Category: Politics

RIGHT-WING COALITION WINS IN ITALY, AMERICAN PRESS LOSES ITS MIND

Italy held its national elections on Sunday, and the results already have the global left seeing red. Exit polls show that the right-wing alliance will win a sizable majority, with a government being formed behind Giorgia Meloni as Prime Minister.

Meloni will be the first woman in the country’s history to hold the position.

So who is Meloni? She’s the leader of the Brothers of Italy party and a populist firebrand. Here’s a 30-second video that provides a good summation of her viewpoints.

“Yes to natural families, no to the LGBT lobby, yes to sexual identity, no to gender ideology, yes to the culture of life, no to the abyss of death, no to the violence of Islam, yes to safer borders, no to mass immigration, yes to work for our people”

Naturally, someone who has those political views must be evil, at least according to the American press. As election day approached and it looked more and more certain Meloni would triumph, the fearmongering was turned up to the max. CBS News did a report accusing her of being a fascist because that’s the only insult they know.

Meloni does not, in fact, lead a “neo-fascist” movement. Is she “far-right” in the European sense? Sure, she is, but that doesn’t make her a fascist, and as far as I can tell, none of her proposed policies are fascist. They may make those on the left upset, especially regarding immigration and LGBT stuff, but that’s not the standard for fascism.

Ironically enough, American Democrats base their accusations on the fact that Meloni’s party has its historical roots in turn-of-the-century fascism in Italy. Of course, the problem with that is obvious. The Democrat Party was the party of slavery and Jim Crow, and it remains a party of mass death in regard to abortion. So if the assertion is that a political party with a checkered history is unacceptable, then the Democrats might as well close up shop, otherwise, they are just massive hypocrites.

They won’t, though, because they truly believe they are more enlightened than their political opponents. If you don’t want kids being sexualized by the LGBT lobby, then you must be a fascist. If you don’t want unlimited Muslim immigration that is driving up crime rates, then you must be a fascist. We all know how the game is played, and it’s all meaningless at this point. No one takes the left’s rantings seriously.

Regardless, what has been made clear over the last year is that Europe is shifting. Right-wing governments are talking power all over the continent, and that’s because the left overplayed their hand. They thought they could usher in an era of deranged cultural decadence coupled with economic malaise without consequences. Obviously, voters have different ideas.

“We’re doing things that help those of us in the anti-Trump world bond with one another and that help people in the Trump world bond with one another.”

“We’re locking in the political structures that benefit Trump…. We are in the middle of a cultural/economic/partisan/identity war between more progressive people in the metro areas and more conservative people everywhere else. To lead the right in this war, Trump doesn’t have to be honest, moral or competent; he just has to be seen taking the fight to the ‘elites.’… Trumpists tell themselves that America is being threatened by a radical left putsch that is out to take over the government and undermine the culture. The core challenge now is to show by word and deed that this is a gross exaggeration. Can Trump win again? Absolutely. I’m a DeSantis doubter…. And then once Trump is nominated, he has some chance of winning, because nobody is executing an effective strategy against him.”

David Brooks slogs along, ahead of his crowd, which is moving even more slowly, pondering the mystery, “Why Is There Still No Strategy to Defeat Donald Trump?” (NYT).

The needed “effective strategy” against Trump is “to show by word and deed” that it’s “a gross exaggeration” to think that “a radical left putsch… is out to take over the government and undermine the culture.” I’m not even persuaded that Brooks believes it’s all that much of an exaggeration to think there’s a “radical left putsch… out to take over the government and undermine the culture.” He just wants Trump defeated and hopes anti-Trumpsters execute a good strategy to take him out.

What would work on these “conservative people” who live everywhere but where everyone who needs to think up the strategy lives? Brooks doesn’t know! He doesn’t even know why all these millions of people love Trump. Does he think it’s because they haven’t yet been cajoled out of believing the “gross exaggeration”? If they haven’t abandoned this belief yet, why would it happen now or in the next 2 years?

I saw that Brooks column yesterday and passed on it, but I gave it another look this morning after Meade texted it to me, which he did because I’d posed the question, in real life here at Meadhouse, “Do you think Trump will run and win?” Meade said the column answered my question. I take it that means the answer is yes.

ADDED: The fact that Brooks talks about a “gross exaggeration” reveals that he thinks there is something true. If there weren’t something true, you’d call it a lie, not an exaggeration.

Well, I had never supported SloJoe for as long as I can remember, I always know him as plagiarist who was a pathological liar.
Nice to see some who used to support him seeing the light.

How Joe Biden Lost My Vote

“The new puritans, then, are best understood as a clergy for a godless age, presiding over a dreamscape of their own making, rewriting our language, history and traditions as they go along. Yet, for all their clout, there are still some among us who steadfastly refuse to praise the elegance of the emperor’s new clothes, who would rather point and laugh at the naked man in our midst. Not for the first time in human history, our way out of this madness will depend upon the heretics.” – Andrew Doyle, The New Puritans

Joe Biden emerged from his speech last week “on the continued battle for the soul of our nation” like a squalling infant birthed from the loins of blue-check Twitter, bathed in the blood-red light of militant fascism.

