Did Obama Just Get Trump Off the Hook?

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

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

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

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

More:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

Vivek Ramaswamy suspends presidential campaign, endorses Trump

Vivek Ramaswamy suspended his campaign after a deflating Iowa caucus result on Monday, throwing his weight behind his onetime opponent, former President Donald Trump.

The Ohio biotech entrepreneur, who promised his far-right and anti-establishment policy proposals could unite the country around a shared identity, garnered less than 8% in Iowa’s caucuses.

He trailed far behind Trump, who pulled in more than 51% of the votes, and Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley, who garnered 21% and 19% respectively, with 97% of results reported as of 11:30 p.m. Monday.

“We are going to suspend this presidential campaign,” Ramaswamy said. “There is no path for me to be the next president, absent things that we don’t want to see happen in this country.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missouri: Committee Hearing Public Transit Self-Defense Bill

On Tuesday, the House General Rules Committee will hear House Bill 1708, to ensure law-abiding citizens are not stripped of their Second Amendment rights when utilizing public transit.  Please click here to file witness forms to support HB 1708. 

House Bill 1708 removes the prohibition on carrying firearms for self-defense on public transit property and in public transit vehicles. Additionally, HB 1708 allows an individual to transport an unloaded and/or non-functioning firearm on public transit buses. Criminals routinely ignore the many gun laws on the books and gun free zone designations. By repealing this prohibition, it will ensure that law-abiding citizens are not forced to choose between utilizing public transportation and exercising their Second Amendment Rights.

Belmont Club: The Mystery of 2024?

Joe Biden’s Jan 6 speech raises some interesting problems. What does he really want to achieve by declaring his foes outlaws? Even if he succeeds in jailing, disqualifying or otherwise delegitimizing his 2024 political opponents, the challenge to “our democracy” he posits will not go away for two reasons. First, the crisis facing the status quo does not arise from one man, Donald Trump, but from the failure of the establishment to deliver across a wide range of issues. Second, the discontent of which Trump is a figurehead now includes significant parts of the electorate and has political strongholds in a number of states.

This means the “insurrection” that Biden wants to stop cannot be decapitated by simply jailing one man because it does not arise from one man nor inhere in a single individual. Any realistic preemptive strike against the rebels must be broader in extent than any process the justice and police system has contemplated so far. If Joe wants to use force he will have to brandish a much bigger gun than heretofore with all the danger of escalation that entails.

The one instrument commensurate to the task of forever destroying the challenge represented by Donald Trump is the political process. A clear, resounding electoral defeat in 2024 would consign DJT to the dustbin of history and endorse Joe Biden and his policies. Yet ironically, by doing everything to ensure his opponents cannot run against him, Biden is disabling the one tool that can resolve the challenge democratically and peacefully. If the Democrats win the match next year by default it can only guarantee the insurrection, rather than fading, will continue.

How does one explain the paradox of Biden destroying his one sure means of victory and opting for a course that will probably lead to prolonged and indecisive conflict? The obvious explanation is to observe that is what he always does. He seems to prefer stalemates and chaos over clearcut solution. Why does he frequently do this? The answer is simple. It creates opportunities that would not exist in a clear cut situation. Turning 2024 into neither and yet both a regular election and insurrection would knock a lot of power loose for the grabs and this is perhaps the point.

Recent political developments become less confusing when we relax the assumption that events are ultimately about America. Ambiguity is the enemy of constitutional democracy, but confusion is the friend of operators and dealers. Perhaps the correct paradigm is not to judge events through the prism of national interest but by the criteria of factional gain. Then a third possibility emerges: maybe 2024 is not about “democracy” or “elections” but a political bank robbery in progress.

Someone once observed: never let a crisis go to waste. When the populist insurrection first emerged, the first thought in many minds was not, as they would have you believe: is this good or bad? It was: what’s the opportunity here?

Keep your eye on local government aiming to infringe gun rights in 2024

As 2024 gets underway next week, it will be easy to focus on the national and global stories of the day.

But don’t let all of those big shiny objects distract you from the goings on in your own community. As former House Speaker Tip O’Neil often said, “All politics is local.”

