Category: Politics

BLUF
In other words, look at how consistently inconsistent AI already is in its biases, without the intervention of powerful government actors. Imagine just how much more biased it can get — and how difficult it would be for us to recognize it — if we hand the keys over to the government.

A Tale of Two Congressional Hearings (and several AI poems)

We showed up to warn about threats to free speech from AI. Half the room couldn’t care less.

Earlier today, I served as a witness at the House Judiciary Committee’s Special Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, which discussed (among other things) whether it’s a good idea for the government to regulate artificial intelligence and LLMs. For my part, I was determined to warn everyone not only about the threat AI poses to free speech, but also the threats regulatory capture and a government oligopoly on AI pose to the creation of knowledge itself.

I was joined on the panel by investigative journalist Lee Fang, reporter Katelynn Richardson, and former U.S. Ambassador to the Czech Republic Norman Eisen. Richardson testified about her reporting on government funding the development of tools to combat “misinformation” through a National Science Foundation grant program. As FIRE’s Director of Public Advocacy Aaron Terr noted, such technology could be misused in anti-speech ways.

“The government doesn’t violate the First Amendment simply by funding research, but it’s troubling when tax dollars are used to develop censorship technology,” said Terr. “If the government ultimately used this technology to regulate allegedly false online speech, or coerced digital platforms to use it for that purpose, that would violate the First Amendment. Given government officials’ persistent pressure on social media platforms to regulate misinformation, that’s not a far-fetched scenario.”

Lee Fang testified about his reporting on government involvement in social media moderation decisions, most recently how a New York Times reporter’s tweet was suppressed by Twitter (now X) following notification from a Homeland Security agency. Fang’s investigative journalism on the documents X released after Elon Musk’s purchase of the platform has highlighted the risk of “jawboning,” or the use of government platforms to effectuate censorship through informal pressure.

Unfortunately, I was pretty disappointed that it seemed like we were having (at least) two different hearings at once. Although there were several tangents, the discussion on the Republican side was mostly about the topic at hand. On the Democratic side, unfortunately, it was overwhelmingly about how Trump has promised to use the government to target his enemies if he wins a second term. It’s not a trivial concern, but the hearing was an opportunity to discuss the serious threats posed by the use of AI censorship tools in the hands of a president of either party, so I wish there had been more interest in the question at hand on the Democratic side of the committee.

Continue reading “”

South Carolina Senate Advances Permitless Carry Bill, Expanding Gun Rights

The South Carolina Senate recently passed a significant piece of legislation that could greatly alter the landscape of gun rights within the state. The bill, nicknamed the South Carolina Permitless Carry bill, seeks to allow individuals to carry concealed handguns without the need for a permit. This move aligns South Carolina with a growing number of states that have adopted similar “permitless carry” laws.

The Senate’s decision came after six days of intense debate, highlighting the contentious nature of gun control discussions in America. The Permitless Carry Bill strengthens the Second Amendment rights by eliminating the permit requirement for law-abiding citizens wishing to carry concealed firearms. This measure not only enhances personal freedom and self-defense but also respects the constitutional rights of South Carolinians.

Critics, however, express concerns over public safety and the potential risks associated with more individuals carrying firearms without undergoing the training and background checks that a permit process typically entails. They fear that this could lead to increased incidents of gun violence and accidents, particularly in situations where disputes may escalate into shootings.

Despite these concerns, the bill received strong support within the Senate, passing with a notable majority. This legislative action signifies a clear shift towards expanding gun rights in South Carolina, reflecting a broader trend observed across several states in the United States.

It is important to note, however, that the bill’s passage in the Senate is just one step in the legislative process. It must still be approved by the South Carolina House of Representatives before it can become law. If enacted, the bill will allow individuals who are legally eligible to own a firearm to carry it concealed in public spaces without a permit, subject to certain restrictions.

As South Carolina moves closer to potentially adopting permitless carry, it joins the ranks of states reevaluating their stance on gun control and the requirements for carrying concealed weapons.

The South Carolina Permitless Carry represents a pivotal moment in the state’s legislative history. Whether viewed as a victory for gun rights advocates or a cause for concern among public safety proponents, its impact will be closely watched by both supporters and critics alike.

Did Obama Just Get Trump Off the Hook?

Just when you thought 2024 couldn’t possibly get any weirder — yes, I know it’s still only January — a secret Barack Obama memo could prove the undoing of special counsel Jack Smith’s case against Donald Trump.