He was finally their guy. Gone was the empathy guy. Gone was the unity guy. Gone was the moderate guy. Be mean, Joe. Get them, Joe. Get tough, Joe. Tell them their participation in Democracy is a threat to … Democracy!

Yes, tell them, Joe. Tell the “MAGA Republicans” they’re not welcome in their own country. Tell them their participation is a threat to a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Tell them that Democracy means they have to sit down and shut up.

Tell the truck driver who travels coast to coast, working the graveyard shift, to bring freshly cut meat to supermarket shelves. Tell the police officer, the waitress, the bartender, the cable guy, the grocery store clerk, the grandmother, the garage mechanic, the veteran who served in Afghanistan who now has been kicked out of the military for not taking the vaccine, the mother of two who now must home school her children – that they are the violent extremists posing the biggest threat to the country they call home.

Tell them, Joe, that you’ve decided to throw them away like human garbage and that you’re hoping for another January 6th so you can arrest anyone who ever voted for or supported Donald Trump. Tell them that you and you alone ARE America, and any threat to your power is a threat to the State because that’s not fascism at all.

Why did Joe Biden give that speech? Who thought that was a good idea? Obviously, Joe Biden and his administration know that the “MAGA Republicans” are not a dangerous threat to the country. Otherwise, the Democrats would not have meddled in primary elections, spending upwards of $46 million pushing those very same MAGA candidates towards a win, blocking the more moderate GOP picks.

Surely the Democrats know what they’re doing, right? I mean, they’re asking for America’s vote to stay in power. Joe Biden wouldn’t lie to the people about something as serious as a threat to the Republic, right?

Wrong. Joe Biden did lie. The speechwriter lied. They would do anything, say anything, and put any community or even the country at risk just to stay in power and hold onto the past, the America under Barack Obama from 2008 to 2016.

Continue reading “”

Remember, Biden’s own press secretary says that if you disagree with the majority, you’re an extremist!

A new survey by Trafalgar Group of 1,084 voters finds 62.4 % of Independents and 56.8 % overall view the Biden Philadelphia speech as
“a dangerous escalation of rhetoric that is designed to incite conflict among Americans.”

Incremental?

How Should The National Firearms Act Be Reformed?

United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- How Second Amendment supporters address the potential threat posed by the National Firearms Act to our Second Amendment rights is something that has to be planned starting today, BEFORE the attacks in the wake of a successful court ruling come. Failing to plan is planning to fail, and failure should not be an option.

The first thing to understand is that outright repeal of the National Firearms Act is not happening any time soon. What can be done is to reform the process by which firearms (and certain accessories) covered under this act are transferred, as part of an incremental approach to securing our rights. Yes, this is the “incrementalism” approach – one that has been highly successful over the last three decades on concealed carry.

The fact of the matter is that when we are taking on highly onerous legislation, taking it all out in one fell swoop only happens with a massive stroke of luck, or it provokes a massive backlash. Trusting luck is foolish enough – provoking a massive backlash is stupid, given the nature of our enemies. But as the recent signing of constitutional carry in Texas shows, incrementalism works.

So, what incremental steps can be taken when it comes to the National Firearms Act?

Much will depend on just what the legislative and political landscape will look like. As a given, the current anti-Second Amendment extremist regimes in the House, Senate, and White House be defeated at the ballot box before any reform can be taken. But once we have a pro-Second Amendment Congress and White House, what do we pursue?

First, Second Amendment supporters can modernize the NFA process. This is one example where the “lemon” of the National Instant Background Check System (NICS) can be turned into lemonade. Changing the process from one that depends on local law enforcement certification to an FBI background check would probably go over well with the American people. The tax stamps could then be paid as a surcharge to NICS. Such a bill would not create a perfect situation by any means, but it would represent a good “first step.”

If the situation permits, then Second Amendment supporters might be able to push for repeal of both the 1986 Hughes Amendment and the 1968 restrictions on imports. At the same time, nothing would prevent adding the Hearing Protection Act and the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act to the NFA reform measure. But the important point is to defang the NFA as a potential tool for harassing and obstructing efforts to exercise Second Amendment rights.

To do that, Second Amendment supporters need to work to oust the current anti-Second Amendment regimes in the House, Senate, and White House, and they need to support NRA-ILA and NRA-PVF.

California gun control law stays unenforceable after Democrat lawmakers fail key vote

Democratic lawmakers in California failed to replace an existing gun control bill that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional Thursday, leaving the state’s concealed carry regulations unenforceable.

The legislation failed to pass the California Assembly by a single vote early Thursday morning. California Attorney General Rob Bonta lamented that Californians currently have nearly unfettered access to concealed carry permits following the failed vote.

