Morning Glory: The cover-up, the coup, and Kamala   

Opinion by Hugh Hewitt

   Fox News

It wasn’t the plan and it wasn’t smooth. But when the cover-up of President Joe Biden’s physical infirmity fell apart, the left wing of the Democratic Party, led by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former President Barack Obama and supported by the American Left’s vast "dark money," carried out a coup. Out with Joe and in with Kamala. The out-of-power Clinton clique tried to prop up Biden but to no avail. The American Left is nothing if it isn’t ruthless in its drive for political power.

The Democratic Party is lurching left, just as it did in 1984. That year the Democrats gathered for their convention in San Francisco; this year it will be in Chicago. But no matter the city, the leftist pull of the Party’s power centers in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Manhattan and the Beltway is never out of power within the party, though it prefers to pretend that there are moderates in the leadership.

With the nomination of Vice President Kamala Harris, the American Left will openly and inarguably be at the controls. Then candidate Barack Obama pretended on 2008 to be a centrist, but he governed from the left and shifted the entire party to the left. President Biden’s disastrous term cemented the left and its ideology into the driver’s seat of the Democrats. What Kamala Harris says over the next three months as she rhetorically tries to tack to the middle does not much matter. She and her party are from and for the American Left’s vision for the United States.

We have rarely seen that agenda on full display. It’s been 40 years in fact since the mask was last off the Democrats in a presidential election. It was a different set of radicals atop the party then. The country was bitterly divided in the 1980s over how to confront the Soviet Union, and the American Left’s embrace of appeasement was on full display.

 READ MORE

 Is this how the DemoRats are going to win the election?... By killing Trump ??

READ HERE

SO, now there's no question who's been running the country and continues to do so out in the open. He (obama) is selecting the nominee to run for president...

Tucker Carlson Reports That Obama Is Souring On Biden, Wants Him Replaced At Convention     Mark Steffen  July 1, 2024

Former President Barack Obama is growing disillusioned about President Joe Biden’s chances in November, according to an “unusually good source” who spoke with Tucker Carlson about the growing rift between both families.

While the Obamas and Bidens have never been especially close, the president’s poor debate performance last week has turbocharged anxiety about his declining mental acuity and ability to refute attacks by former President Donald Trump. Carlson, posting on X, said Obama is privately airing his grievances to allies, admitting Biden “can’t win” and has so far failed to tell his former vice president the truth about his feelings.

“Obama’s tweet supporting Joe Biden was disingenuous. In private, Obama is telling people Biden can’t win, and he is therefore in favor of an open convention,” Carlson reported. “Obama will not say whom he supports, nor as of yesterday afternoon had he met personally with Biden to deliver the message.”

The same source confirmed reporting by other outlets that first lady Dr. Jill Biden has “cloistered” her husband away from aides and outside influencers who might try to encourage the 81-year-old to suspend his presidential campaign ahead of the party’s August convention.

“Relations between the Obamas and the Bidens have never been warm. At times they’ve been hostile. But recently they’ve deteriorated further, mostly due to Jill Biden. In the hours and days after the debate, she kept her husband cloistered away from anyone who might convince him to drop out. Jill Biden is the driving force behind her husband’s reelection campaign, just as she was in 2020, when other members of the family (including Biden’s sister Val) considered him too impaired to run,” Carlson added.

READ HERE

The Supreme Court’s January 6 Decision Is Utterly Baffling Opinion by Randall D. Eliason    Opinion by Randall D. Eliason

Today, in Fischer v. United States, the Supreme Court ignored the clear language of a federal obstruction-of-justice statute to hold that the January 6 rioters who breached Capitol barricades, assaulted police officers, broke doors and windows, and forced members of Congress to flee for their life did not “obstruct or impede” the congressional proceeding to certify the election.

This 6–3 decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, can’t be squared with the language of the statute—or with common sense.

The justices purport to believe in textualism, an approach to the law that says that when interpreting a statute, a judge should first defer to the plain language as written by Congress. But the mental gymnastics employed by the Court to reach the result in Fischer highlight how this Court often only pretends to deploy textualism in pursuit of its preferred outcome.

