RFK Jr. Hints at Third-Party Run Because of DNC Primary Rigging

Robert Jonathan
-
0
RFK Jr. Hints at Third-Party Run Because of DNC Primary Rigging

(Robert Jonathan, Headline USA) Insurgent Democrat presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has acknowledged that he may look into “other alternatives” if party bigwigs manipulate the primary process for Joe Biden.

The other alternatives that he alluded to during a recent 30-minute interview with Forbes  presumably include running in the November 2024 general election as a third-party candidate.

The context for his remarks appears to be the decision by the Democratic National Committee to change the presidential primary calendar.

For diversity-related reasons, the DNC designated South Carolina as the first 2024 primary.

If state Democrats in New Hampshire (and/or Iowa) go forward with the traditional schedule, they apparently will be deemed non-compliant.

In the interview, RFK Jr. discussed what he considers the potential for voter disenfranchisement given that the party establishment wants to coronate Biden without given Democrats a meaningful way to consider anyone else.

In so doing, the scenario “makes it almost impossible to have democracy function,” he claimed.

“So two of the things they’ve done…is they’ve moved the Iowa primary — they made rules that if anybody campaigns in Iowa, or any candidate sets foot in the state of Iowa or sets foot in the state of New Hampshire, then none of the votes that are cast for that candidate will be tallied,” Kennedy said.

He further explained that “In other words any delegate that I win in New Hampshire or Iowa would go instead to the president. And now they’re trying to change it so that if I campaign in New Hampshire, that none of the votes cast for me in Georgia will count. That’s significant because it’s hard to win the nomination without Georgia.”

RFK also lamented that his task is even more difficult in that so-called superdelegates are in the tank for the Biden reelection effort.

This scenario is playing out despite Biden’s unpopularity and an apparent feeling among rank-and-file Democrats that someone else should be their 2024 standard-bearer.

Kennedy vowed, nonetheless, to continue campaigning in New Hampshire and Iowa.

In perhaps a veiled reference to a third-party bid, he also underscored that his candidacy is not merely symbolic.

“If the DNC is gonna make it, it’s gonna rig it, so that it is simply impossible for anybody to challenge President Biden, you know, then I need to look at other alternatives. Because I can’t go back to the people who support me, to my donors, and say, you know…’I’m in this to make a point.’ I need to show them a road to victory.”

Democrats have already ruled out any debates in the primary season and even floated the draconian idea of billing RFK Jr. (or Marianne Williamson, a lesser Biden rival) for the costs of running the primaries.

Earlier in the interview, Kennedy asserted that “it’s a process that is rigged…we’re at a time in American history when a lot of Americans think that democracy is broken, that the political system is rigged…and there’s not really any democracy. And unfortunately, the DNC is taking a lot of steps that confirm that outlook…”

Lifelong liberal RFK Jr., an environmental lawyer, has distinguished himself by his unwillingness to along with the prevailing narrative and has thus gained some crossover appeal.

For example, he opposes the war machine and is an advocate for free speech and health autonomy.

The DNC has scheduled a Thursday meeting in D.C. to finalize various rules.

Kennedy’s campaign manager Dennis Kucinich, the former Ohio congressman, has requested the opportunity to address the group about the primary selection process.

Admitting that he doesn’t yet know what alternatives he might be exploring, Kennedy implied that his campaign strategy going forward depends a lot on what happens at the upcoming DNC meeting.

The campaign also noted that Joe Biden finished last in the New Hampshire primary and fourth in Iowa in 2020.

In a radio interview, MAGA superstar Kari Lake remarked that Kennedy’s third-party candidacy could be a plus for voter integrity.

“When there’s three people, three parties, running in any election, whether it be the senate seat in Arizona, the presidency, it makes it a lot harder for these people to cheat because they don’t know what’s gonna be on the inside of the ballot,” Lake said.

“It might be a Democrat voting, but that Democrat might be voting independent this time around, to vote for RFK Jr., so I think we’re gonna see some dynamics in this election that’s going to make it harder for them to cheat,” she added.

RFK Jr. may not be the only high-profile individual launching a third-party effort. Far-left academic/activist Cornel West is seeking the Green Party nomination for president in 2024.

