“Having [California Gov.] Gavin Newsom go out and tell everybody that all is okay… It’s like the captain of the Titanic becoming the marketing face of the cruise industry.”
– New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu
“Unlike Biden and many others, I refuse to participate in a campaign to scare voters with the idea that Trump will end our democratic system.”
– Democrat Congressman Jared Golden (ME)
“If you pick a white man over Kamala Harris, black women, I can tell you this, we gon’ walk away… we gon’ blow the party up.”
– California Democrat Delegate Areva Martin
25th Amendment: Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Given the debate and Biden’s inability to govern… its time.
The media pushed for the 25th Amendment to be invoked over 600 times while Trump was in office.
In all the media’s reactions to President Biden’s debate performance and family leaks that Biden’s dementia is worsening…. NO pleas from the mainstream media for the 25th Amendment to be invoked?!?
Biden’s Double Standard: President Joe Biden says:
“I will respect the limits of presidential powers that I have for three and a half years. But any president, including Donald Trump, will now be free to ignore the law. I concur with what Justice Sotomayor wrote today: ‘With fear for our democracy—I dissent.'”
So do I.
1. Defies SCOTUS on student loan debt
2. Used OSHA to mandate the vaxx for 80 million Americans
3. Activated DOJ to target political opponents
4. Forced open the border in defiance of immigration law Yes, he “respects” the limits of presidential power.
Biden’s hypocrisy and inability to remember what is legal, what he’s done, and what the courts actually said is frightening.
Party Bosses: What is interesting to note is that it’s the Democrat party bosses, not the grassroots, that are conspiring to dump Biden and Kamala.
These “bosses” will have to deal with their grassroots “constituencies” on the left and progressive fronts that aren’t going to like their power grab to anoint some nominee rather than let the grassroots decide.
The party bosses screwed Bernie Sanders… now Kamala Harris… as their “super delegates” and progressive donors look for a consensus alternative.
Wow… the Chicago convention will clearly be a historical event and make for great TV.
Read more below and follow me on Twitter & GETTR – @sanuzis
–Saul Anuzis
Click Here for Past Commentary from Saul
DONATE TO 60 PLUS!
We’re fighting every day for seniors and retirees by working to eliminate the death tax, ensure healthcare freedom, and save social security for future generations. With your essential help we will continue the fight. You can even donate using Bitcoin and Ethereum!
Thank you for your help and support of the 60 Plus Association.
Donate Today! Visit https://www.60plus.org/donate
California delegate says Black women will ‘blow the party up’ if Dems pick a ‘White man over Kamala Harris’
Some polling suggests that Harris does slightly better than Biden in a match-up with Trump
California Democratic delegate Areva Martin told media personality Stephen A. Smith that passing over Vice President Kamala Harris as President Biden’s replacement should he withdraw from the race would destroy the party.
“If you pick a White man over Kamala Harris, Black women, I can tell you this, we are going to walk away,” Martin said Tuesday. “We are going to blow the party up.”
As speculation over Biden’s status as leader of the party grows, Democrats are openly divided over who is qualified to run against former President Trump in the months before the election.
Bipartisan Support for Early In-Person Voting, Voter ID, Election Day National Holiday
Widening partisan divides over vote-by-mail and registration policies
Americans generally believe that voting is an effective way to bring about positive change in the country. But in recent years, there have been contentious debates in a number of states over the rules around voting and elections.
A new national survey finds deep partisan divisions over some voting policies, especially voting by mail.
Yet other proposals draw widespread public support, including from majorities in both partisan coalitions:
Requiring paper ballot backups for electronic voting machines (82% favor this),
Requiring people to show government-issued photo identification to vote (81%),
Making early voting available for two weeks prior to Election Day (76%),
Making Election Day a national holiday (72%) and
Allowing convicted felons to vote after serving their sentences (69%).
The Pew Research Center survey, conducted Jan. 16-21 among 5,140 adults, also finds smaller majorities supporting allowing anyone to vote by mail if they want to (57%), as well as automatic and Election Day voter registration (57% each).
America needs to ban non-citizen voting and we know how
Bill would change North Carolina constitution and close loophole to prevent non-citizen voting
Only U.S. citizens should vote in American elections — including North Carolina’s state and local elections.
It might sound like common sense, but it seems rather uncommon, given the pushback against a bill that was recently approved by the General Assembly that would amend North Carolina’s constitution to explicitly prohibit non-citizens from voting in state and local elections.
