Glenn Beck

I said I would give Pam Bondi a year to prove herself as an Attorney General who would dismantle the Deep State, let Americans see the truth, and finally bring to justice the criminal elites who have been “too big to jail.”

Today, that year is up, and I haven’t seen evidence that she has done ANY of that.

Bondi’s handling of the Epstein case was one of the worst fumbles I have ever seen. But we all remember that.

What about the lack of prosecution against anyone who tried to weaponize the justice system against political opponents like Trump?

Or the failure to prosecute the perpetrators of the Russiagate hoax like Clapper and Comey? That’s not weaponization. We’ve had the EVIDENCE for years that they lied and colluded with the press!

Where are the prosecutions related to the Mar-a-Lago raid? We keep finding out that it was even WORSE than we were told, but NOTHING has happened yet?

Can we get an update on any George Soros investigations? Why has it taken so long to go after him?

Or how about investigating the Clintons for NON-Epstein related scandals: Gazprom? Uranium One? Benghazi? Hillary’s email server? Claims of fraud in Haiti? Anything the Clinton Foundation has touched?!

How about the failure to drain the Swamp of Deep State actors working against the American people and their elected officials?

Or the PROVEN lies from Capitol Police about Jan. 6?
Or the FBI’s lies about the number of agents in the crowd?
Or investigations into possible 2020 election fraud?
Or follow-up on DOGE’s fraud findings?

Sure, the DOJ is looking into the Somali fraudsters. But what about everyone in the banks, state government, and federal offices that HAD TO have known about the fraud?!

What about Biden’s autopen scandal? Who signed off on everything if it wasn’t Biden?

And the Biden administration was FULL of government weaponization worth prosecuting: the COVID lockdowns and vaccine mandates, the unjust FACE Act arrests, everything the Twitter Files exposed. Where is a SINGLE arrest?

And speaking of COVID, what about investigations into AMERICA’S role in creating the virus and covering up its true origins? And dare I mention Fauci?

To be fair, I understand that you can’t just rush to prosecute cases as massive as Epstein, Russiagate and COVID. It takes years if you want to do that right. We’re not looking for show trials. But all I’ve seen so far is hearing after hearing with NO results.

Maybe there’s a reason for that. But – and I believe this alone is enough to FIRE her – Bondi has failed to communicate any of this to the American people. We want results. But even more so, we want the HONEST TRUTH.

Police identify alleged intruder shot, killed by Buckeye homeowner

BUCKEYE, AZ (AZFamily) — Authorities have identified the man who police say was shot and killed while attempting to break into a Buckeye home late Sunday.

In an update on Monday afternoon, police identified the suspect as 27-year-old Michael Diaz.

Just before 9 p.m., police responded to a home on Desert Bloom Street, near Yuma and Watson roads, on reports of shots fired, according to the Buckeye Police Department.

Officers arrived and discovered Diaz had been shot multiple times inside the home. He died at the scene, authorities said.

Details are extremely limited, but Buckeye police confirmed a man is dead after being shot Sunday night.
Detectives say a mother and her two adult children were inside the home when they heard banging on the door.

A woman answered the door, and Diaz reportedly tried to force his way inside. Police say the woman’s son grabbed a handgun and shot the intruder after he broke through the security door and stepped inside.

Police say the family did not know the intruder. No family members were injured during the break-in.

“I feel bad for the family that had to endure this, and I feel bad for someone who didn’t take the responsibility of realizing you don’t go into people’s homes,” said CeCe Lopez.

Lopez and her husband, Enrique, live two doors down from the house where the break-in happened. They say a man wearing a hoodie knocked on their door Friday night.

CeCe said she was on the phone and did not answer. Enrique checked the doorbell camera and saw the man leaving. However, on Sunday night, the man came back and knocked on their door again.

“It was about the same time. Our dogs went crazy again,” said CeCe.

Enrique said he stepped outside, but the man was gone. He then ran to see where he might have gone.

“Then I heard four gunshots,” said Enrique.

They say it could’ve been them who shot the intruder if they had answered their door.

“What do you do? You know what I mean? You’re not just gonna let someone come into your home, and you’re certainly not going to let someone hurt my dogs,” said CeCe.

Howard Snader, a Senior Criminal Attorney for Attorneys for Freedom, said in this case, the homeowner who shot Diaz should be in the clear.

“This incident, as reported, appears to be a stereotypical textbook example of the Castle Doctrine, where you have an absolute right to protect yourself, your family from and intruder in your own residence,” he said.

He said if you’re in fear of being hurt or killed in your home, you can use lethal force. However, if you shoot someone outside of your house, like on the front porch, for example, a self-defense claim will be trickier.

“It gets into a really gray area, and you’re going to look at all the circumstances. So in Arizona, do you have the right to stand your ground? Absolutely. But that comes with risk,” said Snader.

