When the radical left says “our democracy” they mean “our unelected deep state.” When they say “FBI independence” they mean “unchecked law enforcement power immune from all democratic accountability.” In short, what they oppose is the restoration of democracy and self-government. https://t.co/spVOcLqFVW
— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) December 1, 2024
BLUF
Only when we’ve plowed the soil of the Deep State with salt can we talk about a truce. But the damage personal damage we inflict over the next four years, in terms of jail time, bankruptcies, and legal judgments, must so terrify that second tier of Deep Staters that no matter what another batch of Democrat operatives cook up, they will refuse to get involved.
Op-Ed: Lawfare Will End When the Left Is Too Terrified to Contemplate Continuing It
Now that Donald Trump is headed to the White House, he has to make a decision vital to the Republic’s health. Over the last eight years, President Trump and his allies have been the subject of a non-stop stream of lawfare attacks designed to cripple him while he was president and later, after he peacefully turned over the reigns of power to the addled Joe Biden, to imprison him for what could have been the rest of his life.
The campaign to jail him was clearly a conspiracy involving Biden Attorney General Merrick Garland, New York Attorney General Letitia James, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and Fulton County, GA, District Attorney Fani Willis. The extent to which the civil cases against him were coordinated with the criminal cases has never, as far as I know, been explored, but it is hard to imagine that it did not exist.
This use of the judicial system to attempt to impoverish and imprison political opponents is foreign to the United States and to its founding principles. The decision that Trump has to make is to either ignore the attacks calculated to ruin his life or should he be faithful to the promise he made at CPAC in March 2023 and seek retribution.
In 2016, I declared I am your voice. Today I add I am your Warrior, I am your Justice, and for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your Retribution.
Andy McCarthy, writing in National Review, makes the case that Trump should end lawfare by ending lawfare.
You don’t have to be an admirer of Bannon or Navarro to see these prosecutions as toxic partisan lawfare. Or to understand how, in the end, this helped Trump with voters
— not because Americans have affection for these men, but because the Democrats’ unabashed exploitation of the government’s law enforcement apparatus for their own political advantage was despotic and frightening.
It’s not the sort of thing that shouldn’t be done to our side; it’s a betrayal of justice that shouldn’t be done, period, full stop.
Other than being wrong, McCarthy argues that the actions of all public officials have the same immunity that the Supreme Court declared applied to President Trump; see BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules on Presidential Immunity.
Tom Cotton slams ‘partisans and obstructionists’ in DOD reportedly plotting to block Trump plans
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., blasted anyone within the Defense Department working to safeguard certain norms or policies that they expect the incoming Trump administration to target.
“It appears that partisans and obstructionists inside the Department of Defense are laying groundwork to defy or circumvent President Trump’s plans for both military and civil-service reform,” Cotton wrote in a letter to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in reference to reports of such strategizing among DOD employees.
“These actions undermine civilian control of the military and our constitutional structure of government.”
Earlier this month, it was reported that there were “informal discussions” occurring among Pentagon officials on what the department would do if Trump ordered the military for a domestic purpose or if he fired a significant number of employees, per CNN.
One anonymous defense official was quoted in the report saying, “Troops are compelled by law to disobey unlawful orders.”
“But the question is what happens then – do we see resignations from senior military leaders? Or would they view that as abandoning their people?” they reportedly asked.
President-elect Trump promised during his campaign to shake up the federal government, whether it be through staffing changes or reorganization. Some reports have indicated specific people are being looked at for termination once he enters office again. An ally of Trump, former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, has been vocal about his belief that the federal government must be shrunk in size.
Ramaswamy has been tapped by Trump, along with billionaire business magnate Elon Musk, to lead his planned Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in his new administration. The proposed department has the goal of reducing the size of government, cutting spending and increasing efficiency.
Cotton criticized Lloyd in his letter for “promulgating false claims that the incoming administration plans to arbitrarily fire uniformed leaders.”
Further, he slammed the secretary for a message after the election that the military would specifically follow “lawful orders” from Trump. Cotton said this was “a thinly veiled and baseless insinuation that President Trump will issue unlawful orders.”
“I have to observe that these actions and reports only prove the need for reform and fundamental change at the Department of Defense. And, of course, while inappropriate and annoying, these tactics are also useless because no action by the outgoing administration can limit the incoming president’s constitutional authority as commander-in-chief,” the Arkansas Republican wrote.
Cotton was recently elected to serve as chairman of the Senate Republican conference in the new Congress. He is also expected to take Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s place as the head of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
The DOD did not immediately provide comment to Fox News Digital for purposes of this story.