Opponents on the left claim that non-citizen voting is a nonissue. But given the massive influx of illegal immigrants into our country in the last several years, now is absolutely the time to close a loophole that could permit non-citizen voting.
That’s why my colleagues and I introduced HB 1407 to give North Carolinians the opportunity to decide in November whether or not to add this common sense safeguard to our state constitution.
America Is In Shambles Because Of Democrat Policies, Not Just Joe Biden
President Joe Biden delivered an address from the White House last night on the presidential immunity decision by the Supreme Court. While pledging that he will defend the rule of law, President Biden misrepresented what that law is in the aftermath of Trump v. United States. While we have often discussed false constitutional claims by the President as well as other false statements, an address of this kind is particularly concerning in misleading citizens on the meaning of one of the most important decisions in history.
As I have previously written, I am not someone who has favored expansive presidential powers. As a Madisonian scholar, I favor Congress in most disputes with presidents. However, I saw good-faith arguments on both sides of this case and the Court adopted a middle road on immunity — rejecting the extreme positions of both the Trump team and the lower court.
One of the most glaring moments in the address came when President Biden declared that “for all…for all practical purposes, today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do.”
That is not true.
Never Let Anyone Forget How The Media Lied To The World About Joe Biden
Honestly, I didn’t think Joe Biden would do well during the first presidential debate, but I would not have bet money that he would have pulled the equivalent of repeatedly smacking himself in the face with a frying pan. I can’t stand the man and I almost felt bad for him. Almost.
Rather than Atlanta, that debate should have taken place in a toilet. That’s where the material making up the kind of show Biden puts on ends up, except in Democrat-controlled cities, but you can’t hold a debate in the middle of the street.
But there is one group of people at least as responsible for Biden’s humiliation as he was: the media.
For 4 years, advocates for international surrender, the slaughter of Jews, the mutilation of children’s genitals, open borders and the carnage that comes with it, and complete bankruptcy, both financially and morally, have sworn on the lives of their families that Joe Biden is whip-smart. When the cameras aren’t around, and no one is looking, he’s just this side of a Jeopardy champion when it comes to intellect.
As we all saw Thursday night, he couldn’t solve a Wheel of Fortune puzzle if it were his name only missing a “B” and the category was “Current Presidents.”
Those liars with press passes and inflated egos (honestly, I know many of them and they truly are awful) insisted Joe Biden was not only up to the job, he was almost too smart for it.
It’s hard to pick an example of the left-wing press giving Biden a tongue bath about how smart he is, but I’ll use MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough. “Morning Joe” is in mourning now, but just 3 months ago they were riding high on their own supply – proud they were the official morning narrative reinforcement for Biden, and he even called Joe and Mika sometimes for advice. (Imagine those 2 plastic surgery disasters being your go-to for anything other than cautionary tales of when to stop implants and injections or how not to make a marriage work.)
The left’s $7 trillion lie: Biden far outpaces Trump in racking up the national debt
Projection is blaming someone else for your own bad behavior.
We saw a classic case of projection in Thursday’s presidential debate, when President Biden — who is overseeing annual budget deficits of $2 trillion — asserted that his predecessor, Donald Trump, added more to the federal debt than anyone else.
It’s part of the latest leftist argument: that if Trump wins the election, he will run deficits twice as large as Biden would.
Debate moderator Jake Tapper joined the chorus of federal finance falsehoods when he claimed Trump had “approved $8.4 trillion in new debt,” while Biden’s actions will increase the debt by (merely) $4.3 trillion over a decade.
Tapper was referencing a recent report by the left-leaning Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which twisted and turned the debt statistics in every contortionary way it could to reach its incredible conclusion.
CRFB, by the way, is a group that opposed the successful Trump tax reform in 2017 — yet supported several of Biden’s multitrillion-dollar spending bills.
Moderate House Dem: ‘Donald Trump is going to win. And I’m OK with that’
Rep. Jared Golden (Maine), a moderate Democrat, published an op-ed Tuesday arguing former President Trump is going to win the election and he’s “OK with that.”
Golden, who has held his seat in the House since 2019, wrote a piece published in the Bangor Daily News, headlined, “Donald Trump is going to win the election and democracy will be just fine,” in response to the outcry of concern from his party following President Biden’s lackluster debate performance.
The Maine congressman argued that Biden’s on-stage presence didn’t rattle him like it did others because the outcome of the 2024 presidential election has been clear to him for months.
“While I don’t plan to vote for him, Donald Trump is going to win. And I’m OK with that,” Golden wrote.
