Category: Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our Bob Hoge reported on it at the time:

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

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

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

KJP: No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presidential candidates discuss their ideas on protecting children from gun violence

MANCHESTER, N.H. —
As school gets back into session across New Hampshire and the country, the possibility of a mass shooting is once again on the minds of parents, students and staff.

Many want to know what ideas politicians have to stop another massacre. During WMUR’s “Conversation with the Candidate” series, several presidential candidates shared their ideas about how to keep children safe from gun violence.

“I am not going to take people’s guns away,” said Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “I believe in gun control myself. But you know, anybody who tells you that we can end the violence to our children that’s going on now by removing people’s guns at the margin that has been left to us by this very expansive Supreme Court decision is not being truthful with you.”

He said more security may be needed at schools.

“My policy is going to be to figure out ways to protect these children,” Kennedy said. “We cannot have any more school shootings. Even if that means protecting schools the same way we protect the airlines – you don’t get shootings on airlines anymore. If we have to do that, we have to protect our children.”

Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy said he also would not be in favor of taking anyone’s guns.

“So, it is true that I am also personally an unapologetic defender of the Second Amendment, because I do think that’s what protects all of our other freedoms,” he said. “Iran, China, other countries, they actually claim to offer the same freedoms we do in our Bill of Rights. The only thing they don’t have is a Second Amendment. So I think that’s fundamental.

“However, I don’t think we can tolerate in this country another, for example, mass school shooting. I have two kids. They’re about to be of school age. I think it’s unconscionable for us to see another school shooting in this country. The way I want to stop that is by putting three armed security guards in every school across this country.”

Candidates also acknowledged the relationship between mental health and gun violence, talking about background checks as preventative measures.

“Well, you pointed out that it could be mental health. That is a challenge,” said Republican presidential candidate Asa Hutchinson. “And if they are adjudicated as being mentally incompetent, then they shouldn’t have access to firearms. That needs to be put in the system. And so, a lot of it is making sure our databases that do the check before a sale of a firearm have accurate information in there.”

BLUF
If you want people to believe that the government is going to attempt to ignore the Constitution, seize their weapons, and forcibly subjugate them, you do exactly what Michelle Lujan Grisham chose to do here. You ignore the U.S. and state constitutions, you ignore your state legislature, you ignore the need to build consensus before you make a dramatic change in the law, and you accuse law-enforcement officials who object to the change, citing the Constitution, of being “squeamish.”

Gun Order and New Mexico: Michelle Lujan Grisham Breaks Badly.

On the menu today: New Mexico governor Michelle Lujan Grisham declares war on her own state’s constitution and mocks her state’s police for being “squeamish,” and a new book reveals how much the U.S. government and its contractors deliberately hindered the Afghan military’s ability to protect itself as the Taliban approached Kabul in the spring and summer of 2021.

Gun Order Backfires

Let us begin by being clear: The governor of a state does not have the right to unilaterally suspend laws or portions of the state or U.S. constitutions by an emergency declaration, absent an actual indisputable emergency and justification that will hold up under judicial review. The National Conference of State Legislatures summarizes:

In times of war, disease or other extraordinary conditions, each state authorizes its governor to declare a state of emergency. Once an emergency has been declared, executive powers expand until the emergency ends. These powers include authority normally reserved for legislatures, such as the ability to suspend existing statutes or effectively create new laws — albeit temporarily and only as needed to respond to the emergency situation.

Although governors need to be able to respond to emergencies quickly, legislatures have an important role in making sure these powers are not abused and that they do not undermine the separation of powers vital to our democratic system of government.

What is at stake in these circumstances is nothing less than whether the U.S. remains a country with a government “of the people, by the people, for the people,” as Abraham Lincoln described in the Gettysburg Address.

Continue reading “”

Does Grisham have an end game with her gun ban order?