The statute at issue in Fischer, 18 U.S.C. 1512(c), reads:

Whoever corruptly —

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

This language is very clear. Subsection 1 prohibits obstructing a proceeding by tampering with physical evidence, and Subsection 2 is a catchall that prohibits “otherwise” obstructing a proceeding through means not encompassed by Subsection 1. The words or and otherwise signify alternative ways to violate the law.

READ ON

Supreme Court Thoroughly Rebukes Biden DOJ For Abusing Law To Go After Trump And His Supporters   Opinion by Katelynn Richardson 1d

The Supreme Court held Friday that the Department of Justice (DOJ) interpreted an obstruction statute too broadly when using it to charge hundreds of defendants for their behavior in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

The court sided 6-3 in Fischer v. United States with a defendant who challenged the statute, Section 1512(c)(2), which holds up to 20 years in prison for anyone who “obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding.”

“To prove a violation of Section 1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or as we earlier explained, other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority ruling. “The judgment of the D. C. Circuit is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Of the 1,424 defendants charged following Jan. 6, over 350 were charged with “corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding,” according to May numbers from the DOJ. Multiple defendants charged under the statute were granted early release in light of the justice’s decision to hear the case.

Joseph Fischer, who was charged under Section 1512(c)(2), argued the DOJ’s use of the statute to prosecute Jan. 6 defendants for obstructing Congress’ certification of the 2020 election was an “unprecedented expansion.”

READ MORE

 From a friend.

According to this article the United States followed by China and Japan  lead the World in public debt.  The U.S. is $35 Trillion, followed by China at $15 Trillion and Japan at $10 Trillion.  I assume all that data is converted to U.S. Dollars to be comparable.  Friends that is a total of $50 Trillion with the U.S. share being 34% of the World total public debt in 2023!  There are no plans to pay any of it off!  

 

Yet the United States has pledged up to $21 Billion to the International Monetary Fund to help--get this now--relieve global debt!  

 

To do that will not the United States have borrow another $21 Billion on top of the $35 Trillion we already owe????  Who is minding this Bailey Brothers Building and Loan?  Janet Yellen?  Antony Winken Blinken?  Please do not say Kamala Harris!  I am certain Biden is not, he and Jill are trying to find the outhouse on Omaha Beach!

 Russia warns US to brace for retaliation after Crimea missile attack   ©EPA

The Kremlin accused the U.S. of ‘killing Russian children’ after a Ukrainian attack on occupied Crimea with long-range ATACMS missiles supplied by Washington. Moscow summoned the U.S. ambassador to issue a formal warning, and Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov issued a biting public comment blaming the U.S., calling the strike 'barbaric.'

READ MORE

mmm

The illegals want GUNS!! A federal judge in Illinois, (an obama appointee) ruled that they can have them!!!

The constitution wasn't written for mexicans, guadamalans or columbians as well as middle easterers or chinese or europeans...!! It was written for AMERICANS !!

Illegal immigrants have 2nd Amendment rights, judge rules  Fox News  March 21 2024

‘Outnumbered’ panel discusses whether illegal immigrants should be allowed the right to bear arms following an Illinois judge's ruling.

Don’t Believe Your Own Eyes: Biden’s Re-Election Hopes Hinge On Convincing Americans To Ignore Reality  OAN’s Daniel Baldwin June 20, 2024

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean Pierre articulated the Biden campaign’s true re-election strategy this week when she was asked about multiple viral videos of President Joe Biden appearing old, frail and sleepy.

The video of Biden wandering away from Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni was not edited. The video of former President Barack Obama having to lead Biden off the stage at a fundraiser was not edited. Yet, Jean Pierre, and by extension; the White House told the American people to not trust their own eyes.

“Instead of talking about the president’s performance in office, and what I mean by that is his legislative wins, what he’s been able to do for the American people across the country, we’re seeing these deepfakes, these manipulated videos,” Jean Pierre said. “And it is, again, done in bad faith.”

There you have it. The Biden re-election team’s motto might as well be, “Who are you going to believe; me or your lying eyes?”

