Month: July 2024

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 6-3 that Trump has absolute immunity for his core Constitutional powers.

Former presidents are entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for their official acts, according to the high court.

Sotomayor proved how stupid she is in her hysterical dissent. “The President is now a king above the law,” Sotomayor said as she echoed Judge Florence Pan’s SEAL Team 6 assassination hypothetical.

“Orders the Navy SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power?” Immune,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent.

“With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” Sotomayor said (she was probably crying as she dissented).

The Court’s majority absolutely torched Sonia Sotomayor and the other liberal justices for fearmongering, ignoring the Constitution, and ignoring the separation of powers.

“As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today — conclude that immunity extends to official discussions between the President and his Attorney General, and then remand to the lower courts to determine “in the first instance” whether and to what extent Trump’s remaining alleged conduct is entitled to immunity,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority.

Chief Roberts slapped down Sotomayor for ignoring the Constitution.

“Unable to muster any meaningful textual or historical support, the principal dissent suggests that there is an “established understanding” that “former Presidents are answerable to the criminal law for their official acts.” Post, at 9. Conspicuously absent is mention of the fact that since the founding, no President has ever faced criminal charges—let alone for his conduct in office. And accordingly no court has ever been faced with the question of a President’s immunity from prosecution. All that our Nation’s practice establishes on the subject is silence. Coming up short on reasoning, the dissents repeatedly level variations of the accusation that the Court has rendered the President “above the law.”” Roberts wrote.

“The dissents’ positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President “feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.” Post, at 18 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.); see post, at 26, 29–30; post, at 8–9, 10, 12, 16, 20–21 (opinion of JACKSON, J.). The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next. For instance, Section 371—which has been charged in this case—is a broadly worded criminal statute that can cover “‘any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government.’” Roberts wrote.

Roberts said the Framers did not intend to leave the preservation of our system of separated powers in the hands of prosecutors.

“The enfeebling of the Presidency and our Government that would result from such a cycle of factional strife is exactly what the Framers intended to avoid. Ignoring those risks, the dissents are instead content to leave the preservation of our system of separated powers up to the good faith of prosecutors,” Roberts wrote.

OUCH.

Most important part of today’s Supreme Court ruling on immunity that many people are ignoring. pic.twitter.com/in9sqa2485

— Viva Frei (@thevivafrei) July 1, 2024

The post OUCH! Supreme Court Majority ZINGS Sonia Sotomayor in Blistering Opinion appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

As President Joe Biden’s 2024 campaign faces increasing challenges, speculation about potential replacements has surged, with Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer emerging as a prominent figure. The debate over Biden’s cognitive abilities and recent debate performance has intensified discussions within the Democratic Party, prompting questions about the best path forward for the party in the upcoming election.

Governor Whitmer has garnered significant attention and support, partly due to her strong leadership in Michigan and her ability to connect with a diverse voter base. Despite her repeated assertions that she is focused on her current role and supporting Biden’s re-election, many believe she could be a viable candidate if Biden were to step down.

Gretchen Whitmer is a Satanic witch.

She’s the Wicked Witch of the Midwest.

She’ll burn in Hell for interfering with the freedoms that GOD gave us.

Burn in Hell, witch! https://t.co/tlbDSmk5fs pic.twitter.com/usm9r88KLU

— Zach (@TrumpUSA24) June 30, 2024

This belief is fueled by her recent political activities, including forming a federal political action committee and writing a book, which many see as steps towards a future presidential bid.

Republicans view the potential shift in Democratic leadership as a sign of internal instability and lack of confidence in Biden’s ability to lead. They argue that the Democrats are scrambling for a backup plan, reflecting broader concerns about Biden’s viability as a candidate against former President Donald Trump. From the GOP perspective, this situation underscores the need for strong, decisive leadership, which they believe is lacking in the current administration.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer had told Biden’s campaign chair O’Malley Dillon that Michigan, in the wake of the debate, was no longer winnable for Biden, Politico reports.

I’m alarmed pic.twitter.com/AGYwvyxDYK

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) July 1, 2024

Whitmer’s appeal as a potential candidate is bolstered by her positive polling in Michigan, a crucial battleground state. Recent surveys indicate that while Biden trails Trump in Michigan, Whitmer holds a lead over the former president in hypothetical matchups. This polling data highlights Whitmer’s potential to energize the Democratic base and attract swing voters, offering a strategic advantage in a contentious election.