The Albuquerque police chief says he won’t enforce it. The Bernalillo County sheriff says the same thing. Even the District Attorney in Albuquerque says he won’t enforce Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s order suspending open and concealed carry in the city for 30 days, calling it “clearly unconstitutional“. With gun owners rallying in Old Town Albuquerque over the weekend, many of them openly carrying firearms in defiance of Grisham’s order, gun control activists divided over her announcement, and the governor herself unclear about what enforcement might look like, I can’t help but wonder if she has an actual end game in mind or if she’s just making it up as she goes along.

Armed American Radio’s Mark Walters joins me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co to kick around Grisham’s order suspending the right to carry in Albuquerque for the next 30 days, and we’re both in agreement that gun owners in Albuquerque should be disregarding the governor’s edict. I won’t even call continuing to carry an act of civil disobedience, because Grisham has no lawful authority to suspend the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms simply by declaring a public safety emergency. Gun owners who continue to carry, either openly or concealed, are simply continuing to exercise their Second Amendment rights as they always have, and the multiple legal challenges that have been filed in response to Grisham’s declaration should soon make that abundantly clear to the governor and any state official willing to try to enforce it.

The biggest question isn’t whether or not Grisham’s order will stand up to legal scrutiny, but why she made the ill-fated decision to unilaterally suspend the Second Amendment right to bear arms inside Albuquerque city limits in the first place. Grisham’s move doesn’t appear to have been coordinated with any major gun control organizations, and it appeared to blindside local Democrats and public officials, including Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller and police chief Harold Medina, as well as Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen.

Political consultant Joe Monahan says the governor’s “grand but ultimately feckless gesture” is a sign that New Mexico Democrats are at odds with each other when it comes to addressing the high violent crime rate in the state’s largest city.

Continue reading “”

1. While we already have preemption by state law, having it in the state constitution would make it extremely difficult to remove in the future.
2. Always some sort of poison pill. As stated in the article, the legislature voted down a proposed age restriction. It’s like it’s a feature, not a bug. I know the purported reason behind this: Young criminals in Kansas City & St Lousy, but I can see it turning people off of voting for it, almost like  Mr Berry knows that would likely kill it, but as an act of Kabuki Theater, he could stake a pro-gun claim for political street cred.

Amendment Would Ban Local Gun Laws, Limit Minor’s Access To Guns

COLUMBIA, Mo. (AP) — The Democratic stronghold of St. Louis and other cities in the Republican-leaning state of Missouri would be blocked from cracking down on guns under a newly proposed constitutional amendment.

A petition for a November 2024 vote on the proposal, filed this week, also would require parents’ permission for minors to use and carry firearms. Missouri currently has no age restrictions on gun use and possession, although federal law largely prohibits minors from carrying handguns.

The proposed measure makes exceptions to the parental permission rule in case of emergencies and for members of the military. Each branch of the military requires that people be at least 17 years old in order to enlist.

Paul Berry, a suburban St. Louis Republican, filed the proposal with the secretary of state’s office in response to efforts by the city to sidestep the state Legislature and impose restrictions on gun use.

“Constitutional rights should apply to all individuals of the state or the country equally, regardless of your zip code or your financial status or the style of community that you live in,” Berry said.

St. Louis is annually among the cities with the nation’s highest homicide rates. City leaders have been trying for years to persuade Missouri’s Republican-led Legislature to enact stricter gun laws, but without success. The state has among the most lenient gun laws in the nation.

In February, the Missouri House voted down a bipartisan proposal that would have put limits on when and where minors may carry guns. St. Louis officials renewed calls for action after one teenager was killed and 10 others were hurt at a downtown party that devolved into a shootout on June 18. Survivors ranged from ages 15 to 19.

While Missouri lawmakers passed a law in 2014 preventing cities and counties from enacting any gun policies, another constitutional amendment filed by St. Louis advocates would work around that law by enshrining in the constitution local governments’ right to adopt their own gun rules.

Berry is challenging those proposals in court.

He needs to gather signatures from 8% of voters in six of the state’s eight congressional districts to get the proposals on the ballot in 2024.