All this was, was political shenanigans to try and shame Trump’s political support into running away, so he’d drop out of running for reelection. If Trump would drop, he’d be way too old to run in 2028, so he’d be done. Trump apparently figured it out, and here we are.
Jack Smith’s End Of Lawfare Charges Against Trump Proves It Was A Political Witch Hunt.
Special Counsel Jack Smith said on Monday that the evidence against now President-elect Donald Trump in the 2020 election case is rock-solid and that no one is “above the law” — but that he’d nonetheless drop the charges against Trump.
But if that’s the case, why bail out now? Surely if Trump is really the criminal mastermind Smith alleges he is, there’s no conscionable way he could drop the charges. The reality is that Smith knows this was never about the law. It was about leftists using lawfare to prosecute and ideally jail their political opponent.
“After careful consideration, the Department has determined that OLC’s [Office of Legal Counsel] prior opinions concerning the Constitution’s prohibition on federal indictment and prosecution of a sitting President apply to this situation and that as a result this prosecution must be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated,” Smith’s filing stated.
Smith still made sure to add a throw-away-line that the decision to drop the case did not “turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Government stands fully behind.” But, Smith added, the Department of Justice concluded that pursuing the case would hinder Trump’s ability to lead.
Trump was indicted by Smith for questioning the administration of the 2020 election. The Supreme Court torpedoed Smith’s efforts in July when it ruled 6-3 that a president has “absolute immunity” for “actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority” and “at least presumptive immunity” for all “official acts.” The court sent several questions pertaining to the charges against Trump back to the lower court to determine whether his actions constituted an official act. Smith then filed a superseding indictment against Trump, refusing to let the case go when he thought it would hurt Trump’s chances of winning the election.
The Trump-Vance transition team celebrated the decision in a statement.
“Today’s decision by the DOJ ends the unconstitutional federal cases against President Trump, and is a major victory for the rule of law,” Trump communications director Steven Cheung said in a statement. “The American People and President Trump want an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and we look forward to uniting our country.”
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg agreed on Tuesday to indefinitely delay Trump’s sentencing in the case regarding Trump’s alleged payments to his then-lawyer Michael Cohen. Cohen was purportedly instructed to pay pornographer Stormy Daniels to stay quiet about an alleged affair (which is not illegal). But Bragg claimed that Trump’s payments to Cohen (which were classified as legal payments) should have been classified as campaign expenses, alleging that the payments were made to influence the 2016 election. Cohen, however, testified that Trump was concerned that the allegations would negatively affect his family after they first surfaced in 2011.
DOD ‘Intentionally Delayed’ National Guard Deployment To The Capitol On Jan. 6
Federal bureaucrats within the Department of Defense (DoD) delayed the deployment of the National Guard on Jan. 6, 2021 and covered it up, according to a House Republican investigation of government conduct related to the Capitol riot.
On Thursday, Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., who is leading a review of the work completed by the partisan Jan. 6 probe run by then-Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, sent a letter to the inspector general for the Department of Defense demanding a correction to an agency report published in November 2021.
“This report was the final product of the DoD IG’s review into the events of January 6, and reviewed how the DoD responded to requests for support as the events unfolded,” Loudermilk, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight for the House Administration Committee, wrote. “Throughout the Subcommittee’s extensive investigation into the failures of January 6, 2021, we have discovered numerous flaws and inaccuracies in the report that your office has yet to appropriately address.”
Such flaws and inaccuracies, however, may have been part of a partisan cover-up after GOP lawmakers discovered the Pentagon was responsible for delays in guard deployment.
TO THE LEFTISTS WHO DOMINATE “INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DISCOURSE” THIS IS A FEATURE NOT A BUG:
Human rights law has been intentionally perverted by people who want the West to be unable to defend itself against terrorist groups and other non-state actors. Israel is their first target, but they will use any precedents set against Israel against the US and NATO. Israel is serving as the canary in the coal mine, and the US must do everything in its power to undermine the power of far leftists (and their Islamist allies) to set the terms of military engagement, especially given that Israel’s rules of engagement are stricter than NATO’s.
Kansas City-Area Lawmakers Buck Veto, Pick Fight With Missouri Legislature
When Jackson County, Missouri Executive Frank White vetoed a package of local gun control ordinances last week, he rightfully pointed out that the measures are “fundamentally flawed, unlawful, and counterproductive.” The state of Missouri has a firearms preemption law in place that prohibits localities from adopting their own gun laws, and there’s no doubt that the ordinances approved by the Jackson County legislature violate the state’s preemption statute.