Democrat in High-Stakes Va. Legislature Race Posted Sex Acts on Porno Site

Editor 1
-
0
Democrat in High-Stakes Va. Legislature Race Posted Sex Acts on Porno Site

(Headline USA) A candidate in a high-stakes legislative contest in Virginia had sex with her husband in live videos posted on a pornographic website and asked viewers to pay them money in return for carrying out specific sex acts.

The campaign for Susanna Gibson, a Democrat running for a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates in a district just outside Richmond, issued a statement Monday in which it denounced the sharing of the videos as a violation of the law and her privacy, even though she knowingly broadcast the acts publicly in return for money.

Gibson had an account on Chaturbate, a legal website where viewers can watch live webcam performances that feature nudity and sexual activity, according to the screenshots reviewed by the AP.

The videos show GIbson and her husband, John David Gibson, having sex and at times looking into the camera and asking viewers for donations in the form of “tokens” or “tips” to watch a private show.

Chaturbate videos are streamed live on that site and are often archived on other publicly available sites, the Post reported. More than a dozen videos posted under Gibson’s Chaturbate username were archived on one of those sites—Recurbate—in September 2022, the month after she announced her candidacy. The most recent were two videos archived on Sept. 30, 2022. It is unclear when the livestream occurred.

The Washington Post first reported the videos on Monday.

Gibson called the exposure of the videos “the worst gutter politics.”

“It won’t intimidate me and it won’t silence me,” she said in the statement. “My political opponents and their Republican allies have proven they’re willing to commit a sex crime to attack me and my family because there’s no line they won’t cross to silence women when they speak up.”

The effort to frame herself as the victim called to mind the blackface scandal involving former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, a Democrat, who initially denied that he had posed in a picture while in medical school that featured him either in blackface or in Ku Klux Klan regalia. Northam has never acknowledged which one he was.

He was spared from an early forced resignation as a matter of political necessity, however, after the lieutenant governor and attorney general—second and third in line for succession—became ensnared in their own scandals, opening the possibility that the Republican House speaker might be the next in line.

GOP Gov. Glenn Youngkin may have benefited politically from the backlash against Northam’s scandal among other instances of Democrat duplicity and unethical conduct.

With Youngkin’s midterm election marker approaching this year, the revelation of Gibson’s pornographic past marked an explosive turn in a contest that will carry significant weight in determining the balance of power in the Virginia General Assembly. The race has attracted large amounts of spending and interest for an off-year legislative race.

Democrats control the Senate by a four-vote margin, and Republicans control the House of Delegates by the same margin, with four seats currently vacant. The parties are waging intense legislative battles as Youngkin looks to bolster his conservative agenda with full control of state government.

Gibson said that exposing the videos was “an illegal invasion of my privacy designed to humiliate me and my family.”

Gibson’s attorney, Daniel P. Watkins, said that disseminating the videos was a violation of Virginia’s revenge porn law, which makes it a crime to “maliciously” disseminate or sell nude or sexual images of another person with the intent to “coerce, harass, or intimidate.”

“A criminal act has occurred here, and that’s the dissemination of revenge porn by a Republican operative,” Watkins told the AP.

Headline USA is including a censored version of the videos above that was publicly available on Twitter due to their newsworthiness.

Watkins cited a 2021 Virginia Court of Appeals ruling that found it was unlawful for a man to secretly record his girlfriend during a consensual sexual encounter even if he did not show the video to other people. The court found that consent to being seen is not the same as consent to being recorded.

However, in this case, Gibson knew she was being recorded and that her sex acts were being broadcast publicly to a wider audience, calling into question the relevance of the statute.

Gibson, 40, a nurse practitioner and married mother of two young children, won a Democratic primary in June and is running against Republican businessman David Owen in one of the most competitive districts in the state.

“I’m sure this is a difficult time for Susanna and her family, and I’m remaining focused on my campaign,” Owen said in a statement.

A top-ranking Virginia Democrat immediately came to Gibson’s defense after the videos were reported. “Now we are going to make this the biggest fundraising day of her campaign,” Sen. L. Louise Lucas said on Twitter.

Garren Shipley, a spokesman for Republican House Speaker Todd Gilbert, did not immediately respond to a request seeking comment.

Gibson and Owen are competing in the 57th District, an area that includes suburbs of Richmond in both Henrico and Goochland counties. The district chose Youngkin by a 51.2%-to-48.3% margin in 2021, but in the 2022 congressional midterm elections, the split in the district was 50% Democratic to 49.1% Republican.