However, the path to replacing Biden is complex. Democratic Party rules and the timing of the primary elections make a late substitution challenging, though not impossible. Whitmer’s position as a possible successor would require significant support from party delegates and a coordinated effort at the Democratic National Convention. While some view this scenario as wishful thinking, others see it as a necessary contingency plan given the current political climate.

In summary, Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s rising profile amid President Biden’s struggles has sparked significant debate about the future direction of the Democratic Party. While Republicans highlight this as evidence of Democratic disarray, supporters argue that Whitmer represents a strong alternative capable of uniting the party and appealing to a broad electorate.

As the 2024 election approaches, the political landscape remains fluid, with many eyes on Michigan and its influential governor.

The post Gretchen Whitmer in the Spotlight: Potential Replacement for Biden? appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

Peter Alexander (L) and Chris Faraldi (R)

Peter Alexander, a candidate for the City Council of Lynchburg, Virginia, has lodged a formal complaint in the Lynchburg Circuit Court, questioning the legitimacy of the recent Republican primary election results.

The Gateway Pundit previously reported the campaigns of Peter Alexander and Chris Faraldi, both candidates in the June 18th primary for City Council in Ward 4, have reported multiple irregularities, including issues with mail-in ballots and potential breaches in the chain of custody.

There are significant concerns regarding the chain-of-custody of ballots collected from drop boxes. Additionally, absentee ballot processing began before observers were permitted to monitor the process. Records also show that ballot box seals were broken before observers could watch, suggesting potential tampering or mishandling of ballots.

Read the press release from Peter Alexander’s campaign:

Our observer was turned away from absentee ballot processing when it was scheduled to start at noon and asked to return 30 minutes later. Records show that ballot box seals were broken and absentee ballot processing started before our observer was permitted access to watch the process.

My opponent did not have any official observers present until after we raised concerns about the chain of custody of drop box ballots. Election staff confirmed that it had been standard practice to allow the ballot drop box to be stuffed until Friday, which violates Virginia law.

Staff also stated the drop box was emptied Friday morning, but did not produce records documenting access to the drop box until nearly an hour after our observer requested receipts. It is still unclear how many ballots were collected from the drop box, and we may never know how many were stuffed in the drop box after the polls closed.

Shortly after our campaign raised concerns about the chain of custody of drop box ballots, the number of ballots retrieved from the drop box, and the legality of stuffing the ballot box after the polls closed, electoral board member Steve Troxel pulled senior election staff aside for a private conversation concealed from our observation.

It should be noted that after the concealed conversation with staff, the Lynchburg electoral board held an emergency meeting. There was chaos during the emergency meeting, and they attempted to take a public meeting behind closed doors.

After the meeting adjourned, Electoral Board member Steven Troxel asked observers to not discuss the events with the media. Electoral board chair and attorney David Levy told Troxel, “as your chairman-lawyer, I think you’ve said enough.”

It should be noted that Crux Consulting, LLC is listed on Chris Faraldi’s campaign finance report as a vendor, and it is registered to Steven Michael Troxel of Lynchburg, Virginia. Faraldi’s campaign observers showed up within one hour of Troxel’s private conversation with senior registrars’ office staff.

Our opponent has expressed his own concerns about violations of state code and breach of procedures, yet there is no record of disclosure regarding the relationship between political firm Crux Consulting, Lynchburg Electoral Board member Steven Troxel, and candidate Chris Faraldi.

With a razor-thin margin, this election is headed straight for a fully observable recount that must be completed by hand. Democrats have crossed over in historic numbers in this Republican primary to support the tax-and-spend policies of Chris Faraldi.

Faraldi has shown that he craves power, exercises poor judgment, and acts without maturity by reacting impulsively for political manipulation. Now, he has an opportunity to show Lynchburg that he cares about the will of the electorate and join us in demanding a full manual recount and audit of the June 18th Republican primary, including:

Spoiled ballots
Adjudication process of every mail-in ballot
Signature verification
Voter eligibility, including citizenship
Election Day bag security seal and chain of custody records

Let’s stop political insiders with questionable conflicts who may be engaging in pay-to-play schemes to manipulate the outcome of our elections in Lynchburg. Millions from political elites like Kevin McCarthy and Paul Ryan have flooded our area to influence the outcome of our elections.