The ordinances establish age limits for firearm and ammunition purchases and an almost near-total ban on the possession of “assault rifles” for adults under the age of 21. White said that if the ordinances were allowed to take effect, it would open up Jackson County to “costly legal battles,” but Jackson County lawmakers are apparently willing to let taxpayers foot the bill for their quixotic attempt to subvert state law because they’ve overridden his veto and put the county on a collision course with the state of Missouri.
County Legislator Manny Abarca, who was caught in Union Station with his then-five-year-old daughter during the Super Bowl parade shootings, said the bill is needed to fight the rash of violence this summer by armed teens. He also pointed to the murder of Irish chef Shaun Brady in August.
“The least we can do is implement common-sense protections to prevent such devastating incidents from happening again,” Abarca said in a press release. “This ordinance is a necessary step to enhance public safety and protect our youth.”
White vetoed the bill last week, saying state law clearly bans passage of any local gun laws and he feared a lawsuit.
He issued a statement late Monday saying passage of the bill was “a disappointing moment for our residents.”
“While I respect the legislative process, this ordinance does not meet legal standards set by state and federal law, and we fully expect that it will be challenged in court,” White said. “Regrettably, this will mean that taxpayer dollars are spent defending an ordinance that has little chance of being upheld.”
Abarca’s grandstanding won’t cost him a dime personally, but he and the other six Jackson County legislators who overrode White’s veto are going to be wasting a lot of the county’s money defending the indefensible. Missouri statute is crystal clear about the powers of local governments to impose their own gun control laws:
No county, city, town, village, municipality, or other political subdivision of this state shall adopt any order, ordinance or regulation concerning in any way the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permit, registration, taxation other than sales and compensating use taxes or other controls on firearms, components, ammunition, and supplies…
The two exceptions granted to local governments are the ability to regulate the open carrying and discharging of firearms, though even then political subdivisions can’t craft an ordinance that prohibits guns from being used in defense of person or property. Abarca’s ordinances directly conflict with state law by imposing new regulations on the sale of firearms and ammunition, as well as the possession of so-called “assault rifles” ((a term, by the way, left undefined by the ordinance).
There’s no question that the ordinances conflict with state law. The biggest unknowns at the moment are who will sue to strike down the new ordinances, and whether Jackson County Sheriff Darryl Forte will try to enforce the measures adopted by county lawmakers.
There is no shortage of potential plaintiffs, including Second Amendment organizations, gun stores, and young adults in Jackson County who could bring a legal challenge to the new ordinances, but standing could be an issue if Forte decides its better not to enforce them. Regardless of enforcement, I expect the Missouri Attorney General’s office will also have plenty to say about the Jackson County legislature’s illegal ordinances, and might even bring a separate legal challenge to strike the measures from the books.
No matter how concerned Abarca and other lawmakers are about “youth” crime in Jackson County, violating state law to infringe on the Second Amendment rights of young adults is, as White said, a fundamentally flawed and counterproductive approach. Money that could be spent on hiring more deputies, prosecutors, or even community violence intervention efforts will now be directed toward defending Abarca’s public relations stunt instead of making Jackson County a safer place.
ANTI-GUNNERS MORE INTERESTED IN PUBLIC DISARMAMENT THAN SAFETY—CCRKBA
BELLEVUE, WA – A recent report by ABC News that gun control groups are vowing to “double down” against incoming President Donald Trump if he pursues national concealed carry reciprocity only proves anti-gunners are more interested in citizen disarmament than in public safety, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said in response.
“National concealed carry reciprocity simply would mean American citizens would no longer leave their right of self-defense at a state border,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “The gun prohibition lobby needs to come clean and admit they don’t care if law-abiding citizens can’t defend themselves while traveling. They’re not interested in public safety, only public disarmament.”
A national reciprocity bill passed the U.S. House in 2017, but was never brought up in the Senate, and Democrats have opposed the idea. Now, however, with Capitol Hill under Republican control, and Trump on record as vowing to sign legislation if it hits his desk, anti-gunners—including Everytown for Gun Safety and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence—are promising a fight to keep people traveling from one state to another vulnerable to criminal attack.
“The gun ban crowd can couch their arguments any way they want,” Gottlieb observed, “but when you boil it down, what they really want is for good people to be vulnerable to violent crime. Anti-gunners argue that reciprocity will make it easier for criminals to cross state lines, but that doesn’t pass the smell test because criminals are already doing that.
“Any notion that legally-armed Americans are somehow a threat to public safety when they journey to another state is manufactured paranoia,” he said.