Gibson has said the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade propelled her into the race.

Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press

Will the Corrupt DOJ that Colluded w/ Big Tech Push to Break Up Google?

Editor 1
-
0
Will the Corrupt DOJ that Colluded w/ Big Tech Push to Break Up Google?

(Headline USA) Skepticism remained high that the Biden Justice Department would, in good faith, seek to enforce the nation’s antitrust laws in a major case against Google, even as it fights elsewhere in court to defend its right to collude with Big Tech to censor U.S. citizens in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

To top it off, the case is being overheard by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, one of several Obama appointees in the D.C. District Court system who has become notorious for his corruption in the wake of the recent trials against Jan. 6 political dissidents.

Instead, all signs point to a show trial of sorts that will allow the DOJ to shake down the world’s most powerful website for a hefty settlement that may help foot the bill for its upcoming trials against former President Donald Trump—while ensuring that no actual consequence comes to the Democrat-friendly Google.

Mehta likely won’t issue a ruling until early next year. If he decides Google broke the law, another trial will decide what steps should be taken to rein in the Mountain View, California-based company.

Federal regulators nonetheless hyped Tuesday’s hearing not only as an attempt to dismantle Google’s internet empire but the biggest U.S. antitrust trial in a quarter century.

Over the next 10 weeks, federal lawyers and state attorneys general will try to prove Google rigged the market in its favor by locking its search engine in as the default choice in a plethora of places and devices.

However, the trial is unlikely to delve into Google’s curation of other information, such as news and politics, which have been proven to skew leftward, benefiting Democrats in several recent election cycles to the tune of millions of votes according to some estimates.

Top executives at Google and its corporate parent Alphabet Inc., as well as those from other powerful technology companies are expected to testify.

Among them is likely to be Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai, who succeeded Google co-founder Larry Page four years ago. Court documents also suggest that Eddy Cue, a high ranking Apple executive, might be called to the stand.

The Justice Department filed its antitrust lawsuit against Google nearly three years ago during the Trump administration, charging that the company has used its internet search dominance to gain an unfair advantage against competitors.

Government lawyers allege that Google protects its franchise through a form of payola, shelling out billions of dollars annually to be the default search engine on the iPhone and on web browsers such as Apple’s Safari and Mozilla’s Firefox.

Regulators also charge that Google has illegally rigged the market in its favor by requiring its search engine to be bundled with its Android software for smartphones if the device manufacturers want full access to the Android app store.

Google counters that it faces a wide range of competition despite commanding about 90% of the internet search market. Its rivals, Google argues, range from search engines such as Microsoft’s Bing to websites like Amazon and Yelp, where consumers can post questions about what to buy or where to go.

From Google’s perspective, perpetual improvements to its search engine explain why people almost reflexively keep coming back to it, a habit that long ago made “Googling” synonymous with looking things up on the internet.

The trial begins just a couple weeks after the 25th anniversary of the first investment in the company—a $100,000 check written by Sun Microsystems co-founder Andy Bechtolsheim that enabled Page and Sergey Brin to set up shop in a Silicon Valley garage.

Today, Google’s corporate parent, Alphabet, is worth $1.7 trillion and employs 182,000 people, with most of the money coming from $224 billion in annual ad sales flowing through a network of digital services anchored by a search engine that fields billions of queries a day.

The Justice Department’s antitrust case echoes the one it filed against Microsoft in 1998. Regulators then accused Microsoft of forcing computer makers that relied on its dominant Windows operating system to also feature Microsoft’s Internet Explorer—just as the internet was starting to go mainstream. That bundling practice crushed competition from the once-popular browser Netscape.

Several members of the Justice Department’s team in the Google case—including lead Justice Department litigator Kenneth Dintzer—also worked on the Microsoft investigation.

Google could be hobbled if the trial ends in concessions that undercut its power. One possibility is that the company could be forced to stop paying Apple and other companies to make Google the default search engine on smartphones and computers.

Or the legal battle could cause Google to lose focus. That’s what happened to Microsoft after its antitrust showdown with the Justice Department. Distracted, the software giant struggled to adapt to the impact of internet search and smartphones. Google capitalized on that distraction to leap from its startup roots into an imposing powerhouse.

Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press

Just In Time for New Lockdowns, Calif. Lawmakers Lift Red-State Travel Ban

Editor 1
-
0
Just In Time for New Lockdowns, Calif. Lawmakers Lift Red-State Travel Ban

(Headline USA) On the heels of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s vague lamentations about his Draconian lockdown missteps during a Meet the Press interview on Sunday, California lawmakers in the Democrat dominated legislature seemed to have little interest in taking chances again that the governor could again wield such emergency power.

Instead, they gave themselves an escape hatch by voting to lift a ban on state-funded travel to states with so-called anti-LGBT laws and instead focus on an advertising campaign to bring “anti-discrimination” messages to red states.

California lawmakers in the state Assembly on Monday passed legislation to end the travel ban.

“In many instances, the travel ban has inadvertently caused California to isolate its services and citizens in a time when we are leading the nation in ensuring inclusivity and freedom,” said Democratic Assemblymember Rick Zbur, the former executive director of the advocacy group Equality California.

“With nearly 500 anti-LGBTQ bills having been introduced in legislatures nationwide this year alone, now more than ever, we need to reach into those communities with messages of support, inclusivity and understanding,” he added.

California started banning official travel to states with laws it deemed discriminatory against LGBT people in 2017, starting with Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee.

Since then, the list has grown to include a total of 26 states, most of them Republican-led, following a surge of legislation that included protections for children and biological women, who have become prominent targets of the transgender political agenda.

The prohibition has prevented elected officials, state workers and university scholars from traveling to more than half of the country using the state’s money.

That has posed a significant challenge to sports teams at public colleges and universities, which have had to find alternative funding sources to pay for their road games in states like Arizona and Utah.

With two of California’s flagship schools, Berkeley and Stanford, having recently joined the Atlantic Coast Conference, which features several schools in red states including North Carolina, the complications were likely to mount.

All in all, the virtue-signaling boycott has proven to be an unmitigated disaster for California, doing more to hinder its leftists agenda than to help it.

It has also complicated some of the state’s other policy goals, like using state money to pay for people who live in other states to travel to California for abortions.

The repeal of the policy was introduced by state Senate leader Toni Atkins. It would also establish an outreach and advertising campaign in states on the travel ban list to promote pro-LGBT messages.

Atkins, who is a lesbian, said the travel ban has helped raise awareness about many anti-LGBT issues, but it has also led to unintended consequences.

Some Republicans voted against overturning the ban, but there was no debate.

The bill will head to the Senate for a final vote before landing on Newsom’s desk. The Democratic governor has until Oct. 14 to decide whether to sign it into law.

The governor’s office said he will evaluate the bill on its merits.

The legislation is among nearly 1,000 bills that lawmakers have been debating during the hectic final two weeks of the Legislative session. The Legislature has until Sept. 14 to act on these bills.

IN-STATE COMMUNITY COLLEGE TUITION FOR MEXICAN RESIDENTS

The Assembly also voted to send a bill to Newsom that would allow some low-income Mexican residents living within 45 miles of the California-Mexico border to get in-state tuition at certain community colleges in Southern California. If approved, this pilot program would be in effect until 2029.

Supporters of the bill say it would help expand access to education for eligible students and help them enter the workforce in the future. That includes Southern California advocacy group Los Amigos de la Comunidad, which in English means “Friends of the Community.”

“There are barriers to education at all levels,” said Eric Montoya Reyes, the group’s executive director. “It can be burdensome to add another obstacle of nonresident fees to their ability to get an education.”

NEW RULES FOR SELF-DRIVING TRUCKS

The California Senate voted to require self-driving semitrucks to always have a human present to oversee it.

California has been at the forefront of self-driving vehicles. Last month, state regulators allowed two companies to operate autonomous taxis in San Francisco.

Labor unions are worried the technology could soon be applied to semitrucks, replacing drivers at the heart of the nation’s $900 billion trucking industry. The bill lawmakers approved on Monday would not ban self-driving semitrucks. But it would require a human to be present.

The bill now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom, who must decide whether to sign it into law. His administration has signaled its opposition to the bill , arguing it would stifle innovation.

NEW RULES FOR CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS

The California Assembly on Monday voted to ban people from carrying guns in most public places.