Berry, a 45-year-old businessman, also on Friday announced he is running for lieutenant governor in 2024 in a GOP primary that includes state Sen. Holly Thompson Rehder.

Berry previously lost several bids for St. Louis County executive and the state Legislature. He failed to unseat Republican U.S. Rep. Ann Wagner in 2022.

The crimes that are ‘felonious’ has been so broadly expanded that it’s almost like it’s a plan, a feature, not a bug, to disarm as many people as possible. Also, it’s only been an actual federal prohibition since 1968.

Ramaswamy: Former felons should be allowed to carry guns
The GOP presidential candidate fleshes out what it means to be a “Second Amendment absolutist” on a podcast.

Vivek Ramaswamy says convicted felons should be allowed to carry weapons.

Appearing on former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s podcast, set to air on Thursday, the Republican presidential candidate was asked to flesh out what it meant to be a “Second Amendment absolutist,” as Ramaswamy has labeled himself.

“Everyone has a gun?” asked Cuomo, once a prominent figure in Democratic Party politics. “Everyone has an assault weapon? A former felon? No background check? Concealed carry?”

“Has the right to,” Ramaswamy responded. “And I do think concealed carry is important, constitutional carry is important.”

He said background checks are “absolutely a legitimate part of the process” but that “law-abiding” gun ownership “deters many violent criminals from being able to roam the streets with guns as they do today.”

Ramaswamy emphasized high crime in cities and inadequate mental health resources while calling for more support for police officers. The discussion of guns was part of a wide-ranging conversation on Cuomo’s “As A Matter Of Fact” podcast.

Ramaswamy, as he has before, endorsed the idea of re-institutionalizing people deemed dangerous and brushed aside Cuomo’s description of a mass school shooting, saying, “That case that you described is not a real case that presents itself very often, compared to real-life violence between a lot of violent criminals in cities who are breaking a lot of other laws.”

Cuomo — who resigned from office amid sexual abuse allegations he has denied — said after recording the podcast: “The Republican candidates all insist on trying to appeal to the ultra conservatives within their own party and take positions that alienate a majority of Americans. Deporting millions of immigrant families who have been here for years peacefully and successfully and arming felons with guns, everyone carrying a concealed weapon, returning to the Wild West, etc. It’s all absurd.”

McConnell can resign without leaving the Senate.

Senator Mitch McConnell appeared to have another elderly moment in Kentucky following an event today, where a question about whether he would run for re-election in 2026 left him silent as the cameras tracked the awkward scene.

It is obviously not the first time that this has happened for McConnell — and the eighty-one-year-old deserves the grace that we would grant to anyone struggling with the inevitability of age. But this is also a moment that presents a challenge for the Republican Party, an effort that is larger than just one man (despite what diehard fans of Donald Trump would sometimes have you believe), and one that Senate Minority Leader McConnell will have to consider in the coming days.

The simple fact is this: in his lucid moments, which is the case more often than not according to multiple Senate staffers, McConnell is just a slower version of his younger self. Speaking off the cuff to the Northern Kentucky Chamber of Commerce minutes before the media gaggle, McConnell seemed fine. But the attention he receives as the Senate’s leader of the GOP is far more than your average senator. In the context of 2024, his prominence causes problems for other Republicans forced to defend his status even as they assail Joe Biden as too aged and decrepit to lead the nation.

It is an open secret who wants McConnell’s job should he decide to step down, and the three Johns — Cornyn, Thune and Barrasso —  have previously engaged in the kind of outreach that indicates their intention to replace him. But none of them are so gauche as to try to unseat him directly. The decision is left up to McConnell himself, out of deference to his tenure as leader.

There is also a feeling in some anti-McConnell corners, including outside activists, that they prefer him in this weakened mode, where he is less of a force in determining the direction of the party. They would prefer to see the House and the more conservative Kevin McCarthy take the lead in setting the direction for Republicans, as he has.