New bodies of city councils, township trustees, and school boards begin in January, and you can bet many of them are not staunch supporters of your gun rights.

You are likely aware of CincinnatiCleveland, and Columbus and their endless attacks on law-abiding gun owners under the guise of curbing gun violence. Cincinnati, for example, recently passed legislation requiring gun owners to report stolen firearms or face fines. Granted, that’s already a state law. But then the city plans to hold those citizens’ guns as ransom, to the tune of $200 if the guns are recovered and returned to an owner who didn’t report the theft.

That action, like many others, is all for show and does nothing to curb violence or address the issues that lead to violence. They hate guns because it’s a popular progressive view, and they want you to know it.

The courts have been inconsistent in recognizing the Ohio Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling that ORC 9.68 — the preemption law — means cities are prohibited from enacting municipal gun laws. But without consequences like personal fines, such as what occurs in Florida, nothing is stopping these municipalities’ leaders from wasting taxpayers’ money on virtue signaling.

Watch small towns and townships, even if they’re Republican-led

Continue reading “”

Don’t let politicians use ‘public health’ to justify more gun control

The Senate Judiciary Committee recently held a hearing titled “The Gun Violence Epidemic: A Public Health Crisis.” Unsurprisingly, the focus of the Democratic-led hearing was how to further restrict the ability of law-abiding residents to protect themselves and their loved ones. This included discussion of constitutionally problematic “red flag” laws, widespread bans on so-called “assault weapons,” mandatory gun storage rules, and universal gun registration — all in the name of protecting “public health.”

We’ve seen this before. Politicians often use the excuse of “public health” to strip away rights protected under the Constitution. We witnessed this during the COVID-19 pandemic when governors and state authorities implemented arbitrary restrictions that prevented children from going to school and forced small businesses to close their doors.

A more recent example regarding the Second Amendment unfolded earlier this year in New Mexico. In September, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM) issued a sweeping “emergency public health order” that banned the concealed carry of firearms in public places in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Bernalillo County. She said the order would stem the rise in violent crime that the community was experiencing despite the fact that these crimes were almost always being committed by criminals with illegally possessed guns. At one point, Lujan Grisham even acknowledged that criminals were unlikely to adhere to the order, but she proceeded to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners anyway and used the guise of “public health” to justify it.

Lujan Grisham’s move was a blatant violation of her constitutional oath and New Mexicans’ Second Amendment rights. So it should come as no surprise that it received immediate backlash from elected officials on both sides of the aisle. Even some pro-gun control activists, such as David Hogg, expressed disagreement with the order.

And yet, anti-gun lawmakers in the Senate are now attempting the same thing. Days after the Senate Judiciary hearing, Sens. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) and Angus King (D-ME) introduced new legislation to implement sweeping gun bans and magazine capacity limits. Shortly after, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) attempted to pass legislation banning so-called “assault weapons” without a floor vote, but it was blocked by Republicans.

The “public health” angle for more gun control should be met with the same ire that COVID-19 lockdowns and Lujan Grisham’s order received. There is simply not a “public health” crisis when it comes to gun ownership. The public is more supportive than ever of gun ownership and believes that it’s critical for self-defense. A recent NBC News poll found more than half of voters either own a gun or live with someone who does. On top of that, more than two-thirds of people support the Supreme Court’s recent Bruen decision that affirmed and expanded the right to carry a concealed firearm in public. The Pew Research Center found that 72% of gun owners said their primary driver for owning a gun was for self-defense.

The real public health crisis is skyrocketing violent crime and weak prosecutors not holding criminals accountable for breaking the numerous gun laws already on the books. Just look at Washington, D.C., which has experienced more than 900 carjackings in 2023 — a more than 100% increase since last year. The district has some of the strictest gun laws on the books, but robberies and murders with firearms are up because soft-on-crime prosecutors are not putting criminals behind bars, not because guns are too accessible for regular citizens to purchase. Punishing law-abiding gun owners for the crisis created by the actions of criminals is not the answer.