“There would be a huge influx of applicants now that the ‘just cause’ component has been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, and not enough safety precautions for the individuals who are seeking that,” Bonta said.

“If this bill doesn’t pass, people who haven’t had a comprehensive safety evaluation can get a concealed weapon and bring it into [sensitive] places,” he added prior to the vote.

Lawmakers say they will bring the bill back up for a vote during a December session.

California’s concealed carry laws were struck down after the Supreme Court ruled in June that states cannot require Americans to demonstrate the particular need for a firearm in order to receive a concealed carry license.

While the ruling related specifically to a New York law, California’s legislation mirrored the requirement and was struck down.

“California was made less safe tonight by not passing the bill to make us consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision,” said Democratic state Sen. Anthony Portantino, one of the California bill’s central supporters. “It’s unfortunate, it’s sad, it’s surprising.”

Birmingham mayor calls for gun ban

The city of Birmingham, Alabama isn’t exactly Chicago or New York City when it comes to size, but it’s not exactly Lotsee, Oklahoma (population: 6) either.

Because it’s a good-sized city, it tends to have a lot of the problems one would associate with a larger city. That obviously includes crime.

In fact, now the mayor is using that crime rate to demand stricter gun control laws.

Since January 1, Birmingham Police have investigated 90 homicides to date in the city with 83 of those by guns, according to Mayor Randall Woodfin during Tuesday’s city council meeting.

This, as he reports that over 700 firearms have been taken off the streets in that same amount of time.

Woodfin is calling for stricter gun laws to get those weapons off the streets, while asking for more help from the community.

“I wake up every day thinking how can we address this?” Woodfin said.

At Tuesday’s meeting he had two police officers take in examples of the types of guns that they have confiscated to people could see what they look like – he says the most common ones are mini-Draco’s and the AR pistol. Woodfin said there is no use for them on the streets but harm.

No, that’s not true at all. There are plenty of uses for them; legitimate, law-abiding uses. Just because criminals are using them doesn’t mean no one else is.

As for Woodfin’s calls for gun control, they’re going to fall on deaf ears, as they should.

Look, Birmingham may be pretty rough, and the crime statistics say that it is, but just what gun control does Woodfin think will suddenly make this end?

It seems he wants to ban them.

“If you can’t support this ban that’s un-American because the whole idea is public safety,” Woodfin said. “Federal tax dollars, state tax dollars, local tax dollars, the root of what we do is public safety first.”

So, it’s un-American to want to uphold the actual Constitution? Seriously?

As for public safety, I took another look at the text of the Constitution. The term “public safety” appears exactly once, and that’s only in reference to suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus. That’s it. At no other point does it claim any other right can be suspended in the name of public safety, even the Second Amendment rights.

Further, the idea that you can ban these particular weapons and criminals not get their hands on them is absolutely insane.

On one hand, there are already plenty of them running around the state as it is. A ban now would, at best, simply keep law-abiding folks from buying any more of them. It won’t stop criminals from getting them at all. Even if they ran out of guns to steal, they’d just obtain them from out-of-state sources.

Further, these are easy to put together yourself, even without a “ghost gun” kit. How does Woodfin propose preventing that?

Look, Birmingham’s problems are significant, to be sure, and Woodfin isn’t a complete idiot. Yes, he’s calling for gun bans, but he’s also asking for community help. That’s where he should be directing his time and effort because that’s going to accomplish far more than anything else he’s talking about.

In fact, had he not called for the gun ban, I’d be celebrating him for talking common sense. Instead, he wants something he can’t have, then has the cajones to call it “un-American” if you oppose it.

With RINO-Republicans Like Ohio’s Matt Dolan, Who Needs Democrats?

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Ohio GOP lawmaker introduces gun safety bill; includes red flag law, enhanced background checks,” ABC affiliate News 5 Cleveland video reports. “Cleveland-area state Sen. Matt Dolan proposed bill with mental health in mind.”

That this obvious advocacy piece masked as news relies on assumptions right out of the starting gate is evidenced by repeating the term “gun safety” in the headline, the lede, the body of the “report,” and twice in the crusading reporter’s embedded self-publicizing tweet (embedded below). And curiously, since “red flag” laws are also promoted, you’d think the term “due process” would appear at least once in an unbiased report?

You’d think.

Also of note, no real opposing viewpoints are presented. The single gun owner quoted who appears marginally uncomfortable with what he’s being told isn’t totally against the idea; he just isn’t sure what it would actually do. He said that “most gun owners don’t want to cause issues.”

I suppose asking someone from Buckeye Firearms Association what they thought about it would be too much of an investigative reporting stretch. Besides, they’d probably just throw a wrench in the predetermined narrative and give the video editor much more work to futz around with context. And that’s assuming anyone at WEWS even bothered to look for “Ohio gun rights groups” to see what might turn up first on Google.