Many Republicans point out that McConnell needs to stay in his seat to prevent Kentucky’s Democratic governor Andy Beshear, currently being challenged by McConnell ally Daniel Cameron, from naming a replacement. But that is a reason for McConnell to stay in the Senate, not one that requires him to stay on as its minority leader. 

The truth is that McConnell is not so dramatically reduced in his capacity that he needs to step down as a senator. He shows far greater capacity than current Senate Democrats Dianne Feinstein or John Fetterman, nor does he have the health struggles of the likes of Thad Cochran or Johnny Isakson in their final years. But continuing on as minority leader headed into a critical election year is a different question entirely. Stepping down from one role doesn’t necessitate stepping down from the job entirely — Nancy Pelosi is still around here somewhere, keeping things running on time.

Republicans should consider what picture they want to offer the country in 2024. If they truly want to depict the Democratic Party as behind the times, a whisper-thin ghost of the past, in contrast to a party focused on the future, with a rising generation of new leaders and an expanding and more diverse base of working- and middle-class voters, they can help their cause a great deal by moving on with leadership where press conferences aren’t a tightrope walk. When it comes to knowing when it’s time, everyone on Team McConnell is going to defer to the boss. But it really is time for someone new.

And even so with these multiple cuts, he slurring words together like he’s doped up (which is likely) and they included captions, just to make sure he could be understood. They believe we’re so stupid we’ll believe this BS.

 

Biden campaign co-chair uses gun control to deflect

In the past, we’ve seen a couple of politicians get themselves out of some hot water by declaring an intention to focus on pushing gun control.

They make the announcement and the controversy around them seems to evaporate almost overnight.

That doesn’t work so much for President Joe Biden.

After all, this isn’t exactly a new push from him.

However, that isn’t going to stop his campaign co-chair from trying to use the tactic to deflect questions about his age.

President Biden‘s 2024 campaign co-chair CedricRichmond pivoted to talk about gun control when asked Sunday about the 80-year-old president’s age presenting challenges at the ballot box.

“While they continue to talk about age, we’ll continue to talk about the fact that they’re not talking about banning assault weapons, while they’re banning books but they’re not protecting our children in schools,” Mr. Richmond said on ABC’s “This Week.” “The fact that none of them raised their hand to talk about climate as a real issue when we see fires in Maui, we see hurricanes hitting California, we see the destruction of wildfires. But they’re not talking about that.”

So, as you can see, it’s not just gun control that Richmond tried to invoke to stave off criticism that Biden might just be too old to do the job.

Of course, the truth of the matter is that so-called assault weapons is something very different than the president’s age.

A new assault weapon ban isn’t really going to happen, in part because enough people understand that the issue with mass shootings isn’t because of AR-15s but with people who seem to think killing people wholesale sounds like a swell time.

In contrast, the books being “banned,” in many cases actually aren’t being banned, they’re simply being removed from curriculums or, if they are being removed, there’s a good reason. I’ve seen pages from a couple of notable examples that were pretty sexually explicit, after all.

Meanwhile, we have a president who can barely piece together two coherent sentences as a general rule, who seemingly falls asleep during important events, and who can’t seem to remember that his one son died of cancer rather than being killed in Iraq.

Granted, that last may just be a case of lying, but I’m not sure that makes anything better.

Bringing up his age is certainly valid, and even 69 percent of Democrats think he’s too old.

So why try to pivot to gun control? Because, frankly, that’s all the Biden campaign has at this point. They need to deflect from the very real concern over Biden’s mental faculties. When more than two-thirds of his own party think he’s too old to do the job, there’s a huge problem and they know it.

But they’re hoping the media will focus on the gun control angle instead because it worked with former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam and his blackface controversy and with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his brownface controversy.

Both declared they would push for gun control and all was forgiven.

With Biden, though, there’s no reason to think he can step up any anti-gun efforts, that he could get them through Congress even if he did, or that with his age being what it is, he’d remember anyway.

That doesn’t mean the media won’t try, but they won’t make those concerns disappear by pretending they don’t exist.