“And,” Gottlieb added, “when armed citizens go to other states, they must obey that state’s gun laws. The argument that states will see their own gun laws eroded by reciprocity is yet another myth invented by anti-gunners to dissuade people from supporting reciprocity. Each state’s laws would remain intact, and they know it.”
This domestic enemy gets public funding
“I think our reverence for the truth might have become a bit of a distraction that is preventing us from finding consensus and getting important things done.”
— Katherine Maher (NPR CEO)
pic.twitter.com/nCfDcyPbtH— The Rabbit Hole (@TheRabbitHole84) November 12, 2024
FEMA outrage reveals weaponized government — and points Trump toward reform.
One of President-elect Donald Trump’s first orders of business must be to de-weaponize the federal government. One episode from Florida illustrates why.
Not long ago you might have charged me with paranoid conspiracy theorizing if I had told you that federal disaster relief workers were deliberately keeping Trump supporters from receiving government assistance.
But they were, and a FEMA supervisor has been fired for it.
“Avoid homes advertising Trump,” she wrote in a “best practices” memo to employees, a copy of which was obtained by Daily Wire, reportedly reinforcing this with a verbal order.
Er, except that it was true. And The New York Times, as of this writing, had not corrected its false reporting, which itself constitutes disinformation.
So does that mean the conspiracy theorists are right? Well, yes and no.
If the “conspiracy” would involve a handful of big-shots in a smoke-filled room sending out orders to their minions, not really.
That happens in government sometimes — as with the federal campaign to quash dissent on social media over COVID policy and the disputed 2020 election — but usually it doesn’t work that way.
Because it doesn’t have to.
When you have a federal workforce that overwhelmingly favors the Democratic Party, coupled with nonstop media (and social media) accounts of how awful Republicans are and how it’s fair to do pretty much anything to stop them because they’re basically Hitler, you don’t need to issue orders.
People act on their own.
I very much doubt that any FEMA higher-up told Marn’i Washington to skip over houses with Trump signs.
She just knew that she hated President Trump and wanted to punish his supporters. Then she took action.
Democrats like to see themselves as vital soldiers, defending democracy — and, coincidentally, their party’s power — from opponents who are not merely different, but outright evil.
This sense of self-importance is coupled with a self-esteem-boosting snobbery: They tell themselves they deserve to be in charge because they’re so much smarter and better and more moral than the hoi polloi.
And the allegedly high stakes justify even the most immoral actions because they’re in service of a higher cause — stopping Hitler! (An excuse that’s always available: Democrats characterize just about all of their GOP opponents as the next Hitler, going all the way back to Tom Dewey in 1948.)
Trump has said he will fire bureaucrats who get in the way of his reforms, and plans to vastly thin the civil service in general. This will help.
10 U.S. Code § 894 – Art. 94. Mutiny or sedition
(a)Any person subject to this chapter [ military personnel, .ed] who—
(1)with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
(2)with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition
(3)fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.
(b)A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 68.)
Sedition, Insubordination, Conduct Unbecoming. In a time of war; Treason.
This sort of thing must be rooted out and the bureaucraps fired, those on active duty who took part relieved, and those who may not have been on active duty (retired), recalled and face courts martial. The military must be completely subordinate to the elected constitutional national command authority and follow their legal orders or what we’ll wind up with is a military hunta akin to the praetorian guard of the roman empire who decided who the next emperor would be after disposing of the last one.
Sorry, We Can Only View This Secret Pentagon Meeting as a Plot to Foment an Insurrection
John Frankenheimer directed a movie called Seven Days in May in the 1960s, starring Kirk Douglas as a military officer who uncovers a coup against the president of the United States by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who signed a deeply unpopular nuclear disarmament treaty. That’s a movie. In 2024, the Pentagon brass plotted to countermand President-elect Donald J. Trump’s orders. If we’re going by the Left’s rules here, this is an insurrection. It’s a military coup. What’s worse is that these anti-Trump meetings were held in secret and then got leaked to the media (via CNN):
Pentagon officials are holding informal discussions about how the Department of Defense would respond if Donald Trump issues orders to deploy active-duty troops domestically and fire large swaths of apolitical staffers, defense officials told CNN.
Trump has suggested he would be open to using active-duty forces for domestic law enforcement and mass deportations and has indicated he wants to stack the federal government with loyalists and “clean out corrupt actors” in the US national security establishment.
[…]
“We are all preparing and planning for the worst-case scenario, but the reality is that we don’t know how this is going to play out yet,” one defense official said.
Trump’s election has also raised questions inside the Pentagon about what would happen if the president issued an unlawful order, particularly if his political appointees inside the department don’t push back.