The recent Senate hearing should not only cause concern for the millions of responsible gun owners, but it should also drive them to action. There should be no room for additional stringent federal gun laws passed under the guise of protecting “public health.” Instead, our elected leaders must acknowledge the real problem of violent crime and do something to rein in cities and states that refuse to prosecute criminals to the fullest extent of the law.

Pro-Gun Activists Ready To Fight If Schumer Pushes Semi-Auto Ban Measure

The failure by Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) to move legislation banning so-called “assault weapons” via unanimous consent does not mean he has given up, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is vowing to fight such an attempt.

The bill, S. 25, was introduced by the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). An attempt to move it via unanimous consent failed when Republicans objected. But CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb said this is no guarantee the legislation won’t come back as an attachment to another bill, or moved some other way in the Senate, which Democrats control by a thin margin.

“Chuck Schumer has been trying to revive the ten-year ban on semiautomatic rifles since it expired back in 2004,” Gottlieb recalled. “Merely because Sen. Feinstein passed away earlier this year does not mean the Democrat crusade to ban modern rifles and standard-capacity magazines is finished. If anything, it means Schumer and his colleagues will try a different strategy. They might even pitch the proposal as a lasting tribute to Feinstein. After all, Capitol Hill anti-gunners are a determined lot, and they know Joe Biden wants a gun ban feather in his cap heading into the 2024 presidential campaign.

“The Citizens Committee will definitely be on the lookout for any backdoor effort by Schumer and the Democrats,” he continued. “They have tried to get some momentum because of the recent tragedy in Maine, but thankfully there are Republicans in the Senate who still adhere to the Constitution and the Second Amendment, and we’re grateful they blocked Wednesday’s attempt.

“One way grassroots activists can lower the odds of legislative shenanigans is to call the Senate switchboard and leave a message encouraging their state’s two senators to just say ‘no,’ if S. 25 or any other gun control bill or amendment should come up,” Gottlieb suggested.

The Senate switchboard number is (202-224-3121).

Schumer Wanted Headlines, Not a Real Vote on Gun Ban Bill

Continue reading “”

When ‘big tent’ politics gets between a rock and a hard place


Muslim leaders in swing states launch campaign to ditch Biden in 2024.

Muslim leaders from several swing states on Saturday launched a national campaign against the reelection of President Joe Biden over his response to the Israel-Hamas war.

The launch took place in Dearborn, Michigan, and had Muslim leaders from states including Arizona, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Florida, Politico reports.

“We’re looking into finding ways to build a mechanism of coordination between all the swing states so that we’re constantly working together to ensure that Muslim Americans will come out in all of these states, and that Mr. Biden will lose each and every one of them,” said Hassan Abdel Salam, a professor at the University of Minnesota, during the launch.

Their main objection to Biden, according to the outlet, is that he has not sufficiently pressed Israel for a cease-fire in their war against Hamas.

The campaign is titled the #AbandonBiden National Coalition.

“Right behind me, what Mr. Biden should see is 111 electoral votes. And he won last time with 74,” Salam continued.

While the leaders of this movement are not supporting Biden, they made it clear they are not supporting former President Donald Trump either.

“We’re not supporting Trump,” coalition member Jaylani Hussein said. We’re not going to make the same mistake of thinking about President Biden the way we thought. We don’t have two options. We have many options, and we’re going to exercise that.”

Voters Want Age and Term Limits for Elected Officials

At a time when divisive American political rhetoric drives the headlines, and sentiment on elected officials and the direction of the country is bleak, it’s hard to find solutions in which Democrats, independents, and Republicans agree. However, in looking at “age limits” or “term limits” for federally elected officials, it’s clear these are two issues that gain vast amounts of support from across the political spectrum.

In the most recent Bullfinch Group National Survey of 1,200 American adults, respondents were asked if they “support or oppose ‘term limits’ for members of Congress and the U.S. Senate, which would limit the amount of terms an elected official is allowed to serve?” While some may be surprised to see that more than 8 in 10 adults support term limits (81%), what may be more striking is the near identical support shown by self-identified Democrats, independents, and Republicans:

Continue reading “”

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

Propaganda Works

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what is it?

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

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

Continue reading “”