For his part, that Republican Matt Dolan is following a time-worn gun-grabber script could not be more apparent, especially when he declares, “[The bill] protects the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens while also…”

Grabbers always sound that way when they feign “I support the Second Amendment” right before showing everyone their big “but.” Remembering that it ends in “shall not be infringed,” what other tyrannical usurpations besides disarming citizens who have not been convicted, let alone even charged, does Dolan intend to “protect” us with?

“If someone aged 18 to 21 wants to buy a gun, they would only be able to buy a rifle or shotgun that holds only a single round of ammunition if they buy the gun by themselves,” the report notes. So evidently double-barrel Fudd guns are out.

Why would he invent such a ludicrous Constitutionally and historically unsupportable and offensive restriction?

Continue reading “”

California moved swiftly to limit concealed weapons after Supreme Court ruling. That plan backfired

When the U.S. Supreme Court took a sledgehammer to concealed-carry gun laws that limit firearms in public places, California officials vowed to swiftly respond and enact new restrictions.

But a measure to tighten the state’s rules for concealed weapons failed in the state Capitol early Thursday morning, a shocking outcome for a plan championed by Democratic legislative leaders and Gov. Gavin Newsom.

SB918 by state Sen. Anthony Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge (Los Angeles County), would have added a slew of new regulations and background check requirements for gun owners to obtain permits. It also sought to greatly expand the list of public places where guns cannot be carried, including bars, parks, casinos, sports arenas, libraries, churches and gyms.

Ironically, part of what spelled defeat for the measure was the rush by legislators to enact it quickly in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling in June.

Because Portantino added an emergency clause to the bill — so it would take effect immediately upon Newsom’s signature — it needed a two-thirds majority to pass. The measure fell just two votes short on the last night of legislators’ session, on a 52-23 vote in the state Assembly.

Portantino and Democratic leaders, including state Attorney General Rob Bonta, worked feverishly throughout the night to try to whip the necessary votes. The bill faltered just after midnight.

The Supreme Court struck down a New York law requiring gun owners to show they have “proper cause” to get a permit to carry a handgun outside of their home. In other words, the state could not require applicants to demonstrate that they need a gun for self-defense.

The decision in the landmark case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, was widely interpreted as striking down similarly restrictive laws in California and a half-dozen other states.

The court’s conservative majority held, in an opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, that states can require handgun owners to get a permit to carry in public as long as they use objective requirements to decide whether to issue a permit. Thomas also suggested that the government can still prohibit guns in “sensitive places” like schools and government buildings.

SB918 attempted to take those two openings and adapt California’s law to be as restrictive as possible while complying with the letter of the ruling. Portantino said the state needed to act, in the wake of recent mass shootings across the country, to prevent more violence.

“We need fewer guns on our streets, not more,” he said in a statement earlier this summer. “California will not wait to see the consequences of these trends and will act now to protect the public.”

In California, concealed-weapon licenses are generally available in the state’s most rural counties, those with a population of fewer than 200,000 people. But such licenses have historically been difficult to obtain in metropolitan areas, and cities and counties can create their own restrictions and set fee amounts.

Portantino’s bill was opposed by gun-rights groups, including the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of California, which said the bill would create onerous hurdles for permit applicants and defines “sensitive places” so broadly that it would contradict the court’s narrow intent.

“It is very apparent that this bill is an attempt to pre-empt the expected ruling from the United States Supreme Court,” Gun Owners of California said in a statement. “By your definition the legislature can designate any public place as sensitive.”

That’s Black GUNS Matter, just to make it clear.

If Voters Keep Believing Gun Control Lies, It Will Lead to Communism: Black Guns Matter Founder
Conservatives must spread libertarian message among urban voters, Toure says

Maj Toure is a Philadelphian and founder of “Black Guns Matter,” a movement that advocates for protecting the Second Amendment and promoting responsible gun ownership in black and urban communities. He believes that the gun control movement has been and continues to be racist.

He began his gun rights work after seeing people he knew getting gun charges because they purchased a gun but did not know all the rules of usage, storage, or carry. He began helping people legally acquire and responsibly use guns to defend themselves.

Toure said the Second Amendment is the foundation of liberty in the United States but as more restrictions are placed on gun ownership, we get closer to complete government take over.

“But that [U.S.] Constitution, in the Bill of Rights, is there to check government, not to check the people. But if we keep convincing people that, ‘Oh, this is for your protection’ or restricting the people, we’re going to create another communist regime,” Toure said during a recent interview with EpochTV’s American Thought Leaders program on Aug. 20 at the Turning Point USA Conference.

Toure said what has happened in communist countries is what is slowly happening in the United States.

Necessity of Second Amendment

“The reason why the conversation about the Second Amendment and firearms is so important is that all of your other values and beliefs and all of those different things … if you can’t defend them, you don’t have them,” Toure said.