“Troops are compelled by law to disobey unlawful orders,” said another defense official. “But the question is what happens then – do we see resignations from senior military leaders? Or would they view that as abandoning their people?”
CNN’s Scott Jennings tore apart these unelected bureaucrats yesterday. We’re back to the same Deep State games, but this time, Trump, with no re-election ahead of him, can go hard and fast to rid the Pentagon and any agency of troublesome government workers who think they’re above the law and not accountable to the will of the people. The illegal orders narrative is also ridiculous, soaked in the anti-Trump hysterics that have engulfed the Left.
#BREAKING: Pentagon officials are already discussing how they can countermand an order from President Donald Trump if they disagree with it.
Scott Jennings absolutely ripped them to pieces.
“[They’re] already having discussions to countermand the commander-in-chief! […] I… pic.twitter.com/CyyGD1aE4N
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 9, 2024
“The unelected bureaucracy of this government answers to the civilian and duly elected leadership.”@ScottJenningsKY excoriates Pentagon officials over reports of secret meetings about how to “thwart or countermand the Commander-In-Chief.”
The plotting against Trump has… pic.twitter.com/Glptqqvw5q
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) November 9, 2024
Secret meetings on thwarting a duly elected president are not a good look.
Never forget what they did to us.
Never forget what they meant to do to us.
Never.
Don’t give them the benefit of the doubt next time.
And did they forget we have guns?
CDC Planned Quarantine Camps, Nationwide
No matter how bad you think Covid policies were, they were intended to be worse.
Consider the vaccine passports alone. Six cities were locked down to include only the vaccinated in public indoor places. They were New York City, Boston, Chicago, New Orleans, Washington, D.C., and Seattle. The plan was to enforce this with a vaccine passport. It broke. Once the news leaked that the shot didn’t stop infection or transmission, the planners lost public support and the scheme collapsed.
It was undoubtedly planned to be permanent and nationwide if not worldwide. Instead, the scheme had to be dialed back.
Features of the CDC’s edicts did incredible damage. It imposed the rent moratorium. It decreed the ridiculous “six feet of distance” and mask mandates. It forced Plexiglas as the interface for commercial transactions. It implied that mail-in balloting must be the norm, which probably flipped the election. It delayed the reopening as long as possible. It was sadistic.
Even with all that, worse was planned. On July 26, 2020, with the George Floyd riots having finally settled down, the CDC issued a plan for establishing nationwide quarantine camps. People were to be isolated, given only food and some cleaning supplies. They would be banned from participating in any religious services. The plan included contingencies for preventing suicide. There were no provisions made for any legal appeals or even the right to legal counsel.
The plan’s authors were unnamed but included 26 footnotes. It was completely official. The document was only removed on about March 26, 2023. During the entire intervening time, the plan survived on the CDC’s public site with little to no public notice or controversy.
It was called “Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings.”
“This document presents considerations from the perspective of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) for implementing the shielding approach in humanitarian settings as outlined in guidance documents focused on camps, displaced populations and low-resource settings.
This approach has never been documented and has raised questions and concerns among humanitarian partners who support response activities in these settings. The purpose of this document is to highlight potential implementation challenges of the shielding approach from CDC’s perspective and guide thinking around implementation in the absence of empirical data.
Considerations are based on current evidence known about the transmission and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and may need to be revised as more information becomes available.”
By absence of empirical data, the meaning is: nothing like this has ever been tried. The point of the document was to map out how it could be possible and alert authorities to possible pitfalls to be avoided.
EXCLUSIVE: FEMA Official Ordered Relief Workers To Skip Houses With Trump Signs
Whistleblower: ‘It’s almost unbelievable to think that somebody in the federal government would think that’s okay’
A federal disaster relief official ordered workers to bypass the homes of Donald Trump’s supporters as they surveyed damage caused by Hurricane Milton in Florida, according to internal correspondence obtained by The Daily Wire and confirmed by multiple federal employees.
A FEMA supervisor told workers in a message to “avoid homes advertising Trump” as they canvassed Lake Placid, Florida to identify residents who could qualify for federal aid, internal messages viewed by The Daily Wire reveal. The supervisor, Marn’i Washington, relayed this message both verbally and in a group chat used by the relief team, multiple government employees told The Daily Wire.
The government employees told The Daily Wire that at least 20 homes with Trump signs or flags were skipped from the end of October and into November due to the guidance, meaning they were not given the opportunity to qualify for FEMA assistance. Images shared with The Daily Wire show that houses were skipped over by the workers, who wrote in the government system messages such as: “Trump sign no entry per leadership.”