The House Democrat argued that others in his party are concerned that if Trump wins the election this fall, it will be a threat to democracy. The proclamations from Golden’s party were only exacerbated after the Supreme Court on Monday granted broad immunity to Trump in his Jan. 6 case.
Golden said he rejects the idea that Trump will overturn American democracy. He said sounding the alarm about a Trump victory ignores the strength of a nearly 250-year-old nation.
“Unlike Biden and many others, I refuse to participate in a campaign to scare voters with the idea that Trump will end our democratic system,” he said.
Ex-FBI Counsel Behind Russiagate, Biden Laptop Censorship Now Part Of Left-Wing Election Network
James Baker, an ex-FBI counsel who pushed the lie that Trump was a Russian asset, is a member of a vast left-wing election network.
The former FBI general counsel who pushed Twitter to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story is now working with a left-wing election influencers’ group.
James Baker, also prominent for his role in pushing the FBI’s political persecution of former President Donald Trump for the “Russiagate” hoax, is listed as a member of the National Task Force on Election Crises. The group is a subsidiary of the left-wing Protect Democracy Project, a litigation group formed to oppose Trump’s policies, according to InfluenceWatch.
The task force pushes early and mail-in voting, claims to help prevent “cyber or other attacks by foreign adversaries or domestic disrupters,” promotes “pre-canvassing of absentee ballots,” seeks to discourage legal election challenges, and advocates for censorship of certain online speech about elections.
How Red States Can Hold ‘Zuckbucks’ Group Legally Accountable For 2020 Election Meddling
Many states have restricted or prohibited private financing of elections. But CTCL has remained largely above the fray since 2020.
Joe Biden’s unprecedented “basement” presidential campaign in 2020 and the chaotic election that followed represented a stunning repudiation of U.S. election norms as they have evolved over the last 250 years. The chaos involved a flurry of legally questionable and last-minute suspensions of existing election rules and an avalanche of unsupervised mail-in ballots in states that were not accustomed to their use. The election also brought the formerly obscure practice of “ballot harvesting” to the forefront of popular consciousness.
Amidst the chaos, one of the biggest questions remaining is how the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) — a sleepy, Chicago-based election and civic “engagement” nonprofit, armed with a staggering sum of more than $300 million from tech billionaire Mark Zuckerberg — became one of the key 2020 election players. CTCL’s officers, promoters, and donors were among the “well-funded cabal of powerful people” who, as Time Magazine admitted in 2021, worked “behind the scenes” to “fortify” the 2020 election against Donald Trump.
4.1 million migrants: Where they’re from, where they live in the U.S.
The polarized immigration debate in the United States generally revolves around illegal crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border, but those numbers don’t indicate what happens to these and other migrants who stay in the country.
A Washington Post analysis of more than 4.1 million U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT RECORDS from the past decade reveals a population that was once overwhelmingly Mexican and Central American but has in recent years spanned the globe. Far fewer migrants have gotten into the country than have been apprehended at the border, the data shows. And those who cleared that first hurdle — and are still facing possible deportation in the courts — have fanned out into every U.S. state.
IMMIGRATION COURT DATA from the past decade — the most detailed publicly available information showing where migrants have put down roots — documents two notable surges in case filings, with a slowdown in the middle corresponding to the ▨ PANDEMIC. The second, larger group reflects the spike in illegal entries since 2021, with migrants from around the world crossing the border in numbers that U.S. authorities have never seen. They’re fleeing poverty and repression back home, drawn by a tight U.S. labor market and perceptions of weaker border enforcement under President Biden.
Jonathan Turley: Supreme Court ‘Downgraded’ Jan 6 to ‘Trespassing’
Legal scholar Jonathan Turley has revealed that the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the Jan. 6 defendants has now “downgraded” the charges related to the Capitol protests to merely “trespassing.”
Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School, was responding to the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling striking down the use of a 2001 statute to charge hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants with obstruction of a legal proceeding.
In a new op-ed in The Hill, Turley said the Supreme Court’s ruling in Fischer V. U.S. downgraded the breach of the Capitol on January 6, 2021, from the “insurrection” the Democrats and media have trumpeted to mere “trespassing.”
Hundreds of January 6 defendants will now see the obstruction charges against them dropped.
One of those defendants is President Donald Trump.
The high court said the obstruction statute, created after the Enron scandal to apply to the destruction of official documents and records, was used incorrectly by Democrat President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice (DOJ).
The DOJ used the charge to make the events of that day seem more serious and justify the use of the term “insurrection” against Trump and his supporters.