America First Legal — whose suit against the DHS’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency “unearthed new docs showing that the deep state knew the risks of mass mail voting in 2020 but censored these criticisms as ‘disinformation’” — has another bombshell today.

“A secret Obama memo, the Presidential Information Technology Committee (PITC), regarding control of Presidential records could change everything in the DOJ’s politicized prosecution of Trump,” the organization announced Tuesday on Twitter/X.

By executive fiat, Obama created the PITC following a 2014 Russian hack of the president’s Executive Office computer network. The committee “includes representatives of the Departments of Defense and DHS, among others” and “established the President’s exclusive control over information resources and systems provided to the President,” according to America First Legal.

More:

Because the memo relied upon the Federal Records Act’s definition of “information system” as resources organized for the “use” and “disposition” of “information”, the memo gives the President exclusive control over information he receives.

This is relevant to what a President may reasonably believe about information given to him while in office.

Second, and related, if information stored on the PITC network formed the basis for Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of former President Trump, that evidence should have been disclosed to the former President and may be relevant to his liability.

America First goes on to explain that “Obama’s PITC memo may have created a reasonable belief in President Trump that he, in fact, had such authority” to “possess or retain… classified documents.” That’s contrary to Smith’s 37-count indictment against Trump for “willful retention of national defense information; conspiracy to obstruct justice; withholding a document or record; corruptly concealing a document in a federal investigation,” among other charges.

It’s always been my understanding that as the chief executive, the president enjoys unlimited authority to declassify information — with a wave of the hand, wafting burning sage over the documents, or just by thinking about it really hard.

The issue of retaining documents is where the issue might get trickier, but as America First Legal noted, these new revelations are consistent with the organization’s “whitepaper contending that the President of the United States has absolute authority over presidential papers.”

Going further, “if the records Trump allegedly destroyed are still preserved within the EOP or the U.S. Department of Defense as part of PITC-created information systems, then other claims in the indictment may be baseless.”

If America First’s analysis is correct, Trump is on sound legal footing on possession of whatever documents he kept at Mar-A-Lago, and whatever he may have destroyed could have been just copies of what is still on the PITC systems authorized by none other than Barack Obama.

Somewhere in an 8,500-square-foot home in Washington’s tony Kalorama neighborhood, a former president must be seething.

How the second amendment is treated as a second class right by California Democrats.

You clearly want more innocent children to die if you don’t pass more gun-control. You can try and dress it up, but that is the basic marketing pitch for gun-control. You have to ignore the millions of violent crimes we stop and the lives we save each year for that emotional appeal to have a prayer of making sense.
What is passing strange is that the lawyers for the state of California are trying to sell a similar sales pitch to the 9th Circuit Court.

This story started last year when the US Supreme court confirmed that ordinary citizens have the right to bear arms in public. More to the point, governments violate our rights when they infringed on our right to bear arms. In reply to that federal ruling, anti-rights states like California discovered a new cause. Urged on by the campaign donations of anti-gun billionaires, the legislature made a surprising discovery. The places where trained, investigated, and licensed citizens had been carrying guns for decades were suddenly discovered to be “sensitive” places. Who knew?

California’s SB2 made almost every public place and commercial location into a new “gun-free” zone. In theory, we understand places like a jail, a prison, and a secure courtroom to be a sensitive place. We are legally prohibited from carrying a personal firearm in those rooms. The state is responsible for our physical safety in those areas because we have been disarmed as we passed through the security check point.

Now bear with me a moment as I show you a few of the places that California turned into disarmed-good-guy zones.

California said that hospitals, nursing homes, medical offices, and urgent care facilities are gun-free zones. So are their parking lots. That means honest citizens like you can’t go armed to the business that shares a parking lot with the doc-in-a-box-urgent-care office. I am positive that there isn’t a cop guarding every urgent care office. What you might not know is that people are often attacked in hospitals and their parking lots. Criminals like to rob weak people as they cross the parking lot while carrying plastic bags filled with drugs.

I know there isn’t a policeman or sheriff’s deputy at every bus, train, and ferry terminal. There isn’t a cop at every restaurant chain where you can buy a beer. There isn’t a security fence and a magnetometer screening portal at every concert or public gathering. There certainly isn’t much security at every school and playground. None of that matters and the California legislature said that honest citizens should be disarmed even though they were trained, vetted, and licensed to carry.

