Connect with us

Politics

If Chuck Schumer Doesn’t Want A King, Maybe He Should Stop Attacking Our Institutions

Published

on

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s latest gimmicky attack on the Supreme Court is called the “No Kings Act,” which would overturn SCOTUS’s recent immunity decision related to the prosecution of Donald Trump.

“The Founders were explicit — no man in America shall be a king. Yet, in their disastrous decision, the Supreme Court threw out centuries of precedent and anointed Trump and subsequent presidents as kings above the law,” Schumer says.

Now, I suppose, peddling some doomed law is an improvement on standing in front of the Supreme Court and threatening justices like a deranged demagogue, as Schumer did in 2020. Nevertheless, the court didn’t anoint anyone a king.

I’m skeptical of constitutionally-protected presidential immunity arguments, but the Supreme Court merely recognized “that presidents have immunity from criminal prosecution for acts that are within the ambit of their executive authority.” This position was largely upheld for a long time by the norms that Democrats blew up when they shredded due process with their trumped-up, sometimes fictitious, charges against the leading GOP presidential hopeful.

The remedy for presidential misconduct, by the way, is impeachment and removal. As much as he tries, Schumer does not have the power to dictate how the Judicial branch rules.

Here, though, is an example of how to create kings.

First, spend decades attacking the legitimacy of a court because it refuses to subscribe to the living-breathing theory of constitutional law — which is no kind of law, at all. Then, every time the court upholds limits

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Politics

Biden-Harris Hid Info On Suspected Terrorists Crossing The Border From The Public, Former Border Agent Claims

Published

on

The Biden-Harris administration instructed Border Patrol officials from releasing information to the American public on suspected terrorists crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, a former senior agent claimed on Wednesday.

Speaking before the House Homeland Security Committee, retired Chief Border Patrol Agent Aaron Heitke alleged that administration officials told him he “could not release any names or information” on the increase of “significant interest aliens (SIAs)” — illegals with “significant ties to terrorism” — apprehended at the southern border. Heitke was promoted to chief patrol agent of the San Diego sector in February 2020 and retired last summer.

The former Border Patrol agent noted that the San Diego sector “averaged 10 to 15 SIA arrests per year” prior to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris taking office. Once “word got out” about the administration’s open border policies, the sector experienced an exponential increase in the number of SIAs apprehended by U.S. agents, Heitke contended.

After Biden and Harris took office, “San Diego went to over 100 SIAs in 2022, well over that in 2023, and even more than that registered this year,” he said. “These are only the ones we caught.”

Heitke claimed that in keeping information about suspected terrorists crossing the border hidden, the administration was “trying to convince the public there was no threat at the border.”

In addition to a mass influx of fentanyl into the United States, the retired border chief noted how he had to “release illegal aliens by the hundreds each day into

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Politics

Democrats’ Abortion Extremism Would Not Be Possible Without Help From Corporate Media

Published

on

The abortion extremism that Democrats have made the hallmark of their campaigns in recent years did not sneak into red states and onto debate stages by accident. It is the corporate media’s years-long willingness to amplify abortion activism that gave Democrats desperate to control the narrative on unborn life the ability to make killing babies the center of their 2024 election strategy.

For years, top Democrats have rejected any limits on ending life in the womb. Those blue party members who refuse to admit to their affinity for unlimited abortion so plainly, such as Vice President Kamala Harris, make it clear where they stand when they throw their support behind bills and ballot measures that seek to codify killing unborn babies through birth.

Democrats have publicly advocated for abortion for all regardless of the circumstances in all 50 states. They’ve even pledged to stop at nothing, including the filibuster, to ensure it happens. Yet, corporate media have deliberately avoided forcing pro-abortion politicians to reconcile their radicalism with Americans’ widespread support for restricting abortion.

To put it bluntly, the propaganda press quite literally let Democrats get away with murder without saying a word.

Even the talking heads that dare to ask Democrat candidates and officials exactly what week of pregnancy abortion permissions should end do so meekly and without adequate follow-up.

.@VP Harris calls on Congress to codify the abortion rights protections of Roe v. Wade, and does not say which week of pregnancy should be the cutoff

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Politics

99 Percent Of Challenged Signatures For Arizona’s Ranked-Choice Voting Ballot Initiative Are Duplicates

Published

on

A court-appointed special master report revealed on Tuesday that roughly 99 percent of challenged signatures collected for a pro-ranked-choice voting Arizona ballot measure are duplicates.

In his report, court-ordered Special Master and retired Arizona Superior Court Judge Christopher Skelly disclosed that 37,657 pairs of signatures gathered in support of Proposition 140 are, in fact, duplicates. As argued by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AZFEC), this discovery “now place[s] Proposition 140 thousands of signatures under the constitutionally required signature threshold to qualify for the [November] ballot.”

Proposition 140 would amend the Arizona Constitution by instituting an open primary system in which candidates of all parties run in the same primary. It also paves the way for the state to potentially adopt ranked-choice voting (RCV) for general elections.

Under an RCV system, voters are asked to rank candidates of all parties in order of preference. If no candidate receives more than 50 percent of first-choice votes in the first round of voting, the last-place finisher is eliminated, and his votes are reallocated to the voter’s second-choice candidate. This process continues until one candidate receives a majority of votes.

As described by AZ Free News, Skelly’s report noted how “hundreds of the alleged duplicates were overruled and removed from consideration and 3,333 were removed from consideration by agreement of attorneys on both sides,” and that “[w]hile the signatures were classed into ‘exact matches’ and ‘near matches,’ Skelly [wrote] that he was instructed to ‘not read anything into those descriptions and … did not.’”

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Trending