The new rules come after a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year changed how the courts interpret gun laws. California lawmakers tried to pass new rules last year, but they failed because of a tactical error on the final day of the legislative session.

This year, lawmakers tried again. The bill bans people from carrying guns in privately owned commercial businesses that are open to the public — unless the business posts a sign saying guns are OK. The bill bans carrying guns in nearly every other public place, including schools, courts, government buildings, prisons, hospitals, airports, zoos, churches, zoos, museums, amusement parks and banks.

The bill has already passed the state Senate, but it requires one more vote before lawmakers can send it to Newsom’s desk.

INCREASING PENALTIES FOR HUMAN TRAFFICKERS

A bill that would increase the penalties for child traffickers cleared another key hurdle Monday.

The bill, which Newsom stepped in to revive after it was blocked in an Assembly committee in July, passed the state Assembly with a unanimous vote.

The bill would add child trafficking to a list of serious felonies in California. Anyone convicted of at least three serious felonies faces a prison sentence of between 25 years to life in prison under the state’s three-strikes law.

Some lawmakers initially opposed the bill, concerned it could inadvertently punish child trafficking victims with lengthy prison penalties. Republican state Sen. Shannon Grove, the author of the bill, added an amendment to protect victims from the enhanced penalties.

The bill will need a final vote from the Senate before heading to Newsom’s desk.

Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press

Biden OKs $6B Quid Pro Quo to Top Terror Sponsor on 9/11 Anniversary

Editor 1
-
0
Biden OKs $6B Quid Pro Quo to Top Terror Sponsor on 9/11 Anniversary

(Headline USA) The Biden administration has cleared the way for Iran to unleash a wave of new terrorism against Israeli and U.S. interest in the Middle East after giving $6 billion in frozen assets back to the rogue regime—a top sponsor of terrorist organizations including al-Qaeda, which organized the 9/11 terrorist attacks 22 years ago on Monday.

In return, Secretary of State Antony Blinken hoped to secure the release of five American citizens detained in Iran. As part of the deal, the administration has agreed to release five Iranian citizens held in the United States.

To some extent, the agreement appeared yet another echo of Biden’s presidential mentor, Jimmy Carter, whose political fate was sealed by an Iranian hostage crisis that the incoming Reagan administration successfully negotiated without resorting to any such lopsided quid pro quo agreements, underscoring a new era of diplomacy through strength.

In addition to its usual sponsorship of terrorism, Iran also has become a close ally recently of global adversaries including Russia and China. It is one of six countries slated to join the BRICS alliance in January 2024, which will give the hostile axis control over much of the oil-producing world.

Blinken signed off on the sanctions waivers late last week, a month after U.S. and Iranian officials said an agreement in principle was in place. Congress was not informed of the waiver decision until Monday, according to the notification, which was obtained by the Associated Press.

The outlines of the deal had been previously announced and the waiver was expected. But the notification marked the first time the administration said it was releasing five Iranian prisoners as part of the deal. The prisoners have not been named.

The waiver drew criticism of President Joe Biden from Republicans and others who say the deal will boost the Iranian economy at a time when Iran poses a growing threat to U.S. troops and Mideast allies.

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa said “it’s ridiculous for US to be blackmailed into paying $6B for hostages which will help indirectly finance the number 1 foreign policy of Iran: terrorism.”

Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas accused Biden of “paying ransom to the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism.”

Another Iran hawk, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said the waivers were a sign the administration was secretly pursuing a broader deal with Iran to include more than the release of the detainees.

“Today’s news confirms there has already been a side deal including a $6 billion ransom and the release of Iranian operatives,” Cruz said in a statement.

The White House pushed back on all criticism of the waiver decision, claiming it was only a “procedural step” aimed at fulfilling the tentative agreement reached with Iran in August.

“What is being pursued here is an arrangement wherein we secure the release of 5 wrongfully held Americans,” said Adrienne Watson, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council. “This remains a sensitive and ongoing process. While this is a step in the process, no individuals have been or will be released into U.S. custody this week.”

The waiver means that European, Middle Eastern and Asian banks will not run afoul of U.S. sanctions in converting the money frozen in South Korea and transferring it to Qatar’s central bank, where it ostensibly will be held for Iran to use for the purchase of “humanitarian” goods.