Supreme Court Seems Skeptical Hawaii’s ‘Vampire Rule’ Comports With Second Amendment

A majority of Supreme Court justices appear ready to strike down Hawaii’s “vampire rule” that prohibits lawful concealed carry on all private property unless the property owner expressly gives their consent, though during oral arguments today the three liberal justices seem inclined to uphold the law.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, for instance, repeatedly questioned plaintiffs’ attorney Alan Beck and Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris (who participated in the oral arguments alongside the plaintiffs) about why this case wasn’t simply about property rights, without any Second Amendment implication whatsoever.

When Jackson asked whether this was really a case about property rights, not the Second Amendment, Beck rightfully responded that the law directly implicates their Second Amendment rights, but Jackson argued that while their rights might be “affected,” they’re not necessarily “implicated.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch’s line of questioning pushed back against Jackson’s contention, noting that the courts don’t allow property rights to be defined in a way that infringes on other constitutional rights.

Justice Sonya Sotomayor, meanwhile, appeared ready to completely disregard the Supreme Court’s “text, history, and tradition” test by suggesting that Hawaii’s “culture” of not carrying firearms in public trumps the national tradition of bearing arms in publicly accessible places. Both Beck and the Harris rebuked that suggestion, pointing out that the Court has specifically discussed a national tradition.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh buttressed that argument in his own question to Harris, wondering if the government wasn’t making the issue too complicated by raising questions about pre-textual laws instead of simply looking to see whether Hawaii’s “vampire rule” is part of a “deeply rooted tradition,” which he defined, in part, as laws that were widely adopted among a number of states.

Several conservative justices raised questions about the level of generality that can be used when looking for historical analogues, which indicates that, whatever SCOTUS ultimately decides about Hawaii’s law in question, the opinion will address, to one degree or another, how close any law from the past must be to a current regulation in order to be useful history for judges.

Given the discussion and debate about Hawaii’s use of the 1865 Louisiana law that prohibited bringing guns onto plantations without the plantation owner’s permission (a law that was part of the state’s infamous Black Codes designed to restrict the rights of newly-freed slaves), I’m cautiously optimistic that the Court will not only address the level of generality for historical analogues, but also the relevance of statutes found in history that are unquestionably unconstitutional today.

Justice Jackson argued that those laws must be considered a part of the national tradition, but Harris pushed back on that. In her view, unconstitutional laws are, by their very nature, outliers. And under the Supreme Court’s test, outlier laws are not a part of the national tradition of keeping and bearing arms.

Neal Katyal, arguing for Hawaii, echoed Sotomayor’s contention that local laws and customs matter more than a national tradition of gun ownership, while still arguing that the national tradition of gun ownership includes the ability of states to flip the default rules.

Gorsuch asked Katyal about relying heavily on the “outlier” Black Code law in defending Hawaii’s statute. Katyal called them a shameful part of American history, but argued that the law was presumptively constitutional because Louisiana was re-admitted to the Union with that law still in place. Katyal, however, never really explained why the Louisiana law shouldn’t be considered an outlier.

Katyal also got pushback for asserting that the Bruen test requires looking at history when trying to figure out if the Second Amendment is being implicated, as opposed to looking at history when determining whether a law fits within a national tradition. To do otherwise, he said, would be to put the government in the position of having to defend the history of all laws regarding firearms. Kavanaugh and Barrett both disagreed with Katyal, arguing that’s exactly what the Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence dictates.

Both Beck and Harris did a great job in tearing apart Hawaii’s statute, and while Neal Katyal did his utmost to defend the law I don’t see him getting support from any of the more conservative justices. I predict the Court will drive a stake through the heart of Hawaii’s “vampire rule” when the Wolford opinion is released, though I’m sure anti-gun lawmakers in the Aloha state are already working on their next scheme to infringe on our right to bear arms.

Homeowner shoots intruder during attempted robbery in Redlands, police say

REDLANDS, Calif. (KABC) — A Redlands man was arrested late Thursday after police say he broke into a home, pointed a shotgun at the resident and was then shot by the homeowner.

The Redlands Police Department responded to a report of shots fired shortly before midnight on Jan. 15.

The homeowner arrived home and found the intruder inside. He armed himself with a handgun before confronting the intruder, who pointed a shotgun at the homeowner, according to police.

That’s when the homeowner shot the intruder and immediately exited the home to call police, officials said.

When officers arrived, they cleared the home and followed a blood trail that led to the back yard where they found the intruder suffering from a gunshot wound.

Police said the suspect, identified as 52-year-old Daniel Torres Carrion, had property from the home on his person. They also recovered the shotgun, which Torres had found inside the residence.

Torres was arrested on suspicion of attempted robbery, burglary and assault with a deadly weapon and transported to a hospital with non-life-threatening injuries.

He was later discharged from the hospital and booked at West Valley Detention Center where he is being held in lieu of $300,000 bail.

Anyone with information is asked to contact Redlands Police Dispatch at (909) 798-7681 ext. 1.

Dems Hate ‘America First’ Because They Have Nothing to Offer Law-Abiding Americans.

A decade ago, when my daughter was a senior in high school, she told me that they’d been assigned a couple of dystopian novels in a literature class. I chuckled and said, “You don’t need to read about a dystopian future; you’re living in one.” Yes, I was joking at the time. We lived in Southern California, however, so I wasn’t far off. As I have written many times, I get nervous about the kinds of snarky, offhand comments that are natural for a comedian to make because the left might make anything weird come true these days. Things that used to be outlandish jokes can now read like a suggestion list for whacked out leftists.

