constitution

Article I
Section 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To…

…provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

New Georgia Law Targets Left-Wing Prosecutors

The Peach State is joining the chorus of states that have had enough of soft-on-crime prosecutors. On Friday, Gov. Brian Kemp (R-Ga.) signed a bill into law that creates a commission to discipline and potentially remove prosecutors who don’t do their jobs.

“I am not going to stand idly by as rogue or incompetent prosecutors refuse to uphold the law,” Kemp said at the signing ceremony in Savannah, Ga. “Today we are sending a message that we will not forfeit public safety for prosecutors to let criminals off the hook.”

Georgia isn’t alone, of course. The Associated Press reports that Georgia’s new law joins “pushes to remove prosecutors in Florida, Indiana, Missouri, and Pennsylvania, as well as broader disputes nationwide over how certain criminal offenses should be charged.”

Continue reading “”

Jordan Opens Probe Into US Marshals Being Told to Avoid Arresting Protesters at Supreme Court Justices’ Homes

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, is spearheading an investigation into why the U.S. Marshals Service was instructed to “avoid” arresting protesters camped outside a Supreme Court justices’ private residence, “despite the actions clearly violating federal law.”

In March, Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., presented the U.S. Marshals Service training protocol during a congressional hearing that revealed guards were told to refrain from arresting protesters at Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home after the leaked Dobbs decision sparked outrage from pro-abortion activists. During the hearing, Britt shared the protocol with Attorney General Merrick Garland, but he claimed to have never seen the slides before.

The Marshals parked outside Kavanaugh’s home were reportedly told to “avoid, unless absolutely necessary, criminal enforcement action involving the protest or protesters, particularly on public space,” prompting Jordan to launch a probe into the directives.

“The training materials provided to the U.S. Marshals strongly suggest that the Biden Administration is continuing to weaponize federal law enforcement agencies for partisan purposes,” Jordan wrote in a letter to U.S. Marshals Service Director Ronald L. Davis, first obtained by The Hill, after Britt’s discovery.

“While authorities apprehended the man who intended to do harm to Justice Kavanaugh, we are aware of no other arrests or charges for agitators demonstrating outside of the justices’ homes—despite the actions clearly violating federal law,” Jordan continued, as he seeks to address the lack of arrests.

Jordan also called out the lack of arrests in an interview with Fox News Radio Wednesday, stating that it is a “crime to protest in front of a judge’s home.”

“It’s actually a crime to protest in front of a judge’s home with the intent to change a decision, to impact a pending matter in front of the court. And obviously, that’s what they were doing after the leak came out,” the Ohio congressman said, referring to the protests and demonstrations that occurred after a leak of the Dobbs decision last May.

“That’s why I think the leak came out… to create this whole atmosphere. And of course, we know where it ended up. It ended up with an assassination threat and attempt on Justice Kavanaugh,” Jordan said.

“So we’ve received information that suggests that, it’s what we put in the letter, that there may have been instructions from the Attorney General to, hey, whatever you do, only as a last resort. But that’s in direct contradiction of the law, of the statute. So that’s a concern,” he said. “And we want to get some answers to that, and a host of other things. It seems like we’ve been investigating all kinds of things because so many these agencies have been turned on the American people.”

Jordan’s investigation comes just days after Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and 10 Senate Republicans announced upcoming legislation that seeks to increase maximum prison sentences for anyone who attempts to influence Supreme Court justice decisions.

“The Protecting Our Supreme Court Justices Act will deter intimidation of our Justices and send a message that the Biden administration has refused to send: Justices must be allowed to do their jobs without fearing for the safety of themselves or their families,” Blackburn told Fox News Digital.

Soros-backed prosecutor Kimberly Gardner resigns from St. Louis office amid scandal

A scandal-ridden prosecutor backed by billionaire George Soros announced she is resigning as the Missouri attorney general moved to have her forcibly removed from her office.

St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner, the city’s top prosecutor, confirmed her resignation in a letter just days after she defiantly declared “I ain’t leaving.”

Both Republicans and Democrats across Missouri have demanded her resignation for years, accusing her office of dysfunction and mishandling cases.