The “novel interpretation would criminalize a broad swath of prosaic conduct, exposing activists and lobbyists alike to decades in prison,” the majority opinion in the case read.
Along with Turley, many now feel vindicated in calling Jan. 6 the Capitol “breach” instead of a “riot” or “insurrection.”
Supreme Court Delivers Crushing Haymaker To The Permanent Bureaucracy
Over the past three and a half years, I have advised clients and colleagues to cool their jets about the inevitability of globalist elites succeeding in forcing a rapid, premature transition away from an oil, natural gas and coal-based energy system to one based on subsidized alternatives like wind, solar and electric vehicles.
The reason for this advice has been pretty simple: The entire energy-transition initiative is based on politics, not on science, and the political pendulum swings, often quickly and radically.
We have already seen that happening in Europe in recent elections in Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and to the European Union Parliament. In all these elections, as well as the coming elections in places like the United Kingdom, France and Canada, overreaching energy and climate policies played a major role in what has amounted to significant voter revolts.
In the United States, the complete self-destruction by President Joe Biden in his debate against former President Donald Trump on Thursday evening signals an increased likelihood of a looming major pendulum swing come November — one that will have major implications related to energy and climate policies.
But less than 12 hours after that debate concluded, the U.S. Supreme Court published a 6-3 decision in the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo case, one that will almost certainly become its most impactful decision in recent years.
The key element of this decision is the overturning of the so-called Chevron deference, a legal doctrine established by the court in a 1984 case involving the U.S. oil company Chevron. This doctrine directs federal courts to defer to the legal judgment of federal regulatory agencies when they claim the language in governing laws passed by Congress is vague and open to interpretation.
The result of this doctrine has been to render courts reluctant to rule against regulators, even when the regulations they have issued clearly fall outside the original intent and scope of the governing statutes.
The Key ‘Lessons in Liberty’
Historic leaders often share something important in common. They are not born great. Their greatness is a result of a lifetime of difficulty and consequential choices.
As Jeremy S. Adams discussed in his book, “Lessons in Liberty,” this is especially true for remarkable Americans. In the book, Adams details the inspiring lives of extraordinary Americans and what we can learn from them today.
George Washington, for example, struggled his entire life to keep his temper under control. This lifelong effort made him a model for discipline and restraint. Clara Barton nursed her badly injured brother back to health when she was only 11 years old. This harrowing experience later equipped her with the skills and bravery to serve as a nurse in the Civil War. U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye was a 17-year-old Japanese American who lived in Hawaii when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. The sneak attack angered him so much he joined the U.S. Army to fight in World War II. Despite discrimination and hardship from the U.S. government, Inouye became a highly decorated soldier and longtime U.S. Senator…
…Something disturbing is happening in classrooms across our country. Our nation’s young people are being influenced by viewpoints, values, and behaviors of people who hate America and the principles on which it was founded. As President Ronald Reagan said, “freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” Each generation has a duty to renew and protect America and its values.
As we discussed on the podcast, America is also bigger than a singular party. It is bigger than any ideology. We are more than just Republicans or Democrats. We were more than federalists or anti-federalists. We are all Americans. The 10 men and women Adams discussed in his book were from different time periods and backgrounds. Some were liberal and some were conservative. But they all worked to make America great.
Importantly, none of them were personally born great. Their greatness was a choice. That is the key lesson of liberty.
Libertarianism Updated
As I describe in my new memoir, A Life for Liberty: The Making of an American Originalist, I have always been on the right. In 1964, at the age of 12, I debated on behalf of Barry Goldwater in front of my entire grade school student body. In my 12-year-old heart, I knew he was right.
But, in my junior year at Northwestern University, I went from being a William F. Buckley conservative to a libertarian. In my senior year, I organized and taught an accredited seminar on libertarianism. Then, in the fall of my first year of law school, I met and was befriended by Murray Rothbard and the entire New York circle of libertarian intellectuals. By my second semester of law school, I’d joined the board of directors of the Center for Libertarian Studies, which held annual libertarian scholars conferences, the papers from which were published in its Journal of Libertarian Studies. In my 3L year, on behalf of the Center, I organized a Liberty Fund conference on the philosophy of crime and punishment that was held at Harvard Law School.
Libertarianism in the 1970s was an internally contested intellectual project, not a rigidly fixed set of policy positions. But unlike originalism, which has benefited from 20 years of internal intellectual debate among originalists, libertarianism has largely been frozen in amber since the 1970s.
I see five distinct ways that libertarian theory needs to up its game.