I have been away from Southern California for almost eight years now, and things have definitely lurched towards the dystopian there. Unfortunately, most deep blue urban areas see Los Angeles as a blueprint for the future rather than a cautionary tale.

Five days a week, as I wander through the digital insane asylums known as the Opinion sections of The New York Times and The Washington Post, I am confronted with a stark vision of the “Two Americas” idea. We could quibble and say it’s really three or four Americas once we factor in the variety of opinion on the right, but the Dems are always “them” in my “Us vs Them” scenarios.

A frequent recurring Trump Derangement Syndrome theme in the left media is that President Trump’s vision for America is “dark.” It’s something they’ve repeated like parrots since his first term. The guy could spend an afternoon dishing out scoops of ice cream to delighted children at a birthday party and the mainstream media hacks would find a way to infer nefarious motives.

It is imperative that we bring up projection in almost every conversation about the Democrats, because it’s the lifeblood of 21st century lefties. The majority of what they accuse us of is something that they embody (fascism) or are actively engaged in (shutting down free speech). TDS sufferers who were once Republican love to assert that “both sides do it,” but that’s a truckload of hooey.

The Democrats are the ones who have a dark vision for America, and that’s largely because they don’t want to have a lot of Americans involved in that future; not in any meaningful capacity, anyway. They are most definitely hostile towards Americans who obey the law, respect law enforcement, and don’t mind waving a flag or two.

Far from having a “dark” vision for America, President Trump is one of the most upbeat presidents in my lifetime regarding the United States, its place in history, and its potential. On Monday’s episode of “Five O’Clock Somewhere” I told my co-host and partner in thought crime Stephen Green that Trump is the most patriotically positive president since Ronald Reagan.

Trump’s view of the Democrats is rather dark, but with very good reason. Their hopes and dreams for the Republic tend to revolve around its destruction. It is nigh on impossible to look across the aisle these days and see anything helpful to the cause of freedom going on. Again, freedom for law-abiding patriots. They’re big on granting freedom to violent illegal alien criminals and letting them repeat their crimes.

The disturbing reality when it comes to the Democratic Party is that Dem elites truly do believe that enthusiastic patriotism is dark and scary. Enjoying a hotdog on the 4th of July or going to church are gateways to domestic terrorism in their mentally unwell worldview. They’ve clung to the unhinged ’60s radicals’ belief that the United States of America is a racist imperial oppressor. Because they’re awash in disconnect, they never acknowledge that the oppressors continue to allow them to complain about their own government.

I continue to refer to the mental instability of the Democrats not because I’m mean, but because the people running the party truly are insane. They champion criminals and incite violence against law enforcement officers because they see it as a way to “get Trump.” I don’t believe that all Democrats are on board with the never-ending nervous breakdown, and that’s why Trump won so handily in 2024. At some point, however, flyover country Dems are going to have to break with the party en masse or else the country may be put on a perilously destructive path from which it will never return.

For most of their history, the Democrats have been very adept at veiling their darker motives and behaviors. That enabled them to head-fake a lot of voters in election years. It was all part of the normal cyclical nature of American politics. We can’t let that happen now. I pray that the “normal” Democrats in real America see clearly what the Jasmine Crockett/Eric Swalwell types are up to and won’t be fooled by phony election year niceties.

Once more, with feeling: the country cannot afford to go where the current crop of Democratic leaders want us to go.

That would be a truly dark future, indeed.

Cows may have been intentionally concealing their intelligence.
Farmers beware.

Answer O’ The Day ™

Our Constitution is our rule of law, and the first 10 amendments of that venerable document contain our Bill of Rights. Those First Amendment rights, such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom to assemble, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievance, do not come with any requirement to obtain a permit.
– Allen West

Anti-Gunner Hacks Use Martin Luther King Jr. to Push for Gun Control, but There’s a Problem

While America is honoring the life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., some on the left are using his birthday to push for stripping Americans of their Second Amendment rights.

Giffords, one of the nation’s leading anti-gunner organizations, wrote a post on X in which it noted that King “dreamed of a world rooted in justice and peace,” but his “life was cut short by gun violence.”

The organization is honoring King “by continuing the fight for safer communities for all.”

The Stop Gun Violence PAC noted that King “taught us that every person has the right to live free from fear,” but “gun violence steals that freedom from our families every day.”

Here’s something the anti-gunners won’t tell you about King. He applied for a concealed carry permit in 1956 after his home in Montgomery, Alabama, was firebombed.

Back then, the police were responsible for determining who would be allowed to have a permit. They denied his application as they had with most other Black applicants.

King wished to carry a firearm to protect himself and his family against the KKK and others. Yet, the sheriff deemed him “unsuitable.”

The civil rights leader was known for his nonviolent approach to fighting for equality. Yet, most don’t know that he still approved of the use of firearms for self-defense in one’s home.

Continue reading “”