This is a jarring instruction. 80% of the information the human brain absorbs from the environment comes from the eyes. When more than two thousand participants were polled, 61% agreed sight was the one sense they could not surrender.

But this has been the Biden strategy from the start: convince the American public to ignore what they are seeing. In other words, ignore reality.

Look at the economy for starters. Prices are up nearly 20% since the inception of the Biden presidency. The median home price has reached $396,000 – a 45.4% increase in just four years. Gasoline is up more than 50%. Energy costs and eggs are each up more than 40%.

Yet Biden, and his allies in the corporate press, have repeatedly boasted that the economy is roaring for the average American.

“They have the money to spend,” Biden told CNN in May. Additionally, the White House has consistently argued that prices are coming down under the Biden administration.

The Wall Street Journal reported that net worth, adjusted for inflation, was up just 0.7% through Biden’s first three years. But it was up 16% through Trump’s three years.

But Biden, again, is telling the American people to not believe their own eyes.

This mantra extends to Biden’s handling of the U.S. Southern border.

“Two weeks ago, I did what Republicans in Congress refused to do: I took action to secure our border,” Biden said this past week.

Instead, at the press conference Biden spoke, he unveiled an immigration policy that would provide a pathway to citizenship for more than 500,000 illegal aliens. Under Biden’s watch, more than ten million illegal aliens have entered the country. Innocent young women such as Laken Riley, Ruby Garcia, and Rachel Morin have lost their lives at the hands of illegal aliens. Border patrol agents have apprehended a total of 367 migrants at both the Southern and Northern borders between the fiscal years of 2021 and 2024 whose names have appeared on the terror watch list. This marks a 2,521% increase from the 14 suspected terrorists caught under the Trump Administration.

Biden also enjoys projecting himself as the official defender of democracy from what he calls extreme MAGA Republicans.

“American democracy only works only if we choose to respect the rule of law and the institutions that were set up in this chamber behind me,” Biden said in Philadelphia in 2022.

Yet Biden’s own Department of Justice, and many other Democrat legal allies, launched an assault that broke 250 years of American precedent: lawfare targeting his top political opponent.

In September 2022, New York AG Letitia James, who campaigned on ‘getting Trump,’ filed a lawsuit seeking to ruin Trump’s business empire. In August 2022, Biden’s DOJ approved an FBI raid on Trump’s personal residence regarding classified documents. In March 2023, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg bootstrapped two expired misdemeanors into 34 felony counts of falsifying business records against Trump. In June 2023, Special Counsel Jack Smith, appointed by Biden’s DOJ, indicted Trump on 40 felony counts in the classified documents case. In August 2023, Smith indicted Trump again over allegedly attempting to subvert the 2020 election.

These lawsuits allowed the Biden campaign to release an advertisement that labels Trump a “convicted criminal” just months before the November election. The lawsuits allowed the Biden campaign to explicitly say Trump has been “convicted of 34 felonies” and that he “committed financial fraud.”

Again, these lawsuits from Biden’s DOJ and Biden allies violated 250 years of American legal precedent. Does that sound like Biden, in his own words, respecting the rule of law to defend democracy?

But then again, the Biden campaign has very little to stand on. Joe Biden’s record is no match for Trump’s.

The Pew Research Center found that only 23% of Americans believe the country’s economic conditions are excellent or good.

A YouGov poll found that 62% of registered voters support the government starting a mass deportation program to remove all illegal aliens. An ABC/Ipsos poll revealed that Biden’s advantage among ‘defending democracy’ has been completely wiped out. That is why the latest Emerson College state poll shows Trump ahead in all six swing states, and tied in Minnesota.

Much to Biden’s chagrin, it’s clear Americans are trusting, and will continue to, trust their own eyes.

 What to Do About the DOJ |  Newt Gingrich   Hillsdale College  2 weeks ago

 I put a lot of HOPE into Jim Jorden, even though I had read before that Jordan was a great investigator but when it comes down to the "nitty-gritty" he NEVER able to get anything done. So where do we go from here? He can't get the US attorney general to comply, so ge goes after the NY attorney general who he has no jurisdiction over ????? 