Her resignation is effective June 1.

Earlier this year, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey had filed a petition quo warranto to forcibly remove Gardner from her office over repeated instances where her office allegedly failed to enforce the law.

Bailey told Fox News that nearly 12,000 criminal cases have been dismissed under Gardner.

He also says more than 9,000 cases have been tossed just before going to trial, forcing judges to dismiss more than 2,000 cases due to what Bailey described as a failure to provide defendants with evidence and speedy trials.

Despite her resignation, Bailey said he still intends to move forward in his effort to remove Gardner from office.

“There is absolutely no reason for the circuit attorney to remain in office until June 1,” Bailey told Fox News in a statement. “We remain undeterred with our legal quest to forcibly remove her from office. Every day she remains puts the city of St. Louis in more danger. How many victims will there be between now and June 1? How many defendants will have their constitutional rights violated? How many cases will continue to go unprosecuted?”

Gardner refused to step down for months, blasting Bailey’s efforts a political “witch hunt” and a form of “voter suppression,” according to Fox. Gardner, the first Black female prosecutor in the city, has also accused her critics of racism and sexism.

In February, Missouri house members passed a bill that would give the governor the ability to strip the authority of any elected prosecutor to handle violent crime cases.

The bill initially targeted Gardner, but was later amended to extend to any elected prosecutors across the state following concerns singling out one prosecutor would be unconstitutional, according to the Missouri Independent.

“The most recent bill is part of a coordinated, long-standing strategy to undermine me and my efforts to make the City of St. Louis safer and fairer. Since day one of my tenure as Circuit Attorney, I have experienced attacks on my reforms, on my judgment, my integrity, on my prosecutorial discretion, on my responsibility to direct the limited resources of this office and more,” Gardner wrote in her resignation letter.

“ … I cannot be the final Circuit Attorney ever to be elected in St. Louis. You must be able to have a voice in your criminal justice system. And we must allow our office to continue to operate.

“The most powerful weapon I have to fight back against these outsiders stealing your voices and your rights is to step back. I took this job to serve the people of the City of St. Louis, and that’s still my North Star,” she wrote.

Gardner is additionally facing two contempt of court cases against her after no one from her team showed up for several high-profile prosecutions, including a murder.

Judge Michael Noble announced last week he would appoint a special prosecutor to build the a case against Gardner.

“It appears that Ms. Gardner has complete indifference and a conscious disregard for the judicial process,” Noble said, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Gardner’s office resembled a “rudderless ship of chaos,” he added.

It’s unclear if the contempt hearings will be dropped.

Several assistant prosecutors recently left Garner’s long understaffed office, according to Fox News. Her dysfunctional office had been long-plagued with personnel issues and low morale.

In her resignation letter, Gardner claimed her office faced an “onslaught” of records requests “that no office in the country could reasonably fulfill” as well as “attacks on our hard-working line attorneys designed to demoralize these public servants.

“There is no sign that the onslaught would stop for as long as I am in office,” she said.

Gardner was among the first prosecutors Democratic mega-donor Soros bankrolled in 2016 and then again during her 2020 re-election campaign, where she received 60 percent of the vote.

The controversial attorney announced last month that she will be running for a third term despite the backlash against her.

When You Don’t Police Crime, Civilians Will

This week, the media found its latest iteration of its favorite narrative: white man harms black man.

That iteration featured a 24-year-old white Marine from Queens attempting to suppress a 30-year-old homeless, psychotic black man, Jordan Neely, via use of a suppression hold. Neely was apparently threatening people on the subway when the Marine took him down from behind, keeping him in the suppression hold for 15 minutes; Neely died shortly thereafter.

The extraordinarily inflammatory and insipid Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., immediately rushed to Twitter in order to gin up outrage: “Jordan Neely was murdered. But bc Jordan was houseless and crying for food in a time when the city is raising rents and stripping services to militarize itself while many in power demonize the poor, the murderer gets protected w/ passive headlines + no charges. It’s disgusting.”