But its for the children! Don’t you care about them?

Unfortunately, those facts don’t matter to the California legislature. They want you disarmed anyway, and the legislators won’t be blamed for the rising rate of crime. To be fair to the Democrat legislators, those facts probably don’t matter to a majority of judges on the 9th circuit court either. I’m sorry, but these are the consequences we warned you about before the last election.

Right now, the California “gun-free” zone law is enjoined while the case is appealed. Here is the full list of prohibited places where honest citizens are disarmed.

South Carolina Senate to Vote on Making State the 28th for Constitutional Carry

The South Carolina Senate is expected to vote later this week whether the Palmetto State will become the 28th constitutional carry state.

The legislation is House Bill 3594. The NRA-ILA noted the legislation was passed by the South Carolina House last year and sent to the Senate to be taken up in early 2024.

On February 2, 2023, Breitbart News reported that South Carolina State Rep. Bobby Cox (R-Greenville) put forward H.3594 to secure constitutional carry in the state.

HB 3594 is now before the state Senate and it was debated on the state Senate floor last week. It is expected that “debate will continue on Tuesday, with a vote expected to take place on or before Thursday, February 1st.”

There are currently 27 constitutional carry states in the Union. Those are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

New Mexico Senator Can’t Defend Waiting Period Bill, Predicts SCOTUS Will Reverse Itself on Bruen Instead

Continue reading “”

U.S. House Judiciary Committee approves South Dakota firearm legislation

RAPID CITY, S.D. (KOTA) – On Thursday, two bills submitted by South Dakota Representative Dusty Johnson passed out of the House Judiciary Committee. The bills focus on the Second Amendment and the right to own a firearm.

To be able to purchase a firearm in the United States, you need to have an identification card such as a driver’s license, passport, or military ID. However, Tribal IDs are not currently accepted, and because of this, Representative Johnson re-introduced the Tribal Firearm Access Act, which would classify a Tribal ID as a valid form of identification for the purchase of firearms.

“They should be able to use that same government-issued photo ID to be able to go through purchasing a gun. They still have to go through the background check, they still have to go through the same process with a federal firearms dealer. But it makes it clear that having a tribal ID is just as good as having a state-issued driver’s license for the purchasing of firearms,” stated Rep. Johnson.

Also Thursday, the Travelers Gun Rights Act was passed out of the same committee. The bill, also introduced by Johnson, would allow firearm access for those who don’t have a permanent physical address.

“In many states to be considered a resident, you have to have lived in a permanent residence for quite a period of time, a year is not unusual, and you have to be considered that resident before you can purchase a firearm. That isn’t fair to military spouses. People who travel all over the country following that military member. It’s also going to make it that much easier for RV-ers, people who don’t have a permanent address that they’re at day in and day out, they’re out on the road, to also be able to exercise their second amendment rights,” Johnson continued.

Senator Mike Rounds also supported the Traveler’s Gun Rights Act. The next step for both bills is the full House.

Observation O’ The Day:
I remember when “serious” figures on the right mocked some of us for our alleged obsession with media bias. – Glenn Reynolds

Propaganda Works

Have you noticed that Republicans have been losing a lot lately?

This, in an environment where most Americans think that Democrats are screwing up the country. Why do you think that is?

Sure, hatred of Trump has something to do with it. Abortion politics has something to do with it. A lot, actually. Each of you can name an issue where Republicans are in bad odor with ordinary people, but add them all together and one thing becomes clear: propaganda works.

Why is Trump so unpopular? Was it because things got worse under his presidency? Uh, yeah, no. Things got immeasurably better, and even a lot of people who hate him will say that.

Is abortion such a drag on Republican prospects because people don’t agree that late term abortions are immoral, except in extreme circumstances? That’s not what the polls say.

Why do people think Republicans are all-in on banning books? Has anybody suggested making the publishing of any books illegal? Of course not. Democrats actively campaign to prevent the publication or sale of books they don’t like, but Republicans don’t.

So what is it?

It is the steady drumbeat of propaganda portraying Republicans as Nazi White Supremacists who want to force 11 year-olds to birth babies, schoolmarms who hate gays, and White Supremacists who hunt minorities in the dead of night. We wanted to kill grandma and deserved to be put in camps:

You can’t escape the propaganda. It is everywhere. In the schools, in the classrooms, on every university campus, and in the MSM.