Jim Jordan Continues To Make A Fool Of Himself For Trump

Jun 20, 2024 ROF Daily Updates

Republican Congressman Jim Jordan is once again making a complete ass of himself in order to make Donald Trump happy, and Jordan doesn't seem to care that the whole country is laughing at him. Jordan is now threatening to subpoena New York Attorney General Letitia James for information regarding prosecutor Matthew Colangelo, who served as one of the lead prosecutors in Trump's hush money criminal trial. Colangelo once worked at the DOJ, which Jordan thinks proves some kind of conspiracy. Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins explains what's happening.

Where we stand being $35 Trillion in DEBT !

 From a friend.

 

According to this article the United States followed by China and Japan lead the World in public debt. The U.S. is $35 Trillion, followed by China at $15 Trillion and Japan at $10 Trillion. I assume all that data is converted to U.S. Dollars to be comparable. Friends that is a total of $50 Trillion with the U.S. share being 34% of the World total public debt in 2023! There are no plans to pay any of it off!

Yet the United States has pledged up to $21 Billion to the International Monetary Fund to help--get this now--relieve global debt!

To do that will not the United States have borrow another $21 Billion on top of the $35 Trilliln we already owe???? Who is minding this Bailey Brothers Building and Loan? Janet Yellen? Antony Winken Blinken? Please do not say Kamala Harris! I am certain Biden is not, he and Jill are trying to find the outhouse on Omaha Beach!

 
https://www.unitedvoice.com/u-n-report-claims-us-leads-the-world-in-public-debt/?utm_source=uv-aw-cf&utm_placement=UVnewsletter&utm_medium=email

New revelations in Florida documents trial put Trump on offense against 'deranged' special counsel   Story by Emma Colton • 4h Fox News

Former President Trump returns to Trump Tower, New York City, Monday, April 15, 2024. Trump was in Manhattan Criminal Court today for jury selection in the so-called "hush-money" case. Fox News© Probe-Media for Fox New Digital

Former President Trump is calling for Special Counsel Jack Smith’s arrest after the prosecutors handling the 45th president’s classified documents case admitted seized documents are no longer in their original order and sequence.

"Now, Deranged Jack has admitted in a filing in front of Judge Cannon to what I have been saying happened since the Illegal RAID on my home, Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach, Florida – That he and his team committed blatant Evidence Tampering by mishandling the very Boxes they used as a pretext to bring this Fake Case," Trump posted to Truth Social on Friday. "These deeply Illegal actions by the Politicized ‘Persecutors’ mandate that this whole Witch Hunt be DROPPED IMMEDIATELY. END THE ‘BOXES HOAXES.’ MAGA2024!"

"ARREST DERANGED JACK SMITH. HE IS A CRIMINAL!" Trump added in a follow-up post.

Prosecutors admitted in a court filing on Friday that "there are some boxes where the order of items within that box is not the same as in the associated scans." The prosecutors had previously told the court that the documents were "in their original, intact form as seized."

"The Government acknowledges that this is inconsistent with what Government counsel previously understood and represented to the Court," a footnote in the filing reads.

READ ON

IN ADDITION....This trial should never been started, the "equal justice under the law" did not prevail here. When they refused to charge Biden for practically the SAME CRIME (because of his age and mental incapacity that he wouldn't remember doing the crimeand the people would only see Biden as an aged, feeble, mentally challenged old man. Just remember this...HIS MIND WAS FUNTIONAL WHEN HE STOLE THOSE DOCUMENTS! But unlike Trump, Biden had no right to even read those top secret documents. He STOLE them and left them in the open in various places.

Where is the crime here?: Tomi Lahren  FOX News 8 hrs ago

OutKick host Tomi Lahren and Fox News senior political analyst Juan Williams join ‘MediaBuzz’ to discuss former Trump aide Hope Hicks’ testimony in NY v. Trump.