Iran has long claimed that yellow-cake uranium is just such a humanitarian commodity since its nuclear program is for the peaceful development of clean energy and nothing else. The country was believed to have been just weeks away from development of an atomic bomb at the start of Biden’s administration, leaving its current status uncertain, though no tests of one have been made public.

Due to numerous U.S. sanctions on foreign banks that engage in transactions aimed at benefitting Iran, several European countries had balked at participating in the transfer. Blinken’s waiver is aimed at easing their concerns about any risk of U.S. sanctions.

The sanctions waiver applies to banks and other financial institutions in South Korea, Germany, Ireland, Qatar and Switzerland.

“I determine that it is in the national security interest of the United States to waive the imposition of sanctions … with respect to foreign financial institutions under the primary jurisdiction of Germany, Ireland, Qatar, the Republic of Korea, and Switzerland that are notified directly in writing by the U.S. government, to the extent necessary for such institutions to engage in transactions occurring on or after August 9, 2023,” Blinken wrote.

Sanctions waivers apply to transactions involving previously penalized entities such as the National Iranian Oil Company and Central Bank of Iran “ to transfer funds from accounts in the Republic of Korea to accounts in Switzerland and Germany and from accounts in Switzerland and Germany to accounts in Qatar, and to use the transferred funds for further humanitarian transactions in accordance with written guidance from the U.S. Government,” he wrote.

The American prisoners include Siamak Namazi, who was detained in 2015 and was later sentenced to 10 years in prison on internationally criticized spying charges; Emad Sharghi, a venture capitalist sentenced to 10 years; and Morad Tahbaz, a British-American conservationist of Iranian descent who was arrested in 2018 and also received a 10-year sentence. The fourth and fifth prisoners were not identified.

“To facilitate their release, the United States has committed to release five Iranian nationals currently held in the United States and to permit the transfer of approximately $6 billion in restricted Iranian funds held in (South Korea) to restricted accounts in Qatar, where the funds will be available only for humanitarian trade,” Blinken wrote.

People familiar with negotiations said they expect the detainees will be released as early as next week.

Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press

NYC Mayor Holds Tongue in Tense 9/11 Meetup w/ Border Czar Kamala 

Luis Cornelio
-
0
NYC Mayor Holds Tongue in Tense 9/11 Meetup w/ Border Czar Kamala 

(Luis Cornelio, Headline USA) Mayor Eric Adams, known for his outspokenness on the influx of illegal immigration, notably held his tongue during a tense encounter with Vice President Kamala Harris at the Ground Zero memorial on Monday.  

According to the New York Post, this marked a departure from his usual candidness, as Adams chose restraint over confrontation. Viral video footage depicted Harris ignoring Adams while smiling and laughing with N.Y. Gov. Kathy Hochul.  

In response to the observed restraint, Adams told the Post, “I wanted to be there to show my respect.” Adams implied that the 22nd memorial of the Sept. 11, 2021, terrorist attacks was not appropriate but said he is willing to discuss the contentious issue “if there’s an opportunity, not a Ground Zero, to engage in the things that have to be talked about.”

Despite the tense face-off with Harris, Adams doubled down on his scorching criticism of Biden’s open border.  

“I have to be honest with New Yorkers with what we’re about to experience — a financial tsunami that I don’t think this city has ever experienced,” Adams told a local news outlet on Sunday. “This is not utopia. New York City cannot manage 10,000 people a month with no end in sight. That can’t happen, and that is going to undermine this entire city.” 

Earlier this month, Adams shocked the White House when he said that the uncontrolled flow of illegal immigrants will “destroy” the city. During a community meeting, Adams stated, “I don’t see an ending to this. This issue will destroy New York City. … The city we knew we’re about to lose.” 

Moreover, Adams drew attention to the stark disparity in funding, pointing out that Biden’s allocation of $145 million in federal funds was woefully inadequate compared to the city’s request for $12 billion. 

Adams argued that the city’s budget will be affected by the immigration crisis. On the other hand, the Biden administration has ignored plea for helps from Adams, a former campaign surrogate for Biden’s re-election campaign. 

Motion Filed to Disqualify Chutkan over Prejudicial Anti-Trump Statements

Luis Cornelio
-
0
Motion Filed to Disqualify Chutkan over Prejudicial Anti-Trump Statements

(Luis Cornelio, Headline USA) Former President Donald Trump has taken a significant legal step in his ongoing battle against allegations of election meddling, filing a motion on Monday to demand the recusal of the federal judge overseeing the case. 