Continue reading “”

I think it more means the recruiting numbers suck and someone high enough at the Pentagon decided for better theatrics.

The Army’s New Recruitment Video Means Only One Thing

The U.S. Army on Monday released a recruitment ad that critics argue is a sure sign the military is gearing up for war.

There are no signs of diversity, equity, and inclusion in the 30-second spot, which features white males jumping out of a plane.

“Your greatest victories are never achieved alone,” text in the ad reads. “Be all you can be.”

It comes two years after the Army pushed an animated video series, “The Calling,” that checked all the woke boxes.

 

It’s great fun to watch the demoncraps fight each other.

A JEWISH POLITICAL REALIGNMENT?

Gaza’s genocidal war against Israel has torn the Democratic Party apart by revealing the anti-Semitic core of its dominant left wing. Axios headlines: “Biden’s 2024 team roiled by Israel-Hamas war.”

Part of President Biden’s political team is in turmoil over the Israel-Hamas war, as some aides see the White House as abetting an immoral attack on Palestinians — while others believe Biden is showing “moral clarity” in protecting Israel from terrorists.

… The strife within the Democratic National Committee (DNC) — which Biden is leaning on for his re-election campaign — reflects larger generational and political divisions among Democrats.

Those divisions are chiefly between older pro-Israel Democrats and younger progressives who are more sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians.

And are entirely indifferent to mass murder, gang rape and the beheading of infants, where the victims are Jews.

At the Daily Mail, Alan Dershowitz writes that the relationship between Jews and the Democratic Party has been profoundly altered:

The Hamas atrocities of October 7th have forever fractured any political alliance between centrist and liberal Jews and woke, anti-Israel progressives.

It’s either them or us. The coalition is at civil war.

Following the terrorist massacre of Israeli civilians and even before the military response, young woke progressives turned stridently against the Jewish State.

It was a knee-jerk reaction stimulated not by what Israel did – because it had done nothing to justify Hamas’ brutality – but what Israel is: the nation state of the Jewish people.

Anyone who rallies for Hamas is rallying for the extermination of Jews.

On Wednesday, Vice President Kamala Harris announced a new ‘National Strategy to Combat Islamophobia,’ which any sensible American would support.

But the streets of American cities and college campuses are not being filled with crowds celebrating the murder of Muslims.

These hordes are calling for the death of Jews – yet the President cannot muster a full-throated response that focuses on the current problem, namely rampant antisemitism.

And just last week, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre pointedly declined to say if the President had any plans to speak to the explosion of antisemitism among university students.

What are Jews who have been loyal to the Democratic Party to do?

If something is not done immediately – if it is not too late already – the breach between Jewish voters who support Israel (and even those critical of some of its policies) and the Democratic Party will become unhealable.

Maybe – permanent.
***
[S]ince the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a vast majority of Jewish-American voters could be reliably counted upon to cast their ballots for Democrats and contribute disproportionately to their campaigns.

This is unlikely to continue.

The silence of some Democrats, President Biden’s administration and America’s foremost liberal institutions in response to an eruption of left-wing anti-Zionism and Jew hatred is gut-wrenching.

It is nothing short of betrayal and Americans Jews must not move forward without a reckoning.

But then: where can disaffected Jews go?

Yes, centrist Jews have an alternative: they can become centrist Republicans. But that, too, will not be easy, since the Republican party is moving to the right on issues deeply concerning to many Jews – issues such as abortion rights, gay rights, climate control, gun control and the Supreme Court.

Blue collar and rural voters, many of whom were once Democrats, have turned to the conservative movement and the Republican Party. This is partly because they realized that conservative policies are more in their interest than liberal policies, but also, and perhaps equally, because it became evident that liberals despise them. Why should you vote for people who hate you?

That is a question that, in the years to come, many Jews will be called upon to answer.

STEVE adds: The last time a Democratic Administration was so openly hostile to Israel and its interests was the Carter Administration, and Reagan received a surprising 35 percent of the Jewish vote in 1980, helping to tip New York to his column. We’ll see if the current moment leads to another shift next year. (Obama was deeply hostile to Israel, too, but was more clever than Carter and disguised it better.)

The Gun Control Industry and the Media Want New Laws in Maine That Would Have Done Nothing to Stop the Lewiston Shooting.