Meanwhile, Manhattan Borough President Mark Levine tweeted, “I saw Jordan Neely perform his Michael Jackson routine many times on the A train. He always made people smile. Our broken mental health system failed him. He deserved help, not to die in a chokehold on the floor of the subway.”

So, who was Neely? A career criminal. He wasn’t just shouting threats at passengers—he had been arrested more than 40 times in the past. Those arrests ranged from drugs to disorderly conduct to fare beating. When he died, he carried an outstanding warrant for assaulting a 67-year-old woman. A bevy of people apparently report that he had attempted to shove people onto subway tracks more than once.

Why was Neely out on the streets? It was clear to everyone that he was a mentally ill psychotic man with a serious drug record, a rap sheet longer than the phone book, and an alleged history of violent incidents. The answer is that the city of New York has decided no longer to prosecute crime. To do so might raise the unpalatable spectacle of racial disparity in crime statistics—and it is apparently more important to preserve egalitarianism in arrest statistics than to take active threats off the streets.

The consequences of such idiocy are dire, for both the general public and for people like Neely. How long can the authorities in New York expect everyday citizens to experience hostile and violent encounters before taking action?

Commentator Toure tweeted, “It is normal to see loud, disturbing mental breakdowns on the NYC subway. I’m not defending that; I’m saying it’s a regular occurrence. What’s not normal is to murder people having loud, disturbing mental breakdowns.”

But short of prophecy, how can those watching such a breakdown, complete with threats against others, know who is harmless and who isn’t? Normally such questions are outsourced to law enforcement. When law enforcement is prevented from doing its job, crime rises—and citizens are forced to engage in acts of self-defense.

All of this would be perfectly obvious were Neely white and the Marine black in this case; then, the media and political class would declare the Marine a hero for protecting others on the subway car. But the narrative must be preserved—the lie that crime by minority members must be ignored for the greater good of society, lest response to such crime facilitate systemic racism.

Often, it’s innocent victims who pay the price. In the case of Jordan Neely, it was the criminal himself, who never would have died were the system rational enough to have policed him decently years ago.

Suspect In Texas Massacre Arrested After Days-Long Manhunt

Law enforcement agents arrested a person believed to be responsible for killing five of his neighbors with a rifle in their Texas home. A person believed to be Francisco Oropesa, 38, was apprehended in Cut and Shoot, Texas, according to multiple reports.

Oropesa is and illegal alien who has been deported multiple times.

Officials said they’re awaiting fingerprints to confirm the person arrested is Oropesa, who has been taken to the Montgomery County Jail and charged with first-degree murder.

The FBI, and others, had offered a $80,000 reward for information. It was unclear if the apprehension was based off a tip form the public.

The incident occurred four days ago when Oropesa went to the Trails End area home in Cleveland, approximately 45 miles north of Houston, and opened fire, according to the San Jacinto County Sheriff’s Office.

Oropesa allegedly opened fire on neighbors after one complained that shots coming from his adjacent property were keeping an infant from sleeping.

 

This merely follows Federal Law.
What I always find interesting is that some law that benefits the people, like permitless or shall issue concealed carry, always takes months to become effective, but any criminal law that can be used against a citizen is always effective immediately.

New Indiana law redefines ‘machine gun’ to include conversion switches

A new state law makes it illegal for Hoosiers to attach to their firearms a “switch,” or any similar device, that enables fully automatic shooting with a single pull of the trigger.

Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb approved the revised state definition of “machine gun” in House Enrolled Act 1365 on Thursday after the legislation was endorsed 71-23 by the Republican-controlled House and 45-4 in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Rep. Kendell Culp, R-Rensselaer, and Sen. Lonnie Randolph, D-East Chicago, are the only Northwest Indiana lawmakers to not support the proposal.

The statute took effect upon the governor signing it into law.

Advocates for the measure said the plastic switches, also known as Glock switches, are being purchased or 3-D printed throughout the state and increasingly used to convert regular guns into machine guns — with deadly consequences.

“It’s very difficult to control a firearm with one of these devices attached to it. So our constituents’ homes, businesses, cars and our constituents themselves are being caught in the crossfire,” said sponsor Rep. Mitch Gore, D-Indianapolis.