Trump’s legal team argues that Judge Tanya Chutkan, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, previously called on the prosecution and contentious arrest of Trump. These allegations, Trump’s attorneys argue, necessitate her recusal from the case. 

“Such statements, made before this case began and without due process, are inherently disqualifying,” the nine-page motion alleged. “Although Judge Chutkan may genuinely intend to give President Trump a fair trial—and may believe that she can do so—her public statements unavoidably taint these proceedings, regardless of outcome.”

The motion centers on comments made by Chutkan during a case in October 2022 involving a defendant from the January 6th Capitol riot, as reported by the Daily Caller.  

In that case, Chutkan made remarks that Trump’s attorneys find troubling, stating that the rioters were “in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution” and noting that this individual, presumably Trump, “remains free to this day.” 

According to the motion, this is not the first time Chutkan’s comments have raised concerns. In December 2021, during the sentencing of another January 6th defendant, Robert Scott Palmer, she remarked on the individuals who had encouraged and rallied the rioters, although she clarified that she did not have influence over charging decisions. 

Chutkan has faced criticism from prominent conservatives who have also called for her recusal. Prominent legal scholar and host Mark Levin delivered scorching criticism against Chutan during the Sunday episode of Fox News’s Life, Liberty and Levin. 

“The bottom line is this: Judge Tonya Chutkan is absolutely not fit to be the judge in this case. She’s already demonstrated that,” Levin remarked.

“She’s created a very diabolical situation by jumping the line on the first case. We also know when she set that date on March 4th, she had already talked to the judge in the case in Manhattan. She already had made up her mind that she was going to pick March 4th. And she’s not a fool….She knew exactly what she was doing.” 

Special Counsel Jack Smith indicted Trump on Aug. 1 on four counts related to alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Trump, who is now running for the GOP presidential nomination, has maintained his innocent, calling the charges a plot to take down his third White House bid. 

Conservatives Want McCarthy to Press Charges as Insurrectionists Invade Office

Luis Cornelio
-
0
Conservatives Want McCarthy to Press Charges as Insurrectionists Invade Office

(Luis Cornelio, Headline USA) A group of violent leftist protesters stormed House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s office on Tuesday, causing panic among staffers and defying law enforcement’s orders to vacate the Capitol building.  

The incident led to the arrest of seven individuals and has sparked outrage among prominent conservatives, who are calling for McCarthy to take immediate legal action against the fringe trespassers, drawing comparisons to the January 6th protest. 

“We need for @SpeakerMcCarthy to press charges,” Political commentator Mike Cernovich said on Twitter. “When none are filed, J6’ers have at least something to show selective prosecution as these cases make their way to SCOTUS.”

As reported by the New York Post, the leftist activists, reportedly demanding the renewal of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), have occupied Capitol Hill in a brazen display of civil disobedience as the program’s expiration date looms on September 30.

Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, shared the video footage of the protest on Twitter saying the rage looked like an insurrection.

Collin Rugg, the co-founder of Trending Politics, echoed Kirk’s remarks. “A very sad day for Democracy,” he said, apparently mocking the Democratic Party’s rhetoric around January 6. “[W]ill they be thrown in prison for years on end for this? When Democrats do this, they are ‘occupying.’ If Trump supporters do this, they are ‘traitors.'”

One Twitter user pointed out to reports that federal prosecutors dropped all charges against individuals who looted and rioted ahead of former President Donald Trump’s 2017 inauguration. “Leftists are allowed to repeatedly do these things with no repercussions. Great example is riots of 2017 inauguration,” the user said on Twitter.

Prominent Twitter account “End Wokeness” questioned the differing treatment received by J6 activists. “Richard Barnett was sentenced to 4.5 years in prison for entering Speaker Pelosi’s office on January 6th, 2021,” the account, known for its viral postings, said. “Today, multiple LGBTQ activists stormed Speaker McCarthy’s office at the Capitol. Will they get the same treatment?” 

This incident comes at a time when January 6th protesters are facing severe sentences in their trials following the security breach at Capitol Hill. Former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio was recently sentenced to 22 years in federal prison after being accused by the Biden DOJ of leading efforts to protest the results of the contentious 2020 election. 