Despite the failures that are being discovered that led to the Lewiston, Maine shooting, the Gun Control Industry is, as usual, pointing at the state’s allegedly lax regulation of guns. Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun agitprop outlet The Trace asked, Will Maine’s Permissive Gun Laws Change After the Lewiston Shooting?

It’s certainly possible. Democrats are in full control of state government, so the odds are in their favor in that regard. That doesn’t mean, however, that there would be any merit to changing Maine’s gun laws. Not given the laws they’re talking about.

It’s becoming clear that they see this as a “grab bag” opportunity to enact more gun control laws in the Pine Tree State. They aren’t just talking about laws that could plausibly have made a difference in this case, either. They want to crack down on gun rights in general.

Maine doesn’t have restrictions on AR-style rifles, like the one apparently used by the Lewiston gunman, nor does it regulate high-capacity magazines.

If the killer had used a Mini-14 with a ten-round magazine, would the death toll have been lower? That seems a tenuous claim, considering how fast reloads actually happen when someone knows what they are doing (as this veteran and firearm instructor did, sadly). And it was reported that the Parkland shooter used 10-round magazines on purpose because they fit better into his backpack. Yet he managed to kill and wound a similar number of people.

…a measure requiring the prompt reporting of lost or stolen firearms…

This is one of the rare gun laws I do support, so long as it provides a fair amount of time to comply, and conditioned on when you become aware of a lost or stolen gun. If you become aware you lost a gun or had one stolen, tell the police about it ASAP. But such a law, of course, wouldn’t have done anything to stop the Maine shooting if it had been on the books.

But [Bates College professor Michael] Rocque said the state’s “inconsistent” rules around guns — which require residents to take a safety course and exam to qualify for a hunting license but don’t require anything of concealed handgun carriers — are in dire need of an update.

This is where the push for more gun control after a tragedy really becomes something of a loot-fest, trying to take full advantage of the situation while it’s still in the news. Carry permit requirements are completely irrelevant to mass shooters. They obviously aren’t going to be concerned in the slightest about not having a carry permit when their intention is to commit mass murder.

It’s an utterly absurd argument that, again, would have had no impact at all on what Robert Card did.

Even outside of the mass shooting context, Professor Rocque’s implication is that the lack of a permit requirement is inherently unsafe. That’s an extraordinary claim, given that Maine has one of the lowest homicide rates in the nation. Maine’s homicide rate is so low that more people were killed in Lewiston in this one incident than are usually murdered in the state in an entire year.

The Trace article concludes that while other gun control pushes aren’t possible under the state’s rules until next year, they can still try to enact universal background checks in January.

Again, that would have had zero impact on the Lewiston shooter. The Lewiston killer bought his guns legally. When that happened or whether or not he lied about his history of mental illness at the time isn’t yet clear, but he did undergo a background check.

As is so frequently the case, the Gun Control Industry and politicians seem determined to punish the community of law-abiding gun owners for the inherent failures of the regulatory system they’ve built

As more details are learned about Robert Card, his mental history, and the failures of law enforcement in this situation, the more it becomes clear that Maine’s allegedly lax gun laws did nothing to make the Lewiston shooting possible. And the new laws The Trace and gun control advocates are calling for in response would do nothing to prevent another similar situation.

Maybe Jill Biden Is Sauron

Longtime readers of this Briefing know that I find First Lady DOCTOR Mama Jill Biden to be an extraordinarily loathsome human being. If the woman had even an ounce of decency, she wouldn’t have let her husband near a camera after his tenure as vice president was up in 2017.

Jill Biden is a power-hungry lunatic though, so she doesn’t care if her husband continues to embarrass himself in front of the whole world. As long as she gets power, access, and a curious amount of money for a teacher, she doesn’t care if her husband’s sad and rapid decline is witnessed by everyone on Earth.

Victoria wrote a lengthy examination of Doctor Mrs. Sir Sniffsalot, and hit on an angle that I hadn’t yet thought of:

Americans are beginning to think that Joe’s smiling, 72-year-old presidential arm candy didn’t have the country’s needs at heart when she told her husband, “You gotta run.” It’s in that way she reminds Americans of Hillary Clinton.

Call her Jillary.

The reasonable criticism goes that any person who pushes their mentally incapable husband to become president is naturally a bad person committing an act of elder abuse, but Jill Biden’s happy warrior-like smiles may hide something even more sinister. Could Jillary be the force behind the so-called Biden Crime Family?

Whoa, if true.