“These devices allow shooters to fire off dozens of rounds in just a matter of seconds. When police respond to these shootings, they are quite literally being outgunned.”

The mere possession of a switch already was illegal under federal law. The new Indiana law ensures that any person with a switch attached to their gun is subject to a variety of state penalty enhancements for the possession or use of a machine gun.

“As a career law enforcement officer and a representative of a district that has seen several instances of gun violence, I know this bill will save the lives of citizens and cops alike and make our streets safer for Hoosier families,” Gore said.

In a statement, Gore thanked his Statehouse colleagues, especially the strong Second Amendment supporters, for recognizing the importance of holding accountable people who illegally convert their standard firearms into machine guns.

“The significance of passing a piece of bipartisan gun legislation in Indiana is not lost on me,” he said. “I also want to thank Governor Holcomb for signing this bill and helping the General Assembly keep families safe while respecting Hoosiers and their constitutional rights.”

Additional supporters include the Indiana Fraternal Order of Police, Indiana Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council.

Second Amendment Scholar Challenges Gun Control Narrative, Says It Increases Racial Bias In Criminal Justice

By Leo Wolfson, State Politics Reporter

An African American Second Amendment scholar is bringing a perspective challenging many of the mainstream narratives that firearms increase crime in America. Instead, he believes gun control laws exacerbate racial bias in the criminal justice system.

“We need to take a harder look at those programs, rather than pursuing what we call the modern orthodoxy,” said Nicholas Johnson at the University of Wyoming’s Firearm Research Center on Thursday night. “The community would be better if we took a case-by-case policy look. We need a hard-look approach that is pursued with rigor.”

He questions gun control laws from a perspective he acknowledges many will find uncomfortable, showing a connection to racial and criminal justice questions. He said those who believe bias pervades the criminal justice system should also be opposed to the modern gun control movements, where he says the same biases translate into gun law enforcement.

In his “A Race-Sensitive Hard Look at Firearms and the Black Community” presentation, Johnson explains that studies show many of the same laws leading to disproportionate incarceration of African Americans and other minorities are interconnected with gun control laws that Democrats and many of the same people impacted by the policies support.

“The conservative tough on crime policies cross paths with the liberal paths to solve gun control at all costs,” he said. “Conservatives and liberal progressives have tried to outdo each other to be progressively punitive.”

The Fordham University School of Law professor wants lawmakers to consider firearms regulation from a new lens.

Continue reading “”

Man killed in a deputy-involved shooting in Greene County, Mo.

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (KY3) -A man is dead after a shooting involving Greene County Sheriff’s Deputies Friday morning. The deputies were called to a convenience store in the 5000 block of West Sunshine west of the Springfield city limits at 8:13 a.m. after a clerk identified a woman involved in a previous theft.

The woman ran across the road to an abandoned house. The deputies went to check the house and encountered the woman. She came out at 8:35 a.m. and was taken into custody.

The deputies then found a man who was holding a gun to his head. Sheriff Jim Arnott said the man told deputies “to shoot me, I’m not going back.” The deputies shot the man after he lunged at them. Arnott said the deputies administered first aid, but the man died.

Arnott said it is not known if the man shot at deputies. The sheriff’s critical investigative team which consists of the Christian, Greene, Lawrence and Webster County Sheriff’s Offices is now investigating. The two deputies are on administrative leave which is standard protocol when they are involved in a shooting.

“The deputies are obviously upset, shaken but they are not wounded. The sad news is they had to take a life,” said Arnott.

Arnott said a nearby neighbor stopped and said they had items stolen and the neighbor believes those items are inside the house. “I would assume that we will recover some stolen property,” said Arnott.

The names of the man and the woman haven’t been released.

Open that box………………..
(and I figure they probably have more substantial charges…. and evidence)

At least two Republican DAs want to prosecute the Bidens.

WASHINGTON — At least two local GOP prosecutors are looking at ways to charge President Biden and his family amid Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of former President Donald Trump, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer revealed Wednesday.

“I had two calls yesterday, one from a county attorney in Kentucky and one from a county attorney in Tennessee,” Comer (R-Ky.) told “Fox & Friends.” “They were Republican, obviously, both states are heavily Republican. They want to know if there are ways they can go after the Bidens now.”