It is unclear whether the same guidance was issued elsewhere in the country. The employees were part of a Department of Homeland Security surge capacity force team, meaning they volunteered from other DHS agencies to help an understaffed FEMA as it dealt with a second major hurricane in a span of just a few weeks.
Microsoft Teams chat used by FEMA workers.
The employee said it felt wrong to discriminate against Trump supporters when they were at their “most vulnerable.”
“I volunteered to help disaster victims, not discriminate against them,” the employee said. “It didn’t matter if people were black, white, Hispanic, for Trump, for Harris. Everyone deserves the same amount of help.”
The guidance came as the Biden administration was criticized over its sluggish response to Hurricane Helene in rural areas across the country. In Roan Mountain, Tennessee, for example, locals told The Daily Wire it took nearly two weeks for FEMA to show up. The town is located in Carter County, which voted 81% for Trump on Tuesday.
They were only brought to keep him out of office, and they failed.
Word is trickling out that the DOJ will fire Special Counsel Jack Smith and drop both of the federal cases against Trump soon.
MSNBC’s Ken Dilanian said “What’s interesting here is that the DOJ is moving to end them even before he takes office, citing the longstanding DOJ policy that sitting presidents can’t be prosecuted. And there were some thought that maybe special counsel Jack Smith was going to sprint through the finish line, was going to work up until the last day, force Trump to fire him, wait till a new Attorney General was appointed. But that does not appear to be the thinking inside the department. The thinking is that these cases can’t go forward.”
CNN’s Paula Reid said that Smith is in talks with the Biden Justice Dept’s Office of Legal Counsel to figure out how to “wind down” the cases.
FoxNews also reported that Jack Smith is on the way out, and the cases will be dropped soon, and ABC announced the same.
So far, this news only applies to the two federal cases, the classified documents case in Florida and the J6 case in DC. However, former AG Bill Barr has urged all of the state prosecutors to also “respect the people’s decision and dismiss the cases against President Trump now.”
The latest Trump ad airs https://t.co/mo0Bia7R1d
— Alex Thrace (@ThraceAlex) November 4, 2024
Lest anyone forget just exactly how they think of us, our rights and the protections of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that restrict their tyrant dreams
If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government’s ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees. —Bill Clinton
The “Freedom From Fear” Ticket for Tyranny
The Democratic Party is championing presidential candidate Kamala Harris as a born-again champion of freedom. Earlier this year, Democrats shifted their focus from democracy to freedom, convinced that the latter word would enthrall voters on Election Day. Providing “freedom from fear” has become one of their most frequent political promises this past century.
Politicians routinely portray freedom from fear as the apex of freedom, higher than the initial freedoms buttressed by the Bill of Rights. While presidents have defined “freedom from fear” differently, the common thread is that it requires unleashing government agents. Reviewing almost a century of bipartisan scams on freedom from fear provides good cause to doubt the latest geyser of promises.
“Freedom from fear” first entered the American political lexicon thanks to a January 1941 speech by President Franklin Roosevelt. In that State of the Union address, he promised citizens freedom of speech and freedom of worship—two cornerstones of the First Amendment—and added socialist-style “freedom from want” and “freedom from fear.” FDR’s revised freedoms did not include freedom to dissent, since he said the government would need to take care of the “few slackers or trouble makers in our midst.” Nor did FDR’s improved freedoms include the freedom not be rounded up for concentration camps, as FDR ordered for Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor. Three years later, FDR amended his definition of freedom by championing a Universal Conscription Act to entitle government to the forced labor of any citizen.
Richard Nixon, in his acceptance speech at the 1968 Republican National Convention, promised, “We shall re-establish freedom from fear in America so that America can take the lead in re-establishing freedom from fear in the world.” Nixon asserted, “The first civil right of every American is to be free from domestic violence, and that right must be guaranteed in this country.” But with the Nixon scorecard, government violence didn’t count. He perpetuated the war in Vietnam, resulting in another 20,000 American soldiers pointlessly dying. On the homefront, he created the Drug Enforcement Administration and appointed the nation’s first drug czar. The FBI perpetuated its COINTELPRO program, carrying out “a secret war against those citizens it considers threats to the established order,” as a 1976 Senate report noted.
President George H.W. Bush told the National Baptist Convention on September 8, 1989, “Today freedom from fear…means freedom from drugs.” To boost public fear, a DEA informant arranged for a knucklehead to sell crack cocaine to an undercover narc in Lafayette Park across from the White House. Bush invoked the sell a few days later to justify a national crackdown. He informed the American Legion, “Today I want to focus on one of those freedoms: freedom from fear—the fear of war abroad, the fear of drugs and crime at home. To win that freedom, to build a better and safer life, will require the bravery and sacrifice that Americans have shown before and must again.”