We have to stop the DC swamp from influencing our local elections. We must get this right before November. Lynchburg election staff cannot even produce real ballot counts almost one week after the election. The future of our city, and our nation, depends on it. Election integrity is critical, and it’s time for Lynchburg to lead the way.

According to the complaint, there are profound discrepancies involving at least 125 absentee ballots that were marked but not counted, as per the latest records from the Virginia Department of Elections.

In his lawsuit, Alexander points to failures in processing and acknowledging absentee ballots and irregularities in ballot drop box procedures, which he claims were left open unlawfully beyond the election day, allowing for potential tampering.

Martin J. Misjuns, a witness for the Alexander campaign and an elected Councilmember At-large, provided a declaration outlining potential discrepancies in the handling of absentee ballots.

According to Misjuns, a detailed tracking of these ballots through a process known as “Ballot Banking” raised questions about whether all votes were properly recorded.

Adding to the controversy, Misjuns highlighted a conversation with Daniel Pense, the General Registrar for Lynchburg, who allegedly could not confirm the final status of the marked ballots.

This lack of clarity, coupled with the discovery that the ballot drop box at the registrar’s office remained open beyond the election date, has fueled Alexander’s call for a thorough review and recount.

“We filed the election contest late Friday afternoon because that was the deadline and there were still unanswered questions about the handling of absentee ballots. We owe it to the voters to make sure those questions are answered, and that is what we are going to do,” Peter Alexander said in a press release.

Read the complaint below:

The post Lynchburg City Council Candidate Challenges Legitimacy of Republican Primary Results, Citing Irregularities and Potential Tampering appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Donald Trump has taken the lead over Joe Biden in New Hampshire, according to new polling from Saint Anselm College.

New Hampshire has not gone red in a presidential election since it voted for George W. Bush in the year 2000.

Once again, Trump is gaining ground in a state where he is not supposed to be competitive.

Breitbart News reports:

Trump Takes Two-Point Lead over Biden in New Hampshire Poll

Former President Donald Trump inched ahead of President Joe Biden in New Hampshire by two points, days after the presidential debate, according to a recent poll.

A Saint Anselm College Survey Center poll found that if the presidential election were held today, 44 percent of voters in New Hampshire would cast their vote for Trump, while 42 percent of voters in the state said they would vote for Biden.

The poll, which was conducted between June 28-29, was “based on online survey of 1,746” registered voters in the state.

The poll also found that Trump’s popularity among voters was higher than Biden’s.

Biden was reported to have a “favorable opinion” with 39 percent of voters, while 59 percent had an unfavorable opinion of him. Trump, on the other hand, was reported to have been “viewed favorably” by 42 percent of voters, while 57 percent viewed him “unfavorably.”

This should be setting off alarm bells at the Biden campaign.

New, post-debate @SaintAnselmPoll shows former President Donald Trump holding a narrow lead over President Joe Biden in New Hampshire, just within the margin of error #NHPolitics #FITN #WMUR pic.twitter.com/AeIZ3OWWCp

— Adam Sexton (@AdamSextonWMUR) July 1, 2024

New Hampshire GE: St. Anselm Poll

Trump: 44% (+2)
Biden: 42%
RFK Jr: 4%

#53 (2.4/3.0) | 1,700 RV | June 27-28https://t.co/49BdsPS2pV pic.twitter.com/AAshGVr6GO

— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) July 1, 2024

Terrible poll for Biden. New Hampshire hadn’t been polled in ages, but St. Anselm shows Trump leading by 2 points — a 12 point net drop for Biden since December. Meanwhile, Dems are still +3 in the generic Congressional ballot. Biden favorability: 39%, Trump favorability: 42% pic.twitter.com/FdoqEli4Rf

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) July 1, 2024

Trump winning in New Hampshire would be an indication of a blowout election.

The post POLL: Trump Now Leading Joe Biden in New Hampshire appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

This is pathetic.

A House Democrat who clearly didn’t read the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity said he will file a constitutional amendment to reverse the high court’s decision.

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 6-3 that Trump has absolute immunity for his core Constitutional powers.

Former presidents are entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for their official acts.

The Supreme Court ruled there is no immunity for unofficial acts.

Earlier this year the US Supreme Court agreed to hear Trump’s presidential immunity claim in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s January 6 case in Washington, DC.