Comer is leading a House Republican investigation into Joe Biden’s role in his family’s international business dealings in countries such as China and Ukraine. The lawmaker’s staff recently reviewed Suspicious Activity Reports filed by banks to the Treasury Department regarding possible criminal activity by the Biden family.

There are a number of possible legal theories under which President Biden and his relatives could face non-federal criminal charges — after Bragg, a Democrat, unfurled a novel legal theory Tuesday to charge Trump, who is the leading candidate to run against Biden in the 2024 election.

President Biden is already under federal investigation by special counsel Robert Hur for his alleged mishandling of classified documents dating to his vice presidency and Senate tenure. Biden also repeatedly involved himself in his son Hunter and brother James’ foreign business relations during and after his eight years as vice president — which are also a focus of a federal criminal investigation into Hunter Biden.

The first son, 53, has for years been under investigation by the US Attorney’s Office in Delaware for tax fraud, money laundering, illegal foreign lobbying and lying about his drug use on a gun purchase form. Hunter wrote in communications retrieved from his former laptop that he handed over as much as “half” of his income to his father. The FBI has been in possession of the laptop since December 2019.

Republican legal activists last week told The Post they expect Republican prosecutors to target the Bidens after Bragg made history by bringing the first-ever criminal case against a former president — perhaps by citing uncharged federal offenses, as Bragg did.

“You can be sure that there are prosecutors across Florida and Texas right now who are looking for a state law hook into the Biden family,” said Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton. “And if they’re not, they’re not doing their jobs.”

Mike Davis, a former chief counsel for nominations on the Senate Judiciary Committee and president of the Article III Project, floated legal theories for possible prosecutions.

“I think our Republican AGs and DAs should get creative,” Davis said.

“You just need probable cause. A grand jury can indict a ham sandwich. We just saw that in New York. And the Bidens actually committed real crimes. These are real crimes that the Bidens committed. There is smoking-gun evidence that the Bidens were corruptly and illegally on Chinese and Ukrainian oligarchs’ payrolls.”

Davis pointed to Hunter and James Biden’s partnership with CEFC China Energy in 2017 and 2018, which also allegedly involved Joe Biden, as potential grounds for charges.

An October 2017 email from first son Hunter Biden’s laptop identifies Joe Biden as a participant in a call about Chinese energy company CEFC’s attempt to purchase US natural gas — an effort that appears to have had corporate links to both Louisiana and Texas. A May 2017 email referred to the “big guy” getting a 10% cut in the business partnership, and Joe Biden allegedly met with one of his son’s partners the same month.

“I understand the Bidens may have had some oil and gas deals that deal with Texas. I think maybe Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton should start looking at this long and hard … and Louisiana with [Republican state Attorney General Jeff] Landry,” Davis told The Post. “Paxton and Landry, they need to look at this. And if you can find a conspiracy and any of the overt acts of a conspiracy are committed in any of those states, you can bring charges.”

Hunter and James Biden ultimately received at least $4.8 million in 2017 and 2018 from CEFC — a since-defunct arm of Beijing’s foreign-influence “Belt and Road” initiative — according to a Washington Post review of laptop records.

Joe Biden also met as vice president with his relatives’ associates from Mexico, Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine — and Hunter’s boss from a different Chinese business venture called BHR Partners, which was formed in 2013 within weeks of Hunter Biden joining his father aboard Air Force Two for an official trip to Beijing.

Davis added that Republican prosecutors should review whether their jurisdictions have “long-arm” corruption statutes and whether the Bidens might owe state taxes for work performed within their borders.

“If you are making money in a state and you’re liable for state taxes, you’re not paying them — sure [that’s illegal],” he said. “These Republican state attorneys general and Republican DAs and Republican prosecutors need to make sure that any and all allegations against the Bidens get a full and fair consideration.”

Bragg on Tuesday charged Trump, 76, with 34 felonies for allegedly falsifying business records by not accurately describing hush-money payments to women alleging affairs in 2016. That charge ordinarily would be a misdemeanor with a two-year statute of limitations, but Bragg elevated the counts to felonies by alleging the infraction occurred to conceal federal campaign finance violations.