Recently, the mayor of Philadelphia told Toure that only police should carry guns.

“That’s what he said. That means you’re not fit to serve, you don’t know the Constitution, you don’t even know your job description, you’re just winging it,” he said.

Toure said his organization has to counter these types of anti-American narratives.

“And these are the types of things that we have to consistently remind the American people about because there’s a propaganda onslaught to convince the American people to operate and vote in their own disinterest.”

Continue reading “”

Which Side Is Itching for a Civil War Again?

On the menu today: Last week brought a pair of odd and troubling comments from New York governor Kathy Hochul and aspiring Florida governor Charlie Crist, both echoing an arrogant decree from former New York governor Andrew Cuomo and suggesting that a governor has the moral authority to decide which political values are acceptable in his or her state. What happens when this arrogant mentality really takes hold? Meanwhile, Chris Stirewalt, the former political editor of Fox News Channel, shares a hard lesson about telling people things they don’t want to hear. And the reader reviews of Gathering Five Storms continue to roll in.

Ruling-Class Arrogance

Sure, a future second American civil war seems like a ridiculous thought.

Now, think about it: There’s a big step between, “Those who think differently from me are a bunch of idiots,” and, “Those who think differently from me are a bunch of idiots and they shouldn’t be allowed to live here.” And there’s another big step between some random schmuck’s running around saying that people of certain beliefs have no place in their home state, and the governor’s declaring that people with certain beliefs have no place in his state.

Continue reading “”

5 Things You Might Not Know About the Bill to Ban “Assault Weapons”

The arguably unconstitutional ban on so-called “assault weapons” recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives is a lot worse than most people are aware. That’s because the measure is nearly 14,000 words long, and most of it is based on sheer ignorance, so digging through the entire document to see what is hidden inside is actually disheartening.

Here’s a brief look at five things in H.R. 1808 that you might not have been aware were included in the legislation.

The criteria used for banning rifles are ignorant and nonsensical. The measure purports to ban “military-style” weapons, although all of the guns banned by the bill fire only one round with a single pull of the trigger like all semi-automatics. Our military, as well as most militaries of the rest of the world, equip their soldiers with rifles capable of fully-automatic fire. And the alleged “military” features that can cause your gun to be banned include the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, along with one of the following: a pistol grip (certainly not uniquely military), a forward grip (doesn’t make it any more “deadly”), an adjustable stock (why is it bad to be able to make your gun fit you correctly?), a grenade launcher (which is actually an NFA item, subject to strict controls, as are any explosive grenades one may want to use with the launcher), a barrel shroud or a threaded barrel (so much for hearing protection).

The measure also bans many firearms by name, not just criteria. It bans all AK-type rifles and lists 28 specific models by name. It also covers “AR types,” and went on to list dozens of different rifles by name or manufacturer that would be banned. When you consider several entries that include all of a company’s semi-automatic rifles, like “Smith & Wesson M&P 15 Rifles” and “Stag Arms AR Rifles,” the list grows to literally hundreds. Also banned by the measure are a long list of semi-automatic rifles that are not ARs, including the Beretta CX4 Storm, Ruger Mini-14 and more than 60 other models. Lastly, it bans all AK and AR pistols.

The legislation bans many pistols and shotguns, too. It bans “any semiautomatic pistol that has an ammunition feeding device that is not a fixed ammunition feeding device” and has one of the following: A threaded barrel, a second pistol grip, a barrel shroud, the capacity to accept a detachable ammunition feeding device at some location outside of the pistol grip, a semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm, a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when unloaded, or a buffer tube, stabilizing brace or similar component that protrudes horizontally behind the pistol grip, and is designed or redesigned to allow or facilitate a firearm to be fired from the shoulder. It also bans any semi-automatic shotgun that “has the capacity to accept a detachable ammunition feeding device or a fixed ammunition feeding device that has the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds,” along with any one of the following: a folding, telescoping or detachable stock, a pistol grip or bird’s head grip, a forward grip or a grenade launcher. It even bans any shotgun with a revolving cylinder; a type of shotgun that is fairly rare, and even more rarely, if ever, used to commit violent crime.

The legislation also bans common, standard-capacity magazines. It specifically bans what it calls “large capacity ammunition feeding devices,” and defines the term as “a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, including any such device joined or coupled with another in any manner, that has an overall capacity of, or that can be readily restored, changed, or converted to accept, more than 15 rounds of ammunition.” This important portion of the measure has been largely unreported by those in the so-called “mainstream” media.

The authors of the bill knew that much of it is unconstitutional—especially since more than 24 million AR-15-type rifles are owned by American citizens—but pushed the measure through anyway. Proof of that prior knowledge can be found in one section toward the end of the bill that features this clumsy disclaimer: “If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of the Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.”

Of course, the measure also contains a lot of other egregious provisions that would likely shock most law-abiding gun owners. You can read it for yourself here.