A spokesperson for the U.S. Capitol Police claimed that the seven individuals were arrested. “This morning, multiple individuals were demonstrating inside a House Office Building,” Capitol law enforcement told the Post on Monday. “After the demonstrators refused to cease demonstrating, USCP then arrested the 4 males and 3 females for unlawful entry.”

New Mexicans Defy Radical Gov.’s Attempt to Supersede U.S. Constitution

Jacob Bruns
-
0
New Mexicans Defy Radical Gov.’s Attempt to Supersede U.S. Constitution

(Jacob Bruns, Headline USA) After New Mexico’s Democrat Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham on Friday declared gun violence a public health emergency in an effort to curtail Second Amendment rights, armed residents publicly protested in outright defiance of the gun-grabbing governor, the Gateway Pundit reported.

“This will not stand! We will not comply!” a speaker shouted to applause as open-carrying gun-owners walked around Albuquerque’s Old Town on Sunday in protest of the new ban.

Police did not interfere with the peaceful protest.

Albuquerque police Chief Harold Medina said he did not intend to enforce Grisham’s order, and Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen said he was uneasy about it because it raised too many questions about constitutional rights.

Grisham issued her unconstitutional emergency order suspending the right to carry firearms in public across Albuquerque and the surrounding county for at least 30 days.

The George-Soros-funded governor said she expected legal challenges.

According to her prior press release, those open-carrying were directly disobeying her latest order.

“The action plan includes a suspension of open and concealed carry laws in Bernalillo County, temporarily prohibiting the carrying of guns on public property with certain exceptions,” a press release from her office said, carving out a few exceptions for security guards or police officers.

In response to the machinations, Republican state Reps. Stefani Lord and John Block called Grisham to be impeached.

“This emergency order violates the Governor’s oath to protect and defend the rights of New Mexicans and is illegal in nature,” they wrote in a joint statement.

“The legislature has a duty to intervene when the government is overstepping its boundaries, and Governor Grisham’s order and comments disqualify her from continuing her tenure as Governor.”

Even the far-left U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., noted how crazed Grisham’s actions were.

“This order from the Governor of New Mexico violates the U.S. Constitution,” Lieu tweeted Saturday.

“No state in the union can suspend the federal Constitution,” he added. “There is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution.”

Leftist State to Issue Driver’s Licenses to 81,000 Illegals

Dmytro "Henry" Aleksandrov
-
0
Leftist State to Issue Driver’s Licenses to 81,000 Illegals

(Dmytro “Henry” Aleksandrov, Headline USA) Leftist Minnesota officials made a decision to issue driver’s licenses on October 1 to 81,000 illegal immigrants who are currently located in the “California of the Midwest.”

Under the new law that was dubbed “Driver’s License For All,” illegals will be able to apply for driver’s licenses, Slay News reported.

The move raised major concerns among people about the possibility of voter fraud ahead of the 2024 election in the state, since a driver’s license is the only thing that a person needs to register to vote online in Minnesota.

Right now, 81,000 illegals can make appointments to apply to ensure they get a license as soon as the law goes into effect on Oct. 1.

“We’re incredibly proud to be a part of a handful of states that offer driver’s licenses for all,” Pong Xiong, Driver and Vehicle Services Director at the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, said at a news conference about the change in law.

The new law would remove the requirements for applicants to show legal presence in the country, Jody-Kay Peterson, the department’s Driver Services Program Director, said.

Leftists who proposed the law claimed that it would make the roads safer because more drivers would have licenses.

However, conservatives who opposed giving away voting-allowing IDs to illegals said that the law would only encourage more illegals to come to the United States.

The desire to assimilate criminals became only more apparent after Peterson claimed that the department would not be assisting any immigration law enforcement with deporting illegals, even though the United States and border communities, in particular, have been suffering from the invasion of illegals from both the southern and northern borders.

It got to the point when even New York City’s Democrat Mayor Eric Adams criticized the [Joe] Biden administration and pointed out that the invasion of the city would destroy it.

“I’m gonna tell you something, New Yorkers, never in my life have I had a problem that I didn’t see an ending to. I don’t see an ending to this. This issue will destroy New York City,” he said.

1...1,7431,7441,745...3,880Page 1,744 of 3,880