‘Joe The Plumber,’ who rose to fame after confronting Obama on 2008 campaign trail, dead at 49.

Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, who rose to national fame as “Joe the Plumber” after confronting Barack Obama on the 2008 campaign trail, died Sunday, his family confirmed.

Wurzelbacher, 49, died after being diagnosed with an aggressive form of pancreatic cancer in July, his wife, Katie Wurzelbacher told Fox News.

“Our hearts are broken. We lost a beloved husband, father, son, brother and friend. He made an impact on so many lives,” the widow wrote in a statement.

“When I met Joe he was already known by everyone else as ‘Joe the Plumber’ but he wrote something to me that stood out and showed me who he truly was: ‘just Joe,’” she said. “He was an average, honorable man trying to do great things for the country he loved so deeply after being thrust into the public eye for asking a question.”

Wurzelbacher became a symbol of the average Joe when the plumber challenged Obama at a campaign event in Toledo, Ohio, accusing the presidential candidate’s tax plan of going against the American Dream.

Continue reading “”

Well, guns in the hands of the uncontrolled populace scare the pants off all politicians. Mao’s axiom being correct; ‘Political Power grows from the barrel of a gun.’

What to Make of GOP Presidential Candidates’ Silence on Guns

Amidst a wide-ranging and, at times, quarrelsome debate between the Republican presidential hopefuls on Wednesday, the eight candidates on the stage broached several topics important to Republican primary voters, from abortion to immigration. However, gun policy and the Second Amendment were notably absent.

The omission of a central tenet of Republican politics is curious for a number of reasons, not least of which is that the candidates were directly asked about the topic in the regular course of the debate.

Continue reading “”

John Fetterman’s Wife Lays Out The Future Liberals Want — And It’s The Worst Thing You’ve Ever Seen

Liberals only want one thing … and it’s disgusting.

Alright, well technically it’s three things — but they all fall under the same umbrella of the broader liberal world view.

In her analysis of the GOP debate Thursday evening, Laura Ingraham made a tongue in cheek comparison of Republican and Democrat campaign platforms. “Okay, here’s what the Democrats’ platform is,” she quipped, “pot, porn, Planned Parenthood.”

Liberals in the corporate media and online mocked the comments as orchestrated conservative hysteria making mountains out of a mole hill. They used the typical gas-lighting ploy of “it’s not happening, but it’s good that it is.”

Gisele Fetterman — the activist wife of Sen. John Fetterman who wheeled him across the finish line in Pennsylvania — gave away the game when she responded to the comment, apparently without a hint of irony, to say she’s in.

Of course, liberals love all three things. They are all natural out-growths of the New Left movement of the 1960s. The student hippies who steeped in “free love” and psychedelic drugs grew up to become tenured professors, legal activists, bureaucrats, and government officials — the counterculture of yesterday is now the dominant culture in America.

Liberals today are ideologically obligated to reject the possibility of any downsides to rampant drug use or hyper-sexualization. To reject pot, porn, or Planned Parenthood is to reject individual liberation — the ultimate goal of the modern liberal project.

Any law, norm, or tradition that kept you from pursuing your desires was bad. The powerful used the rules of society to keep the masses in line, while they exploited them at every turn.

The New Left said society must be re-made to help people realize their authentic selves. Narcissistic self-fulfillment was recast as a revolutionary act against an unjust system. Pursuing your desires became the highest — the only — moral good.

If you’re thinking like a liberal, smoking a joint isn’t just like having a beer after work. It’s a way to open your mind — to free your creativity and think about things in new ways. It’s liberating in a way that goes far beyond just being against the government having a say in what you ingest.

The New Left thought pot would liberate the masses from the slog of bourgeois life. Today’s left is banking on the opposite. They know pot makes you fat, lazy, and stupid — and hope that if they give you more of it you won’t notice or care as they destroy the country around you. But still, support would crater if they said this out loud, so they stick to the moral posturing.