There must be some brains behind the operation somewhere, and the missus does seem the most likely candidate when you think about it.

We talk a lot about Joe Biden’s cognitive decline these days because it’s important to acknowledge that the President of the United States has completely lost it. The thing about Joe Biden, however, is that he never really completely had it.

Let’s be honest — we don’t live in an era when being an intellectual heavyweight is a prerequisite for rising to the top of American politics. Despite the fact that he’s been around Washington since Precambrian times, not too many people have lauded Joe Biden for his brains.

In the interest of being accurate, I should probably say that no one has ever lauded Joe Biden for his brains. Heck, Joe Biden would probably admit that Joe Biden is a dullard, if he knew who Joe Biden was.

Then there’s the boy Hunter. I’ve generously referred to him as a mediocrity here on several occasions, proving that I can be nice when there’s nothing in it for me. I’m available to pick up my humanitarian award at any time.

If Hunter Biden weren’t the son of a politician who had an endless supply of favors to call in, he’d be picking bugs out of his hair in a crack house somewhere in central Florida. In fact, that’s probably what Hunter wants to be doing.

It’s safe to say that the men in the Biden family aren’t masterminding anything.

Jill Biden’s cold-heartedness has been on public display since the 2020 presidential campaign. She’s got the icy veins needed to run a criminal operation. I frequently refer to Joe Biden’s puppet masters. What if Jill is the only one? The cabal may be comprised of several political veterans, but it’s easy to believe that Her Doctorness is the one issuing the marching orders.

Jill Biden may very well be Hillary Clinton sans the drunken bitterness.
Which might make her more dangerous in the long run.

Another citizen who always voted for demoncraps asks the Question O’ The Day
“If silence is the answer, why should I ever vote for a Democrat again?”

Thanks, to a Politician Who Did His Job

When the IRS visited my home, Jim Jordan actually did something about it. Why couldn’t I call a Democrat?

A new report about IRS home visits has just been released by the House Weaponization of Government Committee, chaired by Ohio congressman Jim Jordan. It outlines disturbing issues, including confirmation that IRS agents making home visits may come without warning, using aliases, and without informing local enforcement agencies of their presence.

One of the cases outlined is my own. My home was visited by the IRS while I was testifying before Jordan’s Committee about the Twitter Files on March 9th. Sincere thanks are due to Chairman Jordan, whose staff not only demanded and got answers in my case, but achieved a concrete policy change, as IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel announced in July new procedures that would “end most” home visits.

Anticipating criticism for expressing public thanks to a Republican congressman, I’d like to ask Democratic Party partisans: to which elected Democrat should I have appealed for help in this matter? The one who called me a “so-called journalist” on the House floor? The one who told me to take off my “tinfoil hat” and put greater trust in intelligence services? The ones in leadership who threatened me with jail time? I gave votes to the party for thirty years. Which elected Democrat would have performed basic constituent services in my case? Feel free to raise a hand.

If silence is the answer, why should I ever vote for a Democrat again?

Democrats now want US split into ‘blue’ states and ‘red’ states

Liberals laughed when conservatives, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), called for dividing the United States into red and blue states because of national disunity and partisanship.

But they’re not laughing now. In fact, about a third of Democrats believe a political break from conservative-leaning states is needed.

In a survey of 2,008 voters conducted by the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, 31% of “Biden supporters” want Democratic-controlled states to secede from the U.S. to form their own country.

Among voters who back former President Donald Trump, 41% support secession.

What’s more, large groups of both think it’s time to end democracy.

“Disturbingly, nearly one-third (31%) of Trump supporters and about a quarter (24%) of Biden supporters at least somewhat agree that democracy is no longer a viable system and that the country should explore alternative forms of government to ensure stability and progress,” the analysis from the center said.

Backing up reasons for secession, the analysis found that people generally are becoming more politically divided despite an inauguration promise made by President Joe Biden to unite the country.

Consider these results:

  • A majority of both Biden (70%) and Trump (68%) voters believed electing officials from the opposite party would result in lasting harm to the U.S.
  • Roughly half (52% Biden voters, 47% Trump voters) viewed those who supported the other party as threats to the American way of life.
  • About 40% of both groups (41% Biden voters, 38% Trump voters) at least somewhat believed that the other side had become so extreme that it is acceptable to use violence to prevent them from achieving their goals.

The survey found that on most topics tested by the center founded by Larry Sabato, people are split, as they are on the choice of Biden or Trump in the 2024 campaign. The center said that in a head-to-head election, Biden leads Trump 52%-48%. A CNBC survey also out Wednesday found Trump leading Biden by 4 points, 46%-42%.

GOV. NEWSOM SENDS GUN CONTROL RUBBER STAMP TO U.S. SENATE

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is ensuring that his gun control agenda is in safe hands with the appointment of Laphonza Butler to serve in the U.S. Senate following the passing of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). Sen. Butler was sworn in this week, a Democrat who until the announcement was residing in Silver Springs, Md., and has spoken little on gun control issues. However, her progressive track record and history of working for liberal causes assures that she will pick up the gun control mantle.

Sen. Feinstein was the longest-serving female senator at the time of her death on Sept. 29. She was also the matriarch of the Senate’s gun control agenda. She helped author the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. That law lasted 10 years and was not reauthorized in 2004. Since then, Sen. Feinstein introduced legislation in every Congress to revive the ban on America’s most-popular selling centerfire rifle. In fact, if she had it her way, gun control would have gone much further.

Sen. Feinstein told 60 Minutes in a 1995 interview, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in,” she said. “I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”

Sen. Bulter’s selection to fill the remainder of Sen. Feinstein’s term promises that not much will change. Sen. Butler is deeply tied to gun control politicians and causes that will surely seek to expand efforts to deprive law-abiding Americans of their Second Amendment rights.

Who is Laphonza Butler?

Gov. Newsom heaped praise on Sen. Butler for shattering glass ceilings in the Senate. He noted that she is the first openly LGBTQ person to represent California in the Senate, first Black lesbian to openly serve in Congress and third Black woman to represent California in the Senate following Vice President Kamala Harris.

He also noted that Butler will pick up where Sen. Feinstein left off with gun control.

“As we mourn the enormous loss of Senator Feinstein, the very freedoms she fought for — reproductive freedom, equal protection, and safety from gun violence — have never been under greater assault,” Gov. Newsom said in a statement. “Laphonza will carry the baton left by Senator Feinstein, continue to break glass ceilings, and fight for all Californians in Washington D.C.”

Sen. Butler grew up in Magnolia, Miss., and attended Jackson State University. Her father died when she was just 16. She worked in the labor movement for 20 years and at 30, was elected president of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 2015. She was also SEIU international vice president and president of SEIU California’s state council.

Sen. Butler also ran political campaigns and was part of Vice President Harris’ campaign for the vice presidency. She was previously a senior advisor to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. She has been president of Emily’s List, a national political action committee dedicated to electing abortion rights-supportive women candidates to office.

Political Pals

While little in her personal or professional career points to gun control, the list of supporters lining up to congratulate her is telling.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton offered her endorsement, saying, “A great choice for California and the Senate. Congratulations Laphonza Butler!”

That was echoed by twice-failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, as well as former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Donna Brazile, the Democratic National Committee, Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), and California Democratic U.S. Reps. Ted Lieu, Jimmy Gomez, Ami Berra, Ro Khanna, Sara Jacobs, Mark Takano, Brad Sherman, Gloria Johnson, Nanette Barragán and California Attorney General Rob Bonta. All are ardent gun control supporters.

Even Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) offered congratulations, despite the fact that he’s thrown his hat into the ring for the seat she’s filling until 2024. He’s facing a crowded Democratic field including California Democratic Reps. Barbara Lee and Katie Porter – and Sen. Butler if she decides to compete for election.

Gleeful Gun Control

It’s not just gun control politicians that are gleeful at Gov. Newsom’s appointment of Sen. Butler to fill the Senate seat. It’s also gun control groups too.

President of Everytown for Gun Safety’s (and its mouthpiece The Trace) John Feinblatt, the gun control group bankrolled by antigun billionaire Michael Bloomberg, wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, “Laphonza Butler is an advocate’s advocate and we’re thrilled with her history-making appointment to the Senate. We look forward to working alongside her to keep communities safe from gun violence.”

The Everytown-affiliated Moms Demand Action got in on the action too. Executive Director Angela Ferrell-Zabala wrote on X, “Laphonza Butler is an incredible leader and a fierce advocate for women and girls. I’m thrilled to watch her make history as the first Black lesbian senator to openly serve in Congress. Moms Demand can’t wait to work with her to continue California’s leadership on gun safety!”