Foremost among the sacrifices that Bush demanded was that of traditional liberties. His administration vastly expanded federal power to arbitrarily seize Americans’ property and increased the role of the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement. In a 1992 speech dedicating a new DEA office building, Bush declared, “I am delighted to be here to salute the greatest freedom fighters any nation could have, people who provide freedom from violence and freedom from drugs and freedom from fear.” The DEA’s own crime sprees, corruption, and violence were not permitted to impede Bush’s rhetorical victory lap.
On May 12, 1994, President Bill Clinton declared, “Freedom from violence and freedom from fear are essential to maintaining not only personal freedom but a sense of community in this country.” Clinton banned so-called assault weapons and sought to ban thirty-five million semi-automatic firearms. Gun bans in response to high crime rates mean closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. Citizens would presumedly have nothing to fear after they were forced to abjectly depend on government officials for their own survival. During Clinton’s first term, public housing authorities began mass warrantless searches of apartments to confiscate guns and other banned items. Clinton slammed a federal court ruling blocking the unconstitutional raids. When he visited the Chicago housing projects, Clinton declared, “The most important freedom we have in this country is the freedom from fear. And if people aren’t free from fear, they are not free.” In Clinton’s view, public housing residents had no right to fear the federally-funded housing police storming into their apartments.
In February 1996, Clinton, seeking conservative support for his reelection campaign, endorsed forcing children to wear uniforms at public schools. Clinton justified the fashion dictate: “Every one of us has an obligation to work together, to give our children freedom from fear and the freedom to learn.” But, if mandatory uniforms were the key to ending violence, Postal Service employees would have a lower homicide rate.
Senator Bob Dole, the 1996 Republican presidential nominee, repeatedly promised voters “freedom from fear” via crackdowns on crime. How did Dole intend to provide “freedom from fear”? By proclaiming that “we must…untie the hands of the police.” Dole did not specify exactly how many no-knock raids would be necessary to restore domestic tranquility.
George W. Bush, like his father, alternated promises of “freedom from fear” with shameless fearmongering. Prior to election day 2004, the Bush administration continually issued terror attack warnings based on flimsy or no evidence. The New York Times derided the Bush administration in late October for having “turned the business of keeping Americans informed about the threat of terrorism into a politically scripted series of color-coded scare sessions.” Yet each time a terror alert was issued, the president’s approval rating rose temporarily by roughly three percent, according to a Cornell University study. The Cornell study found a “halo effect”: the more terrorists who wanted to attack America, the better job Bush was supposedly doing. People who saw terrorism as the biggest issue in the 2004 election voted for Bush by a 6-to-1 margin.
The most memorable Bush campaign ad, released a few weeks before the election, opened in a thick forest, with shadows and hazy shots complementing the foreboding music. After vilifying Democratic candidate John Kerry, the ad showed a pack of wolves reclining in a clearing. The voiceover concluded, “And weakness attracts those who are waiting to do America harm” as the wolves began jumping up and running toward the camera. At the end of the ad, the president appeared and announced, “I’m George W. Bush and I approve this message.” One liberal cynic suggested that the ad’s message was that voters would be eaten by wolves if Kerry won. The Bush ad spurred protests by the equivalent of the Lobo Anti-Defamation League. Pat Wendland, the manager of Wolves Offered Life and Friendship, a Colorado wolf refuge, Colorado, complained, “The comparison to terrorists was insulting. We have worked for years, teaching people that Little Red Riding Hood lied.”
Bush’s campaign to terrify voters into granting him four more years to rule America and much of the world did not deter him from announcing a few months later in his State of the Union address, “We will pass along to our children all the freedoms we enjoy, and chief among them is freedom from fear.” This was back when the mainstream media was continuing to hail Bush as a visionary idealist, prior to the collapse of his credibility on the Iraq war, torture, and other debacles.
President Joe Biden milked “freedom from fear” in a Pennsylvania speech earlier this year on what he labeled “the third anniversary of the Insurrection at the United States Capitol.” Biden revealed plans to turn the November election into a referendum on Adolf Hitler, accusing Donald Trump of “echoing the same exact language used in Nazi Germany.” CNN reported that Biden campaign aides planned to go “full Hitler” on Trump. Biden spent half an hour fearmongering and then closed by promising “freedom from fear.” This was the famous Biden two-step—demagoguing to his heart’s content and then closing with a few schmaltzy uplift lines, entitling the media to re-christen him as an idealist.