The same goes with porn and Planned Parenthood. Sexual rules were designed by straight, white men to keep women under control — how many times have you heard this from a girl with purple hair?

Liberals defend porn as a way for women to reclaim a position of power in the patriarchy. Sure, a handful of women get rich and famous as porn stars, but countless more are trafficked, exploited, and abused. As a generation of young men grows up incapable of understanding sex outside of porn, it’s hard to argue that women are better off.

But in the liberal world view, this harm gets overlooked in the name of liberation. Do any disgusting thing you want for the world to see. If you enjoy it (and consent) no one has any right to stop you. All sexual acts become morally equal when there’s no universal standard to judge them against.

If porn frees women from oppressive norms, abortion frees them from biology itself. The modern woman shouldn’t be constrained by the natural functions of her body. If being a mother stops you from pursuing your desires — being a Girl Boss, drinking on a Tuesday night, or just sleeping around more — then drive on down to your local Planned Parenthood. The obligation to that clump of cells comes second to the obligation to yourself.

But like pot, this now serves to enslave more than liberate.

The cult of abortion worship has convinced millions of women that the best thing they can do is trade marriage and children in for a corner office and some cats. Porn normalizes hook-up culture and promotes sexual dysfunction in men and women. It’s hard to settle down when you’re never satisfied. You become a compliant cog in the liberal machine.

When you have a spouse and children, you think about the future of the country because you have a stake in it. When you’re just worried about your job or your date on Friday, you lose sight of what really matters.

Karl Marx wrote that religion is the opium of the masses. For today’s liberals, it’s just pot, porn, and Planned Parenthood.

FIRST GOP DEBATE SHINES LIGHT ON WHY AMERICANS VALUE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS

Eight Republican presidential candidates were under the bright lights in Milwaukee, Wis., last night as the 2024 election officially kicked off with the first televised debate of the campaign.

Fox News hosted the debate and candidates who qualified for the stage included North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, South Carolina U.S. Sen. Tim Scott, former Gov. and Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley, former Vice President Mike Pence, entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. Former President Donald Trump sat out the debate and instead sat for a Tucker Carlson interview posted to X, formerly known as Twitter.

Only one question in the two-hour debate focused on crime and how criminals are held accountable for their crimes, or in many big cities – not held accountable. The candidate responses highlighted reasons why Americans are continuing to buy firearms at historic levels, including more than 8 million first-time buyers just in the last couple of years. As Americans cite self-defense as a top reason for buying a firearm, 1 million or more National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) verifications have been processed for 48 straight months.

Continue reading “”

At this point in our national politics, it’s believable.

Gingrich Makes Bombshell Allegation About Latest Trump Indictment.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich revealed on Thursday that a reliable source told him that a request was made from Washington, D.C., to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis that she had to bring charges against former President Donald Trump because they needed a distraction from the “screw up” with recently appointed Special Counsel David Weiss.

“I am told—this is hearsay—but I am told by a reliable source, that Friday evening, somebody from Washington called the district attorney in Atlanta and said, ‘You have to indict on Monday. We have to cover up all of the mistakes we just made with Weiss,’” Gingrich told Charlie Kirk in an interview. “And she said, apparently, ‘My jurors aren’t coming back till Tuesday,’ and they said, ‘You didn’t hear me. You have to indict on Monday,’ And she said, ‘Well, they’re not gonna get here before noon.’ They said, ‘That doesn’t matter.’ She says, ‘This means it’s going to be eight or nine or 10 o’clock at night.’ They said, ‘It doesn’t matter.”

“Who made that phone call?” asked Kirk.

“We don’t know,” Gingrich said. “And that’s why I’m telling you upfront, this is hearsay, but it’s from a person who has remarkably good sources.”

“I totally believe it, though,” Kirk replied. “Because that would explain why they leaked and they messed up on the clerk document. Why she was exhausted and why they had the 11 pm press conference.”