Gov. Newsom’s appointment of Sen. Butler is a calculated move to ensure his gun control agenda – including his maligned 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – is preserved. This is his attempt to export California gun control to the rest of the country and potentially pave the way for his own White House bid.

‘Turning into Jello’: Glenn Greenwald says some Dems are looking to ‘sabotage’ Biden

Journalist Glenn Greenwald said Wednesday some Democrats were looking to sabotage President Joe Biden due to his age and mounting scandals surrounding his family’s business dealings.

Biden came under fire from reporters after he falsely claimed that he was at Ground Zero the day after the Sept. 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center. Biden’s aides hastily cut off a press conference during his trip to Vietnam after he randomly said he was going to go to bed.

WATCH:

“If they ramp up these impeachment inquiries and they start airing this dirty laundry everywhere, the voicemails, the text, the emails, the phone calls, it is a disaster for the entire Washington establishment and everybody that’s been lying about this and covering it up,” Fox News host Jesse Watters said. “Do you think this is a way for them to say, you know what, let’s not make all of us look bad?”

Continue reading “”

That means you can have near metaphysical certitude, it’ll happen.

KJP: No Pardon for Hunter – No Way, No How

Let me be clear. When White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre says, “No,” she means, “No.” Well, for now, anyway.

On Friday, Jean-Pierre was asked again about whether President Joe Biden would pardon his son, Hunter, or commute his sentence, were he to be convicted of the federal gun charges filed against him in the indictment filed by Special Counsel David Weiss on Thursday. Jean-Pierre gave a categorical, unequivocal no. (Which is how you know there’s more to the story.)

Asked during the daily briefing if the president would pardon or commute his son’s sentence if he gets convicted on the gun charges against him, Jean-Pierre told reporters he would not. It’s the first time the White House has explicitly said a potential pardon is not on the table following Hunter Biden’s indictment this week.

In her response, Jean-Pierre noted that she answered a similar question after the president’s son was first hit with a felony gun charge.

“I’ve answered this question before. It was asked of me not too long ago, a couple of weeks ago, and I was very clear, and I said no,” she said, referring to previous comments from the podium.

If you’re getting a sense of déjà vu, it’s because — believe it or not — Jean-Pierre is right. She has answered this question before — though it was more than a couple of weeks ago. The initial exchange occurred on July 27, the day after Hunter’s original sweetheart plea deal got scuttled.

Our Bob Hoge reported on it at the time:

As we reported, a sweetheart plea deal Hunter’s lawyers had negotiated with the Department of Justice exploded spectacularly Wednesday when the judge raised questions about the blanket immunity Hunter would receive.

Fox News reporter Mark Meredith asked if the president would consider intervening:

MEREDITH: I know you said not a lot has changed since yesterday and that it’s a personal matter, but from a presidential perspective, is there any possibility that the President would end up pardoning his son?

KJP: No.

MEDEDITH: [Tries to pose a follow-up question, she cuts him off.]

KJP: I just said no—I just answered. [Points to another reporter.] Go ahead, go ahead.

So, how do we know there’s more to the story? Because I can’t think of another answer Jean-Pierre has given from the podium that was that clear and direct. Not one.

Granted, I’ve not watched every single daily briefing. But I’ve certainly edited (and read) enough of them to get a flavor of how she normally responds when questioned:

KJP Goes Full Metal Biden, Butchers Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Name and Lies About GOP Debt Ceiling Plan

WH Can’t Keep Their Stories Straight, Get Busted on Lies as They Announce Troops to Border

Karine Jean-Pierre Has a Snit Fit When Asked About Durham Report, Abruptly Leaves Podium

Karine Jean-Pierre Showered With Receipts After Blatant Lie on Biden and the Debt Ceiling

Karine Jean-Pierre Flounders While Addressing the Topless Trans Incident at the White House

(I could go on, but I think you get the point.)

So, why would Jean-Pierre, who’s seemingly never met a question she can’t dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge in spectacular fashion, so succinctly and directly answer a question on such a thorny topic? Could it be because Joe Biden has drawn a line in the sand and vowed finally to employ some tough love and hang the son attached to his hip out to dry?

No — I don’t think that’s it at all. I think the reason that Jean-Pierre can answer that particular question so definitively is because there’s literally no downside to having it prove untrue down the road. If we’re at the point where Hunter has been convicted and Joe is faced with the prospect of pardoning him, I predict Joe will pardon him without batting an eye…on his way out the door.