Biden did not survive the Democrats’ version of the Night of the Long Knives and Vice President Kamala Harris has been designated the party’s presidential flagbearer. Harris painted with an even broader brush than most politicians. At a Juneteenth Concert this summer, she condemned Republicans for “a full-on attack” on “the freedom from fear of bigotry and hate.” Harris implied that politicians could wave a psychological magic wand to banish any bias in perpetuity. How can anyone have “freedom from fear of bigotry” unless politicians become entitled to perpetually control everyone’s thoughts?
In August, the Democratic National Convention whooped up freedom in ways that would qualify as “authentic frontier gibberish,” as the 1974 movie Blazing Saddles would say. A campaign video promised “freedom from control, freedom from extremism and fear.” So Americans won’t have true freedom until politicians forcibly suppress any idea they label as immoderate? The Democratic Party platform warned, “Reproductive freedom, freedom from hate, freedom from fear, the freedom to control our own destinies and more are all on the line in this election.” But the whole point of politics nowadays is to preempt individuals from controlling their own destinies. Regardless, a Time magazine headline hailed “How Kamala Harris Took ‘Freedom’ Back from the GOP.”
“Freedom from fear” is the ultimate political blank check. The more people government frightens, the more legitimate dictatorial policies become. Pledging “freedom from fear” entitles politicians to seize power over anything that frightens anyone. Giving politicians more power based on people’s fears is like giving firemen pay raises based on how many false alarms they report.
Politicians’ promises of “freedom from fear” imply that freedom properly understood is a risk-free, worry-free condition. It is the type of promise that a mother would make to a young child. Freedom is now supposedly something that exists only in the womb of government paternalism. “Freedom from fear” is to be achieved by trusting everything that politicians say and surrendering everything that politicians demand. New Mexico Governor Michelle Grisham epitomized that mindset when she proclaimed at the Democratic National Convention, “We need a president who can be Consoler-in-Chief. We need a president capable of holding us in a great big hug.” And continuing to hold us until we formally become psychological wards of the state?
“Freedom from fear” offers freedom from everything except the government. Anyone who sounds the alarm about excessive government power will automatically be guilty of subverting freedom from fear. Presumably, the fewer inviolable rights the citizen has, the better government will treat him. But as John Locke warned more than 300 years ago, “I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my Liberty, would not when he had me in his Power, take away everything else.”
Why not simply offer voters “freedom from the Constitution”? “Freedom from fear” means security via mass delusions about the nature of political power. Painting the motto “freedom from fear” on shackles won’t make them easier to bear. Perhaps our ruling class should be honest and replace the Bill of Rights with a new motto: “Political buncombe will make you free.”
They want control and regulation to shut down anyone that disagrees with them
— Valentina Gomez (@ValentinaForUSA) October 31, 2024
Giffords’ New York Hypocrisy Shows Their Disdain for Voters
National gun control activists are having a hard time keeping their messaging to the American people straight ahead of the Nov. 5 election. Giffords Courage to Fight Gun Violence is only the latest example and the breathless hyperbole and hypocrisy coming out of their press releases and campaign emails makes it abundantly clear. They are hypocrites.
The presidential election is razor thin as early voting has started across the country and the campaigns are making their closing pitches to undecided voters. Former President Donald Trump made his Second Amendment pitch clear, telling voters in a social media post his stance.
“Gun owners must register to Vote, TODAY, if you want to save your guns. Our Second Amendment is under Siege by the Democrats. They want to confiscate your guns. BE SMART. VOTE!!!,” the former president messaged.
On the flip side of the coin is Vice President Kamala Harris. She supported gun confiscation before she didn’t, including handgun bans in San Francisco and using unconstitutional executive overreach to confiscate Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) before walking that back as well. Now, she admits she owns a handgun that is largely off limits to law-abiding Californians given that state’s strict gun control. But as always, it’s “Gun control for thee, not for me.”
Not to be left out of the hypocritical fun, Giffords has jumped in.
Giffords can’t keep track any more if crime is down or up and whether Americans are allowed to be concerned about their safety. Just one month ago, they joined the chorus in repeating President Joe Biden’s claims that violent crime in America had been greatly reduced because of his gun control agenda.
“President Biden is right: ‘If you’re trying to talk about reducing crime and violence in America, you need to talk about guns in America.’ [President Biden] has taken historic action to keep guns from falling in the wrong hands. Thanks to his leadership, violent crime is down,” the gun control group posted on social media.
As the saying goes – garbage in, garbage out. It turns out gun control groups and the Biden-Harris administration were crowing loudly about data that was severely flawed.