DA Willis held a late-night press conference to announce that a grand jury had indicted former President Donald Trump and 18 associates on multiple charges, including violating the Georgia RICO Act, solicitation of oath violation, and various conspiracy and false statement offenses. The charges had been suspiciously leaked online before the grand jury’s decision.

While Gingrich was adamant in pointing out the story is merely hearsay, it not only fits with the circumstances surrounding the indictment, but with the past indictments as well. As we’ve previously reported here at PJ Media, each of Trump’s prior federal indictments immediately followed bad news days for Joe Biden.

This even raises the question as to whether Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s indictment of Trump was ordered by Washington for similar reasons. On the same day that Trump was indicted in April, Kathy Chung, a former aide to Biden, testified before the House Oversight Committee, contradicting the White House’s account of Biden’s handling of classified documents. Chung testified that the documents Biden kept were not stored in a secured closet at the Penn Biden Center.

It may be hearsay, but everything fits.

Tennessee GOP committee warns governor on special session

If Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee was hoping to bring his fellow Republicans around on the idea of a special session to pass his version of a “red flag” law and other gun-related legislation before officially calling the session into being, his hopes were dashed this weekend when the state’s Republican Party Executive Committee adopted a resolution instead asking the governor to drop his plans altogether.

According to the Chattanooga Free Press, the resolution’s language was suggested by committee member Tina Bensiker, who says she’s concerned that many of the ideas that have been floated would violate the rights of Tennessee residents, while failing to take a bite out of violent crime.

“I feel at this point a lot of this is really emotion as opposed to rational and reasoned,” Benkiser added. “My concern, and a lot of others’ concerns, is that some of the proposals we’ve heard really violate due process of law. And that is a fundamental concern. And when you start talking about potentially infringing on people’s constitutional rights, that needs to be thought out over a long period of time with people who have thought, debated, looked at the language and fleshed all that out. Not something to be rushed through.”

Benkiser said she hopes Lee will take heed of the GOP action.

“I understand that people sometimes act out of emotion when something horrendous has happened, as happened here in Nashville, but really to friends of his. I understand that, and I think the natural reaction is to want to do something and to want to do something now. But like I said, when you’re talking about constitutional rights, at the end of the day, you need to take the time to think that out.”

Other committee members are concerned that the statehouse could turn into a circus once the special session gets underway, pointing to the protests on the floor of the state House earlier this year that resulted in the expulsion of two Democratic lawmakers. Those legislators recently won special elections in their heavily Democratic districts and are vowing to introduce a host of gun control measures during the special session, and some on the GOP Executive Committee believe the special session would once again inflame tensions and create a flashpoint for anti-gun activists to rally around.

Continue reading “”

Alan Dershowitz Issues Warning: “Looks Like Banana Republic Land”

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said Friday the prosecution of former President Donald Trump “looks like banana republic land” following a NYT report that claimed President Joe Biden pressed for Trump’s indictment.

Alan said: “President Biden urged his attorney general to indict the man who he knew was going to be the leading opponent if against him.

“That begins to look like banana republic land. That’s what happens when people in power are afraid of the democratic process.

“What they do is they seek the indictment and prosecution of the people who are running against them.

“I have a constitutional right to vote against Donald Trump for the third time.

“I voted against him twice, I intend to vote against him again, but I want to have that right to vote against him and not have that right taken away from me by prosecutors and by the president, who wants to see him imprisoned.

“That’s just not the American way.

“This is a step in that direction(banana republic), and also placing the case in the District of Columbia, which is 95% anti-Trump, putting it in front of a judge with a history of anti-Trump.

“If the government thinks they have a strong case, they ought to join the defense and agree to move it to West Virginia or Virginia and put it in front of another judge who doesn’t have a long history of anti-Trump attitudes.

“So, I don’t believe he can get a fair trial in the District of Columbia.”

Everybody Keeps Indicting Trump, Without Regard for Consequences.

Having already said what I had to say about the most recent indictment of the former president (“Banana Republic, U.S.A.”), I thought perhaps readers might want to know what liberals are saying about it.