Federal candidates are allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money on their own campaigns, but then-Trump fixer Michael Cohen would have exceeded the federal contribution limit if he used his own money to pay $130,000 to porn star Stormy Daniels and $150,000 to Playboy model Karen McDougal, whose story was purchased by the National Enquirer in a “catch and kill” contract.

Cohen in 2018 pleaded guilty to unrelated tax evasion charges and to making unlawful campaign contributions by brokering the payments. Trump at the time said Cohen was admitting to non-existent crimes to get lesser punishment for his other offenses.

Bragg said at a press conference Tuesday that he was prosecuting Trump because “we cannot and will not normalize serious criminal conduct” — even though the progressive prosecutor has downgraded more than half of felony cases in New York to misdemeanors.

The Justice Department previously chose not to prosecute Trump on the campaign finance charge following its failure in 2012 to convict former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), who used more than $1 million in donor money to conceal his relationship and love child with campaign videographer Rielle Hunter.

Trump could face additional criminal charges in three other investigations — one in Georgia into his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and two federal probes overseen by special counsel Jack Smith: one into Trump’s actions ahead of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot and another into his handling of classified records after leaving office.

Under Bruen’s “Text/History/Tradition” standard, I’m not the only one who thinks this is will be ripe for being ruled unconstitutional

Encounter with Yuma Police Officer and the Hughes Amendment

Normally, I make appearances on the Russ Clark Show, a local radio show with a national audience, once a week in the studio. One morning, after finishing the drive-time radio show, I walked out to my vehicle, ready to take on the rest of the day. As I approached my vehicle, I saw a Yuma City Police vehicle approaching in the parking lot of the radio station.

I opened my vehicle door and reached inside for a camera, as I thought pictures of such a police car might be useful for future articles. As I was half inside the vehicle, I noticed the police car pull up in front of me with the window rolled down. The officer said, “Are you Mr. Weingarten?” I said I was.

The Hughes Amendment was passed under dubious circumstances as part of the passage of the Firearms Owners Protection Act in 1986.  Second Amendment supporters, particularly in the NRA, had been working for years to reform the more odious overreach of the 1968 Gun Control Act. The leadership in the Congress, controlled by Democrats, was opposed, even though a majority of the Congress was willing to vote in the reforms.

The NRA was able to invoke a seldom used rule, a discharge petition. If a majority of House members would sign a petition to bring the reform bill to a vote, the leadership could be overruled.

Police who know of the Hughes Amendment are deep into the gun culture.

The Hughes Amendment has been interpreted to forbid sales of full-auto firearms to ordinary citizens if the firearms did not have a tax stamp prior to 1986, with some relatively minor and expensive exceptions (such as a license to manufacture).

I told the officer I was aware of the Hughes Amendment. I had listened to the original, crucial, and seeming underhanded vote in the House, and I would probably discuss it on the radio at some time.  It appears the vote was done legally if done with a dubious voice vote. Here is a video of the debate and the Amendment:

The officer assured me many officers were strong proponents of the Second Amendment and hated seeing infringements such as the Hughes Amendment.

Several police officers have communicated similar comments. They are a minority of officers, but they are not irrelevant. Some officers have complained of being used as political props during debates about Second Amendment issues, for example, being ordered to attend City Council meetings as a show of support when restrictive gun measures are being debated.

They are usually required, by their jobs, not to voice political opinions while on duty. Their politically appointed bosses, as police chiefs, are not so restricted. Police chief voices nearly universally reflect the political preferences of the politicians who hired or appointed them.

This is why it is much more common to see Sheriffs support the Second Amendment than police chiefs. Sheriffs are elected directly by the people. They are more accountable.

Manhattan parking garage worker grazed in head,  wrestled gun away and shot suspected crook will not be charged by the Manhattan DA…at this time.

After a Midtown Manhattan parking garage attendant shot a would-be thief with the suspect’s own gun during a struggle, cops charged both men with attempted murder — but prosecutors are not pursuing the case against the worker.

Despite the initial charges filed by the NYPD, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office is not prosecuting the garage attendant in the bloody Saturday morning clash, pending further investigation, a spokesperson said………….

 

Bodycam Footage of Nashville Cops Taking Out Trans Shooter Released.

“MNPD Officers Rex Engelbert, a 4-year veteran, and Michael Collazo, a 9-year veteran, were part of a team of officers who responded to the Covenant Church/School campus Monday morning and immediately entered the building. Both of those officers fired on the shooter, who was killed,” reads the department’s description of the footage on Twitter. “This is their body camera footage.”

 

More Caught Illegally Crossing Southern Border in 1 Year of Biden Than Entire Trump Presidency.

“Our top priority is to keep terrorists and their weapons from entering the United States.” So says the website of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The same webpage that makes this declaration includes a table that provides some relevant data for the fiscal years from 2017 to 2023. It lists how many individuals on the Terrorist Screening Dataset (commonly known as the “terrorist watchlist”) were encountered by the Border Patrol as they were trying to illegally sneak into the United States between the ports of entry on our southern border.

The Terrorist Screening Dataset, says the webpage, “originated as the consolidated terrorist watchlist to house information on known or suspected terrorists (KSTs) but has evolved over the last decade to include additional individuals who represent a potential threat to the United States, including known affiliates of watchlisted individuals.”

In fiscal year 2017, when Donald Trump was inaugurated as president, the Border Patrol encountered just two individuals on the terrorist watchlist trying to sneak across the southern border between the ports of entry. In fiscal year 2018, it encountered six. In fiscal year 2019, it encountered none; and, in fiscal year 2020, it encountered three.

In fiscal year 2021, the year President Joe Biden was inaugurated, there was a substantial shift in the trend. That year, the number of individuals on the terrorist watchlist that the Border Patrol encountered trying to sneak across the southern border increased fivefold to 15.

Then, in fiscal year 2022, it climbed to 98. So far in fiscal year 2023, which isn’t even half over yet, the Border Patrol has encountered 69 individuals on the terrorist watchlist trying to sneak across our southern border between the ports of entry.

How many on the terrorist watchlist have actually succeeded in illegally crossing our southern border into the United States? There is no way to know.

What we do know is that it only took 19 foreign terrorists who had made their way into the United States to hijack four domestic flights on Sept. 11, 2001.

While the Border Patrol managed to catch 98 on the terrorist watchlist trying to illegally cross our southern border between the ports of entry last year, is it possible there were 19 the Border Patrol did not catch?

There has also been a massive upward trend in the number of aliens the Border Patrol has “apprehended” or “encountered” as they tried to illegally cross the U.S.-Mexico border between the ports of entry.

Continue reading “”

Federal judge rules Missouri state gun law is unconstitutional
The Justice Department filed a lawsuit in February 2022 over the state law that declared “invalid” several federal gun regulations that don’t have an equivalent statute in Missouri.

WASHINGTON — A Missouri state law that declared several federal gun laws “invalid” is unconstitutional, a U.S. federal judge ruled on Tuesday, handing the U.S. Justice Department a victory in its bid to get the law tossed out.

At issue was a measure Republican Governor Mike Parson signed into law in 2021 that declared that certain federal gun laws infringed on the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.

U.S. District Judge Brian Wimes in Jefferson City, Missouri, said the state’s Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) violates the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which holds that federal laws take priority over conflicting state laws.

Wimes, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, in a siding with Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration called the practical effects of the Republican-led state’s law “counterintuitive to its stated purpose.”

“While purporting to protect citizens, SAPA exposes citizens to greater harm by interfering with the federal government’s ability to enforce lawfully enacted firearms regulations designed by Congress for the purpose of protecting citizens,” he wrote.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, a Republican, in a statement promised an appeal, saying he was committed to “defending Missourians’ fundamental right to bear arms.”

“If the state legislature wants to expand upon the foundational rights codified in the Second Amendment, they have the authority to do that,” he said.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Under the Missouri law, also known as H.B. 85, state or local law enforcement agencies could face a $50,000 fine if they knowingly enforced federal laws that the state measure purportedly nullified.

In a lawsuit filed in February 2022, the Justice Department argued the law had caused many state and local law enforcement agencies to stop voluntarily assisting enforcing federal gun laws or even providing investigative assistance.

A Lesson from Lori Lightfoot’s Landslide Loss

Chicago’s incumbent Mayor, Lori Lightfoot, just lost in a landslide. She came in third place and barely received 17 percent of the vote from Chicago voters – 83 percent chose someone else. That means she’ll miss out on a top-two run-off election in April and become the first Chicago mayor in 40 years to lose reelection.

The mayor has only herself to blame. Voters were pleading for her to get tough on criminals. Instead, she spent time and taxpayer dollars making cringeworthy videos on Chinese Communist Party-owned TikTok.

She ignored her employers and now she’s out of a job.

It’s The Crime, Stupid.

It didn’t take a genius to recognize what issue mattered most to Chicago voters – it’s crime. It was always crime. The city has been plagued by crime since Mayor Lightfoot was first elected and it only became worse during her tenure.

In the lead-up to the election, 44 percent of voters said crime and public safety were their top issues. The second-place issue, jobs, came in at 13 percent, far behind safety. Two-thirds of voters said they personally don’t feel safe, and half of voters said they were going to cast their ballot for a candidate who would get tough on criminals. No surprises Mayor Lightfoot lost given those numbers. A brief history shows why.

In 2020, crime was already plaguing the Windy City, and the coronavirus pandemic made it worse. Ahead of Memorial Day weekend 2020, Mayor Lightfoot, the Chicago Chief of Police and even gun control groups got together to plan for a violent weekend and urge city residents to remain safe, as if asking criminals politely would do the trick. The preparation failed and it was a violent weekend for the record books. Instead of taking accountability, Mayor Lightfoot blamed others. “Whatever the plan was, it didn’t work,” she said.

Later that year, Mayor Lightfoot caved to irresponsible pressure to defund the police and eliminated 600 law enforcement positions while crime surged. Mayor Lightfoot continued embracing strict gun control that limited Chicagoans’ ability to protect themselves even as police retirements continued climbing and the city’s crime problem grew.

In 2021, Chicago criminals still ignored the mayor’s pleas to stop their violent ways. In broad daylight, criminals exchanged gunfire between cars and a home with police officers nearby, tragically killing one person. Five others were taken into custody and despite clear video evidence to charge the perpetrators, nothing was done. Still, Mayor Lightfoot blamed others. “Given that evidence, a pod camera right there that captured the entire thing… why isn’t that enough?”

The buck stops with the mayor, doesn’t it? Chicago’s criminal violence left voters exasperated and searching for solutions. The answer wasn’t another term for Mayor Lightfoot.

Any Reflection?

Illinois has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, and Chicago is even stricter. Stricter gun control laws just signed into law by Gov. J.B. Pritzker are facing court challenges already – including by NSSF – but it remains clear that Chicagoans want security and the means to protect themselves. That includes exercising Second Amendment rights to protect themselves. During Mayor Lightfoot’s tenure, more than 1.9 million Illinoisans purchased a firearm, according to NSSF adjusted FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) data.

After such a lopsided misreading of voters’ priorities, did Mayor Lightfoot understand she got it wrong? Hardly. The mayor again shifted blame back to voters and all but called them misogynistic racists.

The New York Post reported she blamed other factors, not crime, on her loss and when asked by a reporter if she’d been treated unfairly, the mayor responded, “I’m a black woman in America. Of course.”

Her hometown paper, the Chicago Tribune excoriated the mayor and her record on crime. “Lightfoot campaigned for mayor in 2019 by arguing crime was too high… But homicides, mostly from gun violence, spiked dramatically in 2020 and 2021… Shootings and carjackings also skyrocketed.” Mayor Lightfoot still blamed others for the criminal misuse of firearms in Chicago.

For voters, it wasn’t complicated. It wasn’t Mayor Lightfoot’s race, or her gender or her sexual orientation. For Chicago voters, it was about safety, crime and getting tough on criminals. And for that, voters gave the mayor the boot.