In other words, SloJoe’s puppet masters tried a gambit to entrap President Trump over those ‘classified’ documents

Biden White House facilitated DOJ’s criminal probe against Trump, scuttled privilege claims: memos
“I have therefore decided not to honor the former President’s ‘protective’ claim of privilege,” acting National Archivist Debra Steidel Wall wrote Trump’s team in May.

Long before it professed no prior knowledge of the raid on Donald Trump’s estate, the Biden White House worked directly with the Justice Department and National Archives to instigate the criminal probe into alleged mishandling of documents, allowing the FBI to review evidence retrieved from Mar-a-Lago this spring and eliminating the 45th president’s claims to executive privilege, according to contemporaneous government documents reviewed by Just the News.

The memos show then-White House Deputy Counsel Jonathan Su was engaged in conversations with the FBI, DOJ and National Archives as early as April, shortly after 15 boxes of classified and other materials were voluntarily returned to the federal historical agency from Trump’s Florida home.

By May, Su conveyed to the Archives that President Joe Biden would not object to waiving his predecessor’s claims to executive privilege, a decision that opened the door for DOJ to get a grand jury to issue a subpoena compelling Trump to turn over any remaining materials he possessed from his presidency.

The machinations are summarized in several memos and emails exchanged between the various agencies in spring 2022, months before the FBI took the added unprecedented step of raiding Trump’s Florida compound with a court-issued search warrant.

The most complete summary was contained in a lengthy letter dated May 10 that acting National Archivist Debra Steidel Wall sent Trump’s lawyers summarizing the White House’s involvement.

“On April 11, 2022, the White House Counsel’s Office — affirming a request from the Department of Justice supported by an FBI letterhead memorandum — formally transmitted a request that NARA provide the FBI access to the 15 boxes for its review within seven days, with the possibility that the FBI might request copies of specific documents following its review of the boxes,” Wall wrote Trump defense attorney Evan Corcoran.

That letter revealed Biden empowered the National Archives and Records Administration to waive any claims to executive privilege that Trump might assert to block DOJ from gaining access to the documents.

Continue reading “”

1, If Republicans, and their conservative counterparties actually were ‘that’ ‘extremist’, this horsecrap by the leftists and bureaucraps in goobermint wouldn’t be happening, because they’d all be dead already.

2, But that does bring up the point that if these leftists and bureaucraps, who are the real domestic enemies, become any more of a pain in the backside that they already are, the people they’re flinging insults at may decide they’ve had enough of this crap-for-brains and sweep the trash out.

All Republicans are now terrorists
Democrats and the mainstream media have gone full Orwellian

Last week, Financial Times Associate Editor Edward Luce tweeted that Republicans are the most “dangerous” political force in the world, bar none. “I’ve covered extremism and violent ideologies around the world,” he said, and “I have never come across a political force more nihilistic, dangerous & contemptible than today’s Republicans. Nothing close.” Former CIA Director Michael Hayden chimed in immediately and said, “I agree.”

This past Tuesday, Democrat adviser Kurt Bardella called all Republicans a “domestic terrorist cell.” MSNBC’s Tiffany Cross agreed and said there should be no distinction between Republicans and “right-wing extremists.” At the same time, Peter Wehner, a contributing writer for The Atlantic, likened the Republican Party to a “dagger pointed at the throat of American democracy.” All this while the FBI Director Christopher Wray added that any American flying the Gadsden — “Don’t Tread On Me” — flag is suspect of violent extremism.

Does anyone except me hear the ghost of George Orwell laughing right now?

Does it concern you that a group of Democrats holding power is now defining all Republicans as being “right-wing extremists” and a “threat to American democracy?”

And by the way, what is a right-wing extremist? Is it someone who advocates for pro-life legislation? Is it someone who believes in traditional standards of sexual morality? Are you a right-winger if you believe in lower taxes? Are you an extremist if you dare to call for open debate on environmental policy? Are you a threat to American democracy if you think enforcing America’s borders will actually be good for America? Are you one of those “nihilistic, dangerous & contemptible” people “holding a dagger to America’s throat” if you believe in school choice and the self-evident reality of parental rights?

Wake Up Flaccidcons – It’s Not 2005 Anymore

Oh, Mike Pence, you soft, naïve little man. Oh, Tim Scott, you kindly and friendly gentleman. I like you both. I really do. I would love you to be my neighbors. If I ran short of sugar or charcoal, you’d square me away. Not so much bourbon, but whatever. If I asked you to help me move or give me a ride to the airport, you suckers would be all in because you are nice guys. And that’s your problem and the problem of Republicans like you. You are nice guys in a time that calls for ruthless killers who want to destroy our enemies and leave them on their backs, figuratively cockroaching on the floor.

We want vengeance and victory. You want hugs. I guess that’s nice. Hugworld would be pleasant, but it’s the hardcore bomb throwers who get us to that stage by pummeling our enemies into submission. You find that unsavory, disconcerting, unseemly. You would prefer a world of comity, collegiality, and unicorns. And that ain’t happening until we warrior cons have broken our enemy – yeah, I used the “E” word – and exacted our payback and thereby ensured that their pain is so great that they will not dare even dream of repeating this nonsense again for a generation for fear of our righteous wrath.

Your problem is that you live on forever in a world that no longer exists, if it ever did. You live in a world where there are norms. You live in a world of rules and guardrails, where the institutions are at least nominally neutral and where we all share some basic premises that provide common ground. But we don’t. They hate America. They hate believing Christians and Jews. They hate the idea of free speech, freedom of religion, the right to due process, and not killing babies three seconds before they poke their heads out. They think kids should be mutilated to conform to gender delusions. They want us normals disarmed, disenfranchised, and, more often than you softies will admit, deceased.

You both want to run in 2024, but you think it’s still 2005, and you both talk like a pre-failure Weekly Standard article about “empowerment” and “opportunity.” Buzzwords like that are worse than meaningless in an environment where our basic liberties are under constant assault by these communist bastards. There’s a war on and you people want to sing Kumbaya. That’s why you cannot be allowed anywhere near the levers of power in 2024.

Continue reading “”

No Clintons, no Bushes, no Kennedys. And shortly, no Cheneys.

BLUF
“There is a new 21st century American Revolution taking place. Except the kings and queens are not in England but here among us. The patriots are voting these Tories out of office. We can hardly wait for Nov. 8,”
–John McLaughlin

Liz Cheney ends 75 years of modern political dynasties

Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney’s GOP primary defeat this week did more than just end her family’s dominance in U.S. politics dating back to her father’s role as President Gerald Ford’s chief of staff in 1974.

It also marked the coming end of a long stretch of at least 75 years of somebody from one of America’s modern political dynasties serving in federal elected or appointed office.

Since 1947, when then-Sen. John F. Kennedy came to Washington, there has been either a Kennedy, a Bush, a Cheney, or a Clinton in office. There was a two-year gap, between 2011 and 2013, when none of those families held an elected seat, but Hillary Clinton was the secretary of state for President Barack Obama.

And the streak could be stretched back at least to 1933 and the Byrds of Virginia, including former Sens. Harry Byrd and Harry Byrd Jr. (who left the chamber in 1983).

Despite a Britain-born hatred for blood politics by colonial Americans that continues to this day in many political circles, the United States has voted in members of prominent political families, which makes Cheney’s loss on Tuesday all the more jarring.

“The end of political dynasties represents the decline of the establishment wings of both parties and the desire by voters to have change and new blood in Washington. It’s unlikely we are going to see a political dynasty endure like we have over the past 75 years,” said Ron Bonjean, a Republican strategist and former House and Senate official.

Continue reading “”

Biden invites gun control groups to White House to help “heal the soul of a nation”

Makes sense. After all, nothing promotes unity like demonizing 80-100 million gun owners and threatening to turn them into criminals if they don’t register or turn their AR-15s over to the government, right?

Next month Joe Biden’s going to be hosting a “United We Stand Summit” that’s ostensibly about the “corrosive effects” of threats of violence on our political system and public life; an event that White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre claims will be “important opportunity for Americans of all races, religions, regions, political affiliations, and walks of life to take up that cause together.” If you don’t believe in gun-controlling our way to “unity”, however, expect your invite to get lost in the mail.

Biden will deliver a keynote speech at the gathering, which the White House says will include civil rights groups, faith leaders, business executives, law enforcement, gun violence prevention advocates, former members of violent hate groups, the victims of extremist violence and cultural figures. The White House emphasized that it also intends to bring together Democrats and Republicans, as well as political leaders on the federal, state and local levels to unite against hate-motivated violence.

You know, there are plenty of new gun owners out there who specifically bought a firearm because they’re worried about being the victim of “extremist violence” who might also have a thing or two to say about the idiocy of trying to reduce violence by preventing people from defending themselves, but Biden and his allies have no interest in hearing from those folks. In fact, for an event that’s ostensibly about promoting unity, it sure seems awfully divisive in nature.

Sindy Benavides, the CEO of League of United Latin American Citizens, said the genesis of the summit came after the Buffalo massacre, as her organization along with the Anti-Defamation League, the National Action Network and other groups wanted to press the Biden administration to more directly tackle extremist threats.

“As civil rights organizations, social justice organizations, we fight every day against this, and we wanted to make sure to acknowledge that government needs to have a leading role in addressing right-wing extremism,” she said.

… Benavides said Biden holding the summit would help galvanize the country to address the threats of hate-inspired violence but also said she hoped for “long-term solutions” to emerge from the summit.

“What’s important to us is addressing mental health, gun control reform, addressing misinformation, disinformation and malinformation,” she said. “We want policy makers to focus on common sense solutions so we don’t see this type of violence in our communities. And we want to see the implementation of policies that reduce violence.”

Sounds like less of a summit and more like a pep rally for Democrats to me; a day where Biden and his closest allies can portray Republicans as “right wing extremists” and push for more divisive gun control laws ahead of the midterms.

The divides in this country are obviously growing deeper by the day, but this event is likely to flame those tensions instead of alleviating them. I truly hope I’m wrong, but given the blatantly partisan nature of this “unity summit,” it’s hard to predict otherwise.

Ex-Gorsuch Law Clerk Takes a Blowtorch to the Imaginary Law Violations the FBI Cited in Trump Raid

It’s a move that House Republicans should consider when they regain the majority in November, but will they do it? In the aftermath of the unlawful August 8 raid on Mar-a-Lago, the Republican Party has been united in its revulsion of what appears to be an unprecedented ransacking of a former president’s home. The legal justification doesn’t pass constitutional muster. There seems to be no crime committed, only that the National Archives grew impatient over record retrieval. That’s not a crime; people dragging their feet regarding government documents is quite common in DC.

Mike Davis has gone on epic threads on social media gutting the case the government has made for the raid. Davis, a former law clerk to Justice Neil Gorsuch, decided to take his legal takedowns of this arguably illegal search and reorganize it into an opinion column for Newsweek. He took the position many have felt for a long time: FBI Director Chris Wray, and now Attorney General Merrick Garland should be removed from office. He also added that it’s telling why AG Garland did not seek the opinion of the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel about signing off on the search warrant (via Newsweek):

All presidents take mementos and other records when they leave office. They don’t pack their own boxes. The National Archives takes the position that almost everything is a “presidential record.” And the federal government, in general, over-classifies almost everything.

Even if Trump took classified records, that isn’t a crime. The president has the inherent constitutional power to declassify any record he wants, in any manner he wants, regardless of any otherwise-pertinent statute or regulation that applies to everyone else. The president does not need to obtain Congress’ or a bureaucrat’s permission—or jump through their regulatory or statutory hoops—to declassify anything.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed this in the 1988 case, Department of the Navy v. Egan : “The President, after all, is the ‘Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.’ U.S. Const., Art. II, § 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security…flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.”

Thus, if Trump left the White House with classified records, then those records are necessarily declassified by his very actions. He doesn’t need to label that decision for, or report that decision to, any bureaucrat who works for him. It is pretextual legal nonsense for the Biden Justice Department to pretend Trump broke any criminal statute. Indeed, it is noteworthy that Attorney General Garland apparently did not seek an opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)—the de facto general counsel for the executive branch—before ordering this home raid of his boss’s chief political enemy. Perhaps Garland knew OLC wouldn’t give him the answer he wanted.[…]

All former presidents also get a federally funded office, called the Office of the Former President. They get lawyers and other staff, security clearances, Secret Service protection, and secure facilities (SCIFs) for the maintenance of classified records. Even if Trump had classified records, then, they were protected and secure.[…]

FBI Director Christopher Wray recently testified that the FBI was too busy to stop dangerous and illegal intimidation campaigns outside Supreme Court justices’ homes. This was after an attempted assassin was thankfully arrested outside Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home. The FBI apparently didn’t have the time to investigate actual threats to the lives of constitutional officers, but it had plenty of time to raid the home of a former president over an 18-month-old records dispute—with which Trump publicly stated he was fully cooperating.[…]

House Republicans must impeach Attorney General Garland and FBI Director Wray for their unprecedented and destructive politicization of the Justice Department, when they reclaim power in January. And over the long term, House and Senate Republicans must dismantle and rebuild the FBI, so political raids like this never happen again. We cannot allow our law enforcement agencies to become third-world political hit squads.

It’s a line-by-line takedown of the DOJ’s overreach. The Presidential Records Act isn’t a criminal statute. Since Trump was president, the removal of alleged classified materials isn’t a crime. The president is the ultimate decider on classification status, which dresses down the violation of the Espionage Act allegation as lunacy.

Davis also highlights the gross incompetence and hyper-politicization that has engulfed the Justices Department, noting the FBI’s inability to protect sitting Supreme Court justices from death threats after the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, because they were too busy. And yet, the FBI had plenty of time to pursue this search of Mar-a-Lago with a 30-person team following a treasure hunt over allegations that aren’t crimes regarding Donald Trump and classified materials. People were showing up at the homes of Supreme Court justices; some were armed and prepared to commit political acts of violence over abortion. That was real. The purported classified documents at Mar-a-Lago are not actual law violations, but Garland’s presser, which gave this smash-and-grab a federal blessing, tossed him into the same rogue camp as Wray.

House Republicans promised investigations into these egregious acts of extrajudicial operations conducted by the DOJ.  They better make good on those overtures, leaving the door open for possible impeachment articles against these two men.