Chief Justice Roberts delivered the majority opinion of the Court.

“We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote.

Justice Roberts also chastised Judge Tanya Chutkan for not analyzing the conduct alleged in Jack Smith’s indictment.

“Despite the unprecedented nature of this case, and the very significant constitutional questions that it raises, the lower courts rendered their decisions on a highly expedited basis. Because those courts categorically rejected any form of Presidential immunity, they did not analyze the conduct alleged in the indictment to decide which of it should be categorized as official and which unofficial. Neither party has briefed that issue before us (though they discussed it at oral argument in response to questions). And like the underlying immunity question, that categorization raises multiple unprecedented and momentous questions about the powers of the President and the limits of his authority under the Constitution,” Roberts wrote.

Nowhere did the Supreme Court say a president is above the law.

The Supreme Court’s ruling will send Jack Smith’s DC case back to Judge Tanya Chutkan.

Congressman Joe Morelle (D-NY) embarrassed himself by claiming he will introduce a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“I will introduce a constitutional amendment to reverse SCOTUS’ harmful decision and ensure that no president is above the law. This amendment will do what SCOTUS failed to do—prioritize our democracy,” Democrat Rep. Joe Morelle said on X.

I will introduce a constitutional amendment to reverse SCOTUS’ harmful decision and ensure that no president is above the law. This amendment will do what SCOTUS failed to do—prioritize our democracy.

— Joe Morelle (@RepJoeMorelle) July 1, 2024

The post House Democrat to File Constitutional Amendment to Reverse Supreme Court Ruling on Presidential Immunity appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The Supreme Court on Friday corrected the inexplicable mistake it made in 2019, when it declined to grant certiorari (discretionary review) to overturn the atrocious decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Martin v. Boise, a case I wrote about a few years ago in The American Conservative (“Lawyers Cause Homelessness,” May/June 2022). In Martin v. Boise, the Ninth Circuit struck down—in the entire western United States—all laws and ordinances forbidding “camping” in public areas on the grounds that punishing vagrants for sleeping in parks, on sidewalks, under overpasses, etc. amounted to “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of the Eighth Amendment because homelessness is ostensibly a status, not conduct. Unless cities provide adequate shelter beds for all vagrants seeking free lodging, the Ninth Circuit opined, bums, drunks, addicts, and the mentally ill have “no choice” except to sleep outdoors.

Martin v. Boise thus provoked a tsunami of homeless encampments that overwhelmed—and despoiled—many urban areas. By preventing the enforcement of no-camping ordinances, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling contributed enormously to an explosion of the homeless population in cities from Seattle to Phoenix. Martin v. Boise was an absurd decision with sweeping—and disastrous—consequences for the 1,600 municipalities within the Ninth Circuit’s mammoth jurisdiction, which were rendered powerless to curb urban homeless encampments. Not coincidentally, the five states with the highest rates of unsheltered homeless were subject to the abomination of Martin v. Boise. It was, without exaggeration, one of the most destructive decisions issued in the past decade—one that I have ridiculed as “facially ridiculous.” Red city mayors throughout the nation, and even California’s progressive Governor Gavin Newsom, begged the Court to reverse the ruling.

Fortunately, in an excellent 6–3 opinion written by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, in another case from the Ninth Circuit, Grants Pass v. Johnson, the Supreme Court last week reversed Martin. There is no constitutional right to vagrancy, and sleeping outside is not an “involuntary” act immune from criminal prosecution, the Court held. The Eighth Amendment proscribes only the form of punishment, not the types of conduct that are subject to criminal sanction. Cities and states are free to manage homeless encampments and the accompanying crime, drug abuse, and public health consequences, as they see fit. The jurisprudential nightmare unleashed by the Ninth Circuit is over. Grants Pass v. Johnson, although overshadowed by blockbuster decisions issued the same day overruling Chevron and invalidating J6 prosecutions under Sarbanes-Oxley, is a gem.

The majority opinion in Grants Pass patiently debunked the Ninth Circuit’s flawed reasoning, concluding that “the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment serves many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy.” Federal judges do not manage America’s cities; state and local elected officials do.

At the heart of Gorsuch’s opinion, and the majority’s disagreement with the three liberal justices (Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson), was the difference between two Warren Court–era precedents, Robinson v. California (1962) and Powell v. Texas (1968). Robinson, a hoary relic of the Court’s period of extravagant activism, held that a California law making it a crime to be a drug addict violated the Eighth Amendment because drug addiction—as opposed to drug use, or possession—is a status, not a volitional act. The majority pointed out that “in the 62 years since Robinson,…this Court [has not] once invoked it as authority to decline the enforcement of any criminal law, leaving the Eighth Amendment instead to perform its traditional function of addressing the punishments that follow a criminal conviction.” Yet, in Martin v. Boise, the Ninth Circuit risibly relied on (and extended) Robinson to invent its novel “constitutional right to vagrancy.”

This was an error, the majority in Grants Pass concluded. Without reconsidering or overruling Robinson, the majority made it clear that the 1962 precedent was an anomaly to be narrowly limited to its unique facts. (Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, who joined the majority in Grants Pass, wrote separately to condemn Robinson on originalist grounds, arguing that it was “wrongly decided.”) The majority contrasted Robinson with another, more sensible artifact of the Warren Court’s criminal law revolution, Powell v. Texas. In Powell, the Court had declined to extend Robinson more broadly, holding that a Texas law prohibiting public drunkenness criminalized conduct, not status. Accordingly, the law did not run afoul of the Eighth Amendment. 

The amazing feature of this doctrinal tutorial is that the author of the Court’s plurality opinion in Powell was Justice Thurgood Marshall, the liberal champion of civil rights who, as an advocate, argued the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Marshall scoffed at the notion that public drunkenness could be regarded as a status: the defendant had not been convicted “for being” an “alcoholic, but for [engaging in the act of] being in public while drunk on a particular occasion,” Marshall insisted. Thus, Robinson did not apply. Accordingly, Marshall concluded, the Eighth Amendment does nothing to curtail a state’s authority to secure a conviction when “the accused has committed some act…society has an interest in preventing.”  

The majority in Grants Pass rightly held that “This case is no different from Powell.” Banning sleeping in public is no different than banning public drunkenness. Both crimes entail volitional conduct, not status. Despite this simple and irrefutable logic, the three left-wing dissenters in Grants Pass wrote 30 pages of overheated nonsense defending the Ninth Circuit’s execrable decision in Martin v. Boise. 

Justice Sotomayor’s paean to judicial activism begins with this drivel: “Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime.” This is how divided the Court is in 2024. The three remaining Democrat appointees comprise a bloc of hard-left ideological zealots willing to embrace far-fetched theories that even Thurgood Marshall slapped down as silly during the heyday of “living Constitution” judicial activism during the 1960s. We thought that the Warren Court era was over, and it should be, but it lives on in the fervid rants of unhinged—and, thankfully, meaningless—dissenting opinions (albeit just two votes away from regaining control of the Court). Sotomayor and her colleagues are to the left of Governor Gavin Newsom, who praised the Court’s decision! 

The conservative majority in Grants Pass provided a master class in originalist constitutional interpretation, restoring the ability of America’s cities to govern themselves. This is a victory for democracy, federalism, and common sense, and a major defeat for the National Homelessness Law Center, which spearheads litigation seeking to create a right to taxpayer-funded housing. Bravo!

The post Common Sense and Public Order Are Restored to America’s Cities appeared first on The American Conservative.

A few weeks ago, as I walked the near deserted streets of Odessa, Ukraine, I was struck by an incongruous scene. Though more than half of residents have fled the war’s missile strikes and nightly air-raids, vestiges of its wealthy elite’s earlier preoccupations with carbon footprints still abounded.  

Among the G-Wagons, Range Rovers, and Landcruisers streaking across its cobblestones and belle-époque avenues, and just a short ways from where a Russian cruise missile exploded last week, were a conspicuous number of electric vehicles from China, the U.S., and Europe.

Also last month, Ukraine’s largest electricity producer confirmed that this winter Ukrainians may face up to 20 hours a day without power, a frightening consequence of a war where energy has been weaponized.

As America heads into election season and Ukraine remains under martial law with elections indefinitely suspended, Americans who love their fast cars and freedom need to reflect. Under Biden, they are also under siege.

Since Biden took office, U.S. drivers have felt his contempt for combustion—gasoline prices have skyrocketed over 55 percent, car insurance payments have risen over 51 percent, car and truck leases are 46 percent more expensive, and auto repair costs are up over 40 percent.

As if the nation’s 240 million licensed drivers weren’t already feeling sideswiped by inflation, hard-working Americans are now being pressured to shoulder the financial burden for the supposed global impact of our car culture. To these prophets and high priests of climate doom, the internal combustion engine and everything it represents is to be deplored. The Biden administration claims that only through the government-mandated adoption of electric vehicles (EVs)—which are both unaffordable and unwanted by most Americans—can we redeem ourselves.

EV mandates are yet another way the Biden administration strips freedom and happiness from Americans and replaces them with control and futility. This November, Americans will reject this at the ballot box, choosing fast cars and freedom over fear and loathing. After four years of enforced suffering, juggling multiple part-time jobs and side hustles just to make ends meet, they have had enough. On Day One, President Trump will roll back all of Biden’s policies that are undermining America’s car culture and halting the actions that threaten 117,000 U.S. autoworker jobs.

Many still recall when the American road was open, daring, and free—think Vin Diesel in his 1970 Dodge Charger from Fast and Furious. (Notably, his co-star The Rock has refused to endorse Biden this election, distancing himself from the President’s anti-auto policies.) Meanwhile, Biden, in his ’67 Stingray and Ray-Ban aviators, tries hard to cop this cool even as he wages war on the American automotive industry.

The new tailpipe emissions regulations issued by Biden’s EPA in March will drastically reshape the U.S. automobile landscape in ways few Americans want. By 2032, the aim is for half to two-thirds of new cars sold to be EVs or so-called zero-emission vehicles, including hydrogen-powered ones. Meanwhile, California plans to ban gas-powered vehicle sales outright by 2035.

Since their introduction, only 3 million EVs have been sold in the U.S.—just 1 percent of the country’s entire fleet of automobiles. Out of our nation’s 290 million autos, there are a mere 17,000 hydrogen vehicles on U.S. roads, all in California. Despite the absurdity of this forced transition, the underlying grift is becoming clearer. Biden promised 500,000 electric charging stations by 2030 but has spent over $7.5 billion by March to build just seven in four states. Each station, according to the Times of India, costs as much as constructing a new Taj Mahal today.

Americans aren’t buying these false promises—or EVs for that matter. Over 60 percent believe EVs help address climate change “only a little” (35 percent) or not at all (26 percent). After peaking at shockingly low numbers, EV sales are now declining. In Q1 2024, EV sales fell after four years of stunted growth. Last year, Ford aimed to produce 150,000 all-electric F-150 Lightnings but managed to sell just 24,000, leading to massive losses and job cuts for U.S. workers.EVs themselves pose a danger to other drivers, even beyond the risks of automated driving systems, and are twice as likely to kill pedestrians. Most EVs weigh 20–50 percent more than gas-powered vehicles due to heavy batteries that can themselves weigh as much as a small car. You don’t need a physics degree to grasp what this implies for a collision or the added stress on roads. For example, the Hummer EV-1, ironically from a lineage long derided by the left, weighs over 9,000 pounds, including a 2,900-pound battery pack. Research sponsored by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shows that most guardrails across thousands of miles of U.S. roadways are vastly inadequate to handle the extra force from EV collisions.

Ironically, one place where demand for EV’s seems to be growing is back in wartime Ukraine, however, for reasons you might not expect.  Some of these new EV’s are being purchased with donor money, including with U.S. funds directed through the World Bank.  One program handed out 75 new Chinese-made MG4 EV’s in a joint program with Ukraine’s Ministry of Health. Also, while used EV prices in the U.S. plummet and Hertz dumps 20,000 used Teslas onto the market, Ukraine seems to be oddly stepping up as a buyer, importing 6,000 used Teslas in the first four months of 2024 alone, slightly more than its 5,000 new Chinese imports. One reason why: many of these used EV’s have been involved in accidents back home in the U.S. and while deemed unsafe and unrepairable here, are finding new life on Ukrainian roads. There is even a joke in Ukraine that EV’s are a poor man’s car and the rich only drive gasoline powered vehicles.

Finally, while mandating a surge in electric vehicle production, which heavily depends on Chinese components, Biden has also imposed new tariffs on Chinese imports. These tariffs, which include substantial increases on semiconductors, lithium-ion EV batteries, and other critical minerals, will drive up costs and disrupt the market. 

The Biden administration’s contradictory economic policies—imposing tariffs on Chinese imports while mandating a surge in electric vehicle production that depends on Chinese components—will wreak havoc on the U.S. auto industry. Americans—and Odessans in West Texas and Ukraine alike—want a fast car to get themselves out of this dangerous green new deal. Thankfully, for Americans and auto lovers, help is on the way. President Trump will eliminate the impractical policies and priorities of Joe Biden’s agenda, restoring sanity and freedom on the roads and in everyday life.

The post Driving Change: Fast Cars and Freedom on the Ballot appeared first on The American Conservative.

For far too long, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has fallen short in its mission “To fulfill President Lincoln’s promise to care for those who have served in our nation’s military and for their families, caregivers, and survivors.” As someone who uses the VA system, I know first-hand the run-around often given to our veterans. Many veterans fight with the VA for years to get help. Some never receive it. Hung-up phones, never-ending waitlists, repeated delays of urgent treatments—veterans are familiar with the litany of neglect. 

What’s worse: This poor treatment is occurring at the same time the VA has been processing medical claims for illegal immigrants. 

Last December, I was shocked to read news reports uncovering the VA’s absurd arrangement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). I led a letter with 23 of my colleagues to VA Secretary McDonough. To my surprise, the secretary confirmed that VA employees do indeed work on medical claims for illegal immigrants in ICE custody. With illegal immigration at all-time highs thanks to the Biden Administration’s reckless border policies, I expect their workload is quite high these days. 

VA personnel are tasked with serving claims for government-funded healthcare for an invasion of illegal immigrants, despite the longstanding issues with its claims backlog and customer service. In particular, the VA’s disability claim backlog has been a source of significant frustration in the veteran community. After several years under the Trump administration in which the VA disability claims backlog was consistently under 100,000 claims, the backlog has nearly tripled under the Biden Administration—up to 273,307 as of last week. This is an abject failure, and our veterans deserve better.

Even if the VA were a well-oiled machine running ahead of schedule, I wouldn’t support diverting resources to illegals. Yet the fact that the agency already struggles to provide satisfactory care to veterans makes the contractual agreement between the VA and ICE even more troubling. Further, Congress appropriates funds to the VA to provide services to our veterans, not to illegal immigrants. Imagine how much those employees could accomplish if they put all their time and resources towards serving those who sacrificed for our country, instead of working for foreign lawbreakers. The contrast could not be starker. It is a slap in the face to our veterans and hardworking American taxpayers.

I firmly believe veterans are owed an apology by our government for this alarming policy, but we must do better than apologies. We must correct course and ensure the VA stops working for illegal immigrants. 

I’m glad my colleagues in the House agreed with me and approved of my amendment to the House-passed Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. My amendment ensures that no VA funds may be used to process medical claims for ICE. I am also pleased that the bill prohibited the VA from providing benefits directly to illegal aliens. It once was noncontroversial to say that VA resources are solely intended for veterans and their survivors. Today, it requires Congressional amendments to ensure the VA’s mission stays on track. The Senate must fight to ensure the final version of this bill also puts veterans over illegals.

The VA exists to serve American veterans who risked their lives to protect our great country. Many sacrificed immensely and came back from deployments with life-altering physical and mental injuries requiring lifelong care. Our government promised to care for them. Meanwhile, illegal immigrants in ICE custody receive “comprehensive medical and mental health care for noncitizens from the moment they arrive at a facility,” as stated on ICE.gov. Migrants have “access to daily sick calls, 24 hour emergency care,… screening, prevention, health education, diagnosis, and treatment while in ICE custody.” With how slow-moving the VA has become, veterans are right to feel slighted by the immediate, comprehensive care illegals receive, and even question if our government prioritizes illegal immigrant care over our veterans. 

It’s far past time to start providing our veterans with world-class care. Yet we keep forcing our veterans to use the same old system.

I represent one of the largest veteran populations in the country in Southwest Florida. That’s why it’s an abomination that the VA hospital serving Florida’s 17th Congressional district ranks in the bottom five percent of veteran hospitals nationally. 

I firmly believe veterans deserve choice when it comes to their healthcare. My priority legislation, the Veterans True Choice Act, would expand health insurance options for disabled veterans and give service-connected veterans the ability to use Tricare Select and Tricare for Life. Recent reports show that as many as 24 veterans die each day from suicide. My legislation will save lives by giving those in crisis options outside of the slow, failing VA. 

Standing up for our nation’s heroes is always at the forefront of my work in Congress. After fulfilling my service obligation in the U.S. Army and deploying in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, I know what our veterans experience as they return home. The absolute last thing our veterans need is to compete with illegal immigrants for VA resources, navigate bureaucratic red tape, and suffer with unsatisfactory medical care at the very agency dedicated solely to serving our heroes. 

Our veterans served our country honorably, and it is high time that our government starts serving them.

The post The VA Must Stop Working for Illegals appeared first on The American Conservative.

President Trump on Monday sought to overturn the ‘hush money’ conviction after the Supreme Court ruled he has presidential immunity for official acts.

Trump’s legal defense team previously invoked the presidential immunity argument to delay the hush money trial, but it was struck down.

In May President Trump was found guilty on all 34 felony counts in Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s ‘hush money’ lawfare trial.

Judge Merchan told jurors they did not have to agree on a crime. This is unheard of in US history. The jury only had to agree something bad happened. This, of course, is completely unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 6-3 that Trump has absolute immunity for his core Constitutional powers.

Former presidents are entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for their official acts, the high court ruled.

The Supreme Court ruled there is no immunity for unofficial acts.

President Trump’s lawyers also sought additional time to make their presidential immunity arguments which could delay the July 11 sentencing.

ABC News reported:

Hours after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling that President Donald Trump has some presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken to overturn results of the 2020 election, Trump on Monday sought to have his conviction thrown out in his New York criminal hush money case, according to sources.

Trump’s lawyers said the hush money verdict should be tossed because the jury saw evidence during trial that they believe should have been protected by presidential immunity, according to a letter to Judge Juan Merchan that was described by sources to ABC News.

The defense sought additional time to make their argument — a move that could delay Trump’s sentencing, which is currently scheduled for July 11.

The post Trump Seeks to Overturn ‘Hush Money’ Conviction Following Supreme Court Ruling on Presidential Immunity appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

CNN data analyst Harry Enten freaked out on the air over poll numbers for Biden after the debate disaster of last Thursday night, noting that he has never seen numbers this bad for an incumbent president.

The data points that Enten seems most panicked about are the ones related to Biden’s mental health and how that relates to the idea of him running for another term.

This is why Democrats are in full meltdown mode with some of them even insisting that he drop out of the race.

Transcript via Real Clear Politics:

HARRY ENTEN, CNN: CBS News and YouGov conducted some polling post-debate. We can compare it to the pre-debate numbers, and the bottom line is, it’s not any good.

Look at this, voters who say that Biden has the mental health to be president. It was just 35% pre-debate. Look where it’s dropped to now, post-debate, 27%.

How about “not that he should be running” for president? It was 37% pre-debate. It’s now 28%.

I have never seen numbers this bad for an incumbent president during my lifetime. I mean, “mental health to be president” at just 27%? You might say, okay, that’s low, but a lot of people thought Biden was too old back in 2020. These numbers looked nothing like this back in 2020. These numbers were bad already, and the truth is, they have gotten just considerably worse, even in just a few days after that first presidential debate.

CNN HOST: Do we have polling yet that suggests voters want a different candidate?

HARRY ENTEN: Yeah, this is the whole question, right? If it’s not President Biden, then who could it be on the Democratic side? And the truth is, there are no easy answers. I went back and looked at the polling versus Donald Trump for a bunch of different Democrats that have been suggested: Gretchen Whitmer, Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris. Look at this, they all trail Donald Trump.

So the idea here that we’re somehow going to get this magic bullet, that there’s somehow going to be some Democrat who can beat Donald Trump easily, I just don’t see it in the numbers.

Watch the video below:

CNN guest freaking out over post Presidential debate polls:
Alisyn Camerota: “Do we have new poll numbers for President Biden post debate?”
Harry Enten: “The bottom line: It’s not any good.
‘Voters who say that Biden has the mental health to be president’: 35% to 27%
‘Biden… pic.twitter.com/7iaytVU71m

— Eric Abbenante (@EricAbbenante) July 1, 2024

Even CNN can’t spin the disaster that Biden’s campaign has become. It’s priceless.

The post CNN Data Analyst Loses His Mind Over Post-Debate Polls for Biden: ‘Never Seen Numbers This Bad for an Incumbent President’ (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.