VIDEO

Was Jack Smith's appointment unconstitutional? He has no more authority than Taylor Swift, amicus brief argues  BY DEBRA CASSENS WEISS DECEMBER 21, 2023,

Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel has been a subject of constitutional debate. According to an amicus brief signed by former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese and two law professors, Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional1. The argument centers around the process of appointing a special counsel, which typically involves the President or the Attorney General appointing an individual who is then confirmed by the Senate2. Here are the key points from the brief:

Improper Appointment: Attorney General Merrick Garland allegedly “exceeded his statutory and constitutional authority” when he appointed Smith in November 2022. Smith was not nominated by President Joe Biden or confirmed by the U.S. Senate, which raises concerns about the legitimacy of his appointment.

Null and Void Actions: Because Smith’s appointment was deemed unconstitutional, every action he has taken since his appointment is now considered null and void. This includes any legal proceedings related to immunity claims by former President Donald Trump1.

Nationwide Jurisdiction: Despite lacking proper appointment procedures, Smith has nationwide jurisdiction, making him more powerful than any of the 93 Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys. Federal law allows the attorney general to appoint attorneys to assist U.S. attorneys, but not to replace them1.

Appointments Clause: The appointments clause in the Constitution requires that all federal offices “not otherwise provided for” be established by law. However, there is no statute establishing the Office of Special Counsel within the U.S. Department of Justice, nor is there a statute allowing the attorney general to appoint an inferior officer with the powers given to Smith. Additionally, inferior officers must be controlled by a superior officer, which does not apply to Smith under DOJ regulations1.

In summary, the constitutional validity of Jack Smith’s appointment remains a contentious issue, and legal challenges continue to question the legitimacy of his role as special counsel

Biden Sparks Outrage with Tax Policy Targeting Benefits for 'White' People     Story by Georgia Mckoy • 9h   Savvy Dime 

The Demographic Impact of Tax Changes ©Avinash Kumar/Unsplash

Newsweek reports that the demographic most affected by the proposed changes in capital gains taxes are predominantly white, as stated by the administration.

Implementing this policy is part of a broader strategy aimed at reducing racial disparities in wealth, which have persisted despite some progress in areas like education and corporate diversity.

 
The Demographic Impact of Tax Changes©Avinash Kumar/Unsplash

Newsweek reports that the demographic most affected by the proposed changes in capital gains taxes are predominantly white, as stated by the administration.

Implementing this policy is part of a broader strategy aimed at reducing racial disparities in wealth, which have persisted despite some progress in areas like education and corporate diversity.

 
Combined Tax Burden Could Reach 59% ©Wikimedia Commons

Under the new proposal, some high-income earners could face a combined state and federal capital gains tax rate of up to 59%.

Including the new federal proposal along with existing state capital gains taxes, the policy would significantly increase the tax burden on wealthy investors.

 
Addressing the Racial Wealth Gap ©Clay Banks/Unsplash

The administration's budget suggests that increasing the capital gains tax rate could contribute to reducing the racial wealth gap.

Despite advancements in educational attainment and increased diversity in corporate leadership, substantial economic disparities remain between racial groups.
Criticism of the Tax Reform ©Wikimedia CommonsCritics argue that the tax reform serves a political rather than practical purpose.
"It's a complete mess, and it produces anything but equality," Michael Seifert, CEO of digital marketplace PublicSquare, expressed his concerns to The National Desk about the reform's effectiveness in achieving its intended goals.

Addressing the Racial Wealth Gap ©Clay Banks/Unsplash

The administration's budget suggests that increasing the capital gains tax rate could contribute to reducing the racial wealth gap.

Despite advancements in educational attainment and increased diversity in corporate leadership, substantial economic disparities remain between racial groups.

Criticism of the Tax Reform ©Wikimedia Commons

Critics argue that the tax reform serves a political rather than practical purpose.

"It's a complete mess, and it produces anything but equality," Michael Seifert, CEO of digital marketplace PublicSquare, expressed his concerns to The National Desk about the reform's effectiveness in achieving its intended goals.

 
Broader Economic Concerns ©Towfiqu barbhuiya/Unsplash

Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor at the University of Tennessee at Martin, voiced concerns to Newsweek about the implications of taxing unrealized gains.

He said, "The potential tax on unrealized long term capital gains is limited to taxpayers with over $100 million in assets... the idea of taxing the value of asset that has yet to be sold is difficult to set."

 
The Debate Over Wealth Taxation ©Wikimedia Commons

As the Biden administration's budget undergoes scrutiny, it sparks a debate about the effectiveness of taxing the wealthiest Americans more heavily.

The discussion centers on whether such tax policies can equitably redistribute wealth and address systemic economic disparities.

Potential Impact on Investment ©Amy Hirschi/Unsplash

Michael Ryan, a finance expert, told Newsweek that doubling the capital gains rate might deter investment and entrepreneurship, which are vital for economic growth.

He noted that historically, lower capital gains taxes have encouraged his clients to invest more in their businesses

Structural Problems Remain Unaddressed ©Kenny Eliason/Unsplash

Ryan further argued that the proposed tax changes do not address the fundamental systemic issues that contribute to racial wealth disparities.

He highlighted issues such as unequal access to quality education and career opportunities.

Criticism from Financial Experts ©Wikimedia Commons

The approach of taxing unrealized gains has been particularly controversial.

Charles Payne, a Fox Business journalist, criticized the policy on X, formerly Twitter, stating, "Taxing unrealized 'gains' from white folks doesn't make Black folks more prosperous—it's just a bogus and un-American excuse for confiscation."

Focus on Wealth Inequality ©Wikimedia Commons

The proposed tax increase is intended to impact those benefiting most from lower capital gains rates, who are overwhelmingly white families.

Such measures are part of the administration's strategy to financially address demographic imbalances that have long existed within the U.S. economic system.

Seeking Comprehensive Solutions ©Shane Rounce/Unsplash

The necessity of finding effective measures to close the racial wealth gap is widely recognized.

"Narrowing the racial wealth divide is a noble cause," Ryan acknowledges, stressing the need for targeted, multifaceted solutions beyond just taxing the investments of millionaires and billionaires.

While I don't think the President should be allowed COMPLETE immunity, I don't think he should be allowed to endure the ridiculous charges these DEMOCRAT lawyers and district attorneys have brought against President Donald Trump! And they ALL do seem to be DEMOCRAT which brings to mind "Political Weaponry". We all know that's TRUE!

Prove me wrong!!!

'Surprising' and 'disturbing': Legal experts react to SCOTUS on Trump    immunity case  11hrs ago ABC News

When Donald Trump began to claim presidential immunity from criminal prosecution related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, many legal analysts ABC News spoke with considered it a weak argument.

But last week, in nearly three hours of oral arguments, several Supreme Court justices seemed open to some limited protection for former presidents from criminal liability for official acts they undertook while in the White House.

It was a shocking turn of events, according to some veteran court observers.

"It was surprising to hear, at least from some of the justices, the possibility that a president could somehow commit criminal misconduct for which they could never be held liable in court," Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional expert at the University of North Carolina, told ABC News. "I think that has struck many people as just, up until now, inconceivable."

"That's exactly the part that I think most of the American public is going to find fairly incredulous," said David Schultz, a professor at the University of Minnesota and national expert in constitutional law. "The idea of saying that the president of the United States is above the law compared to the rest of us."

While the justices seemed poised to reject Trump's more sweeping claim of "absolute" immunity, how they attempt to devise what official acts are and are not exempt from criminal prosecution will set a new standard for presidential power.

"That is a whole new territory for the court that we've never seen before," Schultz said, "and will make major new law in the United States."

'READ MORE

Federal Judge Hands Down 2nd Amendment Victory     Story by Athena Hallet • 10h  History Enhanced

©Source: Adobe Stock

A federal district judge in the United States has rejected a ban on pistol braces, ruling that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) exceeded its jurisdiction. This ruling impacts the entire ATF, and possibly millions of gun owners.

The judge determined that the plaintiff's case will most likely win, ,

Meaning that the ATF’s rule will most likely be invalidated. 

Referencing the Mock v. Garland case, Kacsmaryk said, 

"as explained in Garland, ‘[t]he controlling law of this case is that the Government Defendants’ promulgation of the Final Rule ‘fails the logical-outgrowth test and violates the APA’ and ‘therefore must be set aside as unlawful’ under the APA.'”

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk wrote.

“The Court is certainly sympathetic to ATF’s concerns over public safety in the wake of tragic mass shootings. The Rule 'embodies salutary policy goals meant to protect vulnerable people in our society,'"

The order read,

"Additionally, ATF admits the 10-year cost of the Rule is over one billion dollars ... and because of the Rule, certain manufacturers that obtain most of their sales from the stabilizing braces risk having to close their doors for good," 

Gun rights organizations have condemned the ATF for the rule, 

Saying it is unconstitutional and an overreach of executive authority.

Pro Second Amendment groups welcomed the ruling. 

Under the ATF rule, owners of braces have to take one of five steps, which includes turning in the entire firearm with the brace attached to the agency.

The Biden-Harris Administration has underscored the importance of storing guns safely as a crucial step reducing gun related deaths, specifically among children and adolescents. 

Through the promotion of the safe gun storage law and allocating unprecedented funding through initiatives like the American Rescue Plan and the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the administration seeks to mitigate accidental shootings, youths ability to access firearms, and the association of guns that are secured which can lead to schools shooting and suicides. 

President Joe Biden has made gun control a key priority of his administration, demonstrating his dedication to mitigating gun violence and coming up with a plan to address safety measures. 

The Biden-Harris Administration has revealed a multifaceted strategy that is meant to promote safe storage of guns,preventing illegal firearm purchases, and advocating for legislative reforms to mitigate gun violence. 

President Biden has emphasized the urgency of legislative reforms to enforce gun control measures, 

urging Congress to pass universal background checks, ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, end the gun industry's immunity from liability, and enact a national red flag law. 

The administration's advocacy for thorough background checks,

Restrictive measures on high-risk firearm purchase falls in line with the bigger agenda to reduce gun violence and create better public safety.

The administration's collaboration with both states and local leaders on safe storage laws highlights its dedication to nurturing more accountability,

And promoting safer firearm practices on both federal and local levels.  

The administration's collaboration with both states and local leaders on safe storage laws highlights its dedication to nurturing more accountability,

And promoting safer firearm practices on both federal and local levels.   

The initiatives that the administration has taken has fueled polarized assessments, 

Supporters praise the endeavors to address gun violence, while those in opposition express concerns regarding balance between public safety and individual liberties.  

President Biden's gun control agenda has faced criticism and doubt from various sectors, with opponents expressing concerns about the potential impact of politically divisive measures on the right to keep and bear arms. 

The administration's push to ban assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and pushing for more strict regulations on the sales of guns ignited debates about constitutional rights, the efficacy of proposed measures, and the potential implications for responsible gun ownership. 

 When you're face to face is NOT the time to find out your adversary is not a responsible gun owner

15 Alarming Signs You're Dealing With an Irresponsible Gun Owner  Story by Body Cams+ • 1d

Navigating the realm of gun ownership demands a profound sense of responsibility and an unwavering commitment to safety. Yet, the landscape is marred by the actions of individuals who, through negligence or outright disregard, pose a significant risk to themselves and those around them. From the cavalier mishandling of firearms to a blatant ignorance of legal requirements, these behaviors not only undermine the principles of responsible gun ownership but also jeopardize the well-being of communities.

Highlighting the traits of an irresponsible gun owner not only serves as a cautionary tale but underscores the critical importance of education, awareness, and strict adherence to safety protocols in preserving the integrity of gun ownership.

nnn

READ ON

Iran is about to start a nuclear world war – and the West is determined to lose   by Allister Heath • 22hThe Telegraph

US President Joe Biden speaks to members of the media before boarding Air Force One© Provided by The Telegraph

The conventional wisdom is wrong. We need rational, controlled escalation from the Western powers in the face of Iranian aggression, not more of the sickening appeasement, delusion and cowardice of the past few days. The regime needs to be punished for its monstrous war-mongering, not mollified and placated by a bunch of Western ignoramuses who confuse weakness for virtue.

If Joe Biden were a serious president, he would announce that the mullahs in Tehran have crossed a red line, that they are an existential menace to civilised nations. He would declare that enough is enough, that no country can shoot hundreds of drones and missiles at one of its neighbours with impunity, that no government can go on funding terrorism, rape, torture and murder on an industrial scale. He would understand the need to deter other rogue states through a show of strength

He would state that the Iranian regime must be treated like the global pariah that it has become, that all of its proxies must be destroyed, and that, above all, it will never be allowed to get anywhere near nuclear weapons. He would put together a coalition, including as many of Iran’s Arab neighbours as possible. He would impose extreme sanctions. He would allow Israel to finish off Hamas. He would help hit Hezbollah.

 READ MORE

mmm

STUDY: At Least 90% of TV News Fails to Call Trump Prosecutors ‘Democrats’   Rich Noyes  April 15th, 2024

Barring a last-minute hiccup, today a Democratic prosecutor — Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg — will begin his unprecedented criminal trial of former President Donald Trump, the Republican Party’s certain presidential nominee in November’s general election.

Despite the obvious political implications of such a prosecution, a new study of ABC, CBS and NBC evening news coverage shows at least 90% of their coverage failed to inform viewers that Bragg and the other elected Democrats going after Trump are “Democrats.” It’s as if the networks prefer to disingenuously portray the indictments and civil lawsuits as the work of nonpartisan career prosecutors, rather than as partisan attempts to use the court system to hobble the electoral prospects of the country’s top Republican.

For this study, our analysts reviewed all broadcast evening news coverage from January 1, 2023 through April 10, 2024. Here’s a rundown of how the networks are failing to adequately disclose the partisanship of the three elected Democrats prosecuting Trump: Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg; Fulton County (Georgia) District Attorney Fani Willis; and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

■ Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg: Bragg attained his current post after he ran and won as a Democrat in the November 2021 general election. During his campaign, Bragg all but promised to use his office to pursue the former President — to hold him “accountable,” as Bragg not-so-subtly put it as he vied with other Democrats for the coveted nomination

Add it all up, and the Big Three only labeled Bragg as a Democrat 17 times out of 163 stories, which means Bragg’s partisanship was omitted from nearly 90% of evening news stories about his election-season indictments of the former President.

■ New York Attorney General Letitia James: Twice elected as an anti-Trump Democrat (in 2018 and 2022),

“There are a number of important investigations and cases that are underway, and I intend to finish the job,” James explained. That same day, she stepped up her investigation of the Trump businesses that led to the unprecedented $355 million civil judgment against the former President, now being appealed

The final tally: As of April 10, the Big Three have aired 105 stories about the civil case against Trump, but only nine mentioned that the official who brought the charges, Letitia James, is a partisan Democrat — leaving this crucial fact out of 93% of network stories.

■ Fulton County (Georgia) District Attorney Fani Willis: As with Bragg and James, Willis’s partisanship is not in dispute. She ran and won as a Democrat in 2020, and she is running for re-election this fall as a Democrat. This spring, during a misconduct hearing into her affair with a lead prosecutor, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported “prominent Democrats” in Georgia were “rallying around” Willis, hoping to keep her from being removed from the Trump case.

Add it all up, and out of 149 evening news stories about the Georgia election case against Trump, a scant five percent revealed that Willis was a Democrat, vs. 95% that kept viewers in the dark.

READ MORE

RFK Got It Right  By Kenin M. Spivak April 10, 2024

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. visits “The Faulkner Focus”at Fox News Channel Studios on June 02, 2023 in New York City. (Photo by Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images)

(Views expressed by guest commentators may not reflect the views of OAN or its affiliates.)

When presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told CNN last week that he sees President Joe Biden as a greater threat to democracy than Donald Trump, mainstream media, academics, and elected Democrats exploded in vitriol.

Speaking on CNN’s Erin Burnett OutFront, Kennedy said, “I can make the argument that President Biden is the much worse threat to democracy, and the reason for that is President Biden is… the first president in history that has used the federal agencies to censor political speech, so to censor his opponent.” Kennedy added: “The greatest threat to democracy is not somebody who questions election returns but a President of the United States who will use the power of his office to force the social media companies… to open a portal and give access to that portal to the FBI, CIA, the IRS, the NIH, to censor his political critics.”

READ HERE