Trump’s surreal arraignment day in Washington augurs ominous days ahead

That’s the headline on an “analysis” by CNN reporter Stephen Collinson, and this might be the first time I’ve ever the verb “augur” used in a headline. “Portend,” maybe, but “augur”? No, can’t recall ever seeing that one, and it might help to know that Collinson is not American. He’s from England, where I suppose schoolboys at posh academies are taught to use references to the ancient Roman practice of augury, but I digress . . .

As former President Donald Trump left Washington after answering charges of trying to subvert democracy, it felt like all the previous trauma and divisions of his eight-year journey into the nation’s psyche were just the start.

America now faces the prospect of an ex-president repeatedly going on trial in an election year in which he’s the Republican front-runner and is promising a new White House term of retribution. He is responding with the same kind of extreme rhetoric that injected fury into his political base and erupted into violence after the last election. Ominous and tense days may be ahead.

Trump spent the afternoon at a federal courthouse within sight of the US Capitol that was ransacked by his supporters on January 6, 2021. He pleaded not guilty in the gravest of the three cases in which he has so far been indicted – on four charges arising from an alleged attempt to halt the “collecting, counting and certifying” of votes after the 2020 election.
Live video of Trump motorcading to an airport and sweeping into yet another city for yet another indictment on his branded jetliner has become part of a sudden new normal. But if the arraignment of a former president seems routine, it’s a measure of the historic chaos Trump has wrought since he bulldozed into politics in 2015.

Wearing his classic dark suit and long red tie, Trump on Thursday rose to his full height in court and slowly and clearly elucidated the words “not guilty” in a hearing in which his fall from president to defendant was underscored when he had to wait silently for the judge to arrive. He was irked, sources familiar with his mindset told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, that the judge referred to him simply as “Mr. Trump,” rather than with the presidential title he still used at his clubs.

The 45th president and special counsel Jack Smith – who has also indicted him for the alleged mishandling of classified documents – shared several glances, before a proceeding that, unlike when he was president, means Trump’s fate is now out of his control.
The entire day was surreal, but given its historic implications – after Trump became the first ex-president formally charged in relation to alleged crimes committed in office – also sad.

Thursday was a day when the country crossed a point of no return. For the first time, the United States formally charged one of its past leaders with trying to subvert its core political system and values.

It was Trump who forced the country over this dangerous threshold. A man whose life’s creed is to never be seen as a loser refused to accept defeat in a democratic election in 2020, then set off on a disastrous course because, as Smith’s indictment put it, “he was determined to stay in power.”

Trump is steering a stormy course to an unknown destination. If he wins back the White House, the already twice-impeached new president could trigger a new constitutional crisis by sweeping away the federal cases against him or even by pardoning himself. Any alternative Republican president could find themselves besieged by demands from Trump supporters for a pardon that, if granted, could overshadow their entire presidency. And if Trump is convicted, and loses a 2024 general election, he risks a long jail term, which would likely become fuel for him to incite his supporters to fresh protest. . . .

Well, enough of that. Notice how Collinson pretends that all of this was Trump’s fault, as if nobody else involved — Attorney General Merrick Garland or Special Counsel Jack Smith — had any choice or discretion in the matter. No, they had to indict Trump. Because Trump “forced the country over this dangerous threshold,” which I suppose is pretty much how the Roundheads explained themselves after they beheaded King Charles I: “We had no choice! He made us do it!” The Roundheads then set up a “Republic” far more tyrannical than anything Charles ever did, much the same as those later regicides in France imposed a tyranny more brutal and repressive than the monarchy of Louis XVI, and likewise the Bolsheviks were infinitely worse than Czar Nicholas.

One might notice a historical pattern here, and then — since we’re speaking of ominous auguries — contemplate America’s future once Our Leaders save us from Trump’s alleged threat to “subvert democracy.”

But these people seem to have no proper sense of history, no more than they have any sense of irony or self-awareness, which explains the latest entry in John Hoge’s “I’m Not Making This Up, You Know” files: