Lindsay Clancy’s Lawyer Has One Small Problem With His Trump Pardon Request

Apparently, when your client murdered her three children, the next logical step is to ask President Donald Trump to ride in on the White House horse and make the whole thing disappear. 

That appears to be the strategy of Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, who is now asking Trump to pardon his client after a Massachusetts jury managed to deadlock over whether she was criminally responsible for fatally strangling her three young children, 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, and 8-month-old Callan.

Appearing on “Good Morning America,” Reddington made his unusual appeal to Trump after the jury failed to reach a verdict in a trial that has generated a massive national debate over mental illness, criminal responsibility, and whether a person can be held accountable for horrific acts committed during an alleged psychotic episode.

“I’d like to say that perhaps Donald Trump, who felt compelled to speak out about this case … Mr. President, I would hope that you would consider this young lady, [the] type of person she is, what she’s been through, and consider a pardon,” Reddington told leftist host George Stephanopoulos.

There is, however, one tiny constitutional detail standing between Reddington and his dream of presidential intervention.

Clancy was charged under Massachusetts state law, not federal law.

Trump is president of the United States, not the governor of Massachusetts, emperor of New England, or the nation's all-purpose pardon dispenser.

The president's constitutional pardon power applies to federal offenses. It does not allow him to walk into a state criminal proceeding and announce, "You're free to go."

Even if Trump possessed the legal authority to pardon Clancy, there is another problem.

He has already condemned what happened. So if he flipped to her side, he would look like the main course at a Waffle House.

In the Oval Office on Friday, Trump described the killings as a “horrible tragedy” and indicated that he expected Clancy to face another trial.

“It’s a shame. It’s a horrible tragedy,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “Look, she did a horrible, horrible thing. Can’t be worse.”

That's probably not the sort of presidential endorsement Reddington was hoping for. But my guess is that he wants to put the president in a precarious position, which he has no right to do.

In January 2023, Clancy took her three young children into the basement of their Duxbury home and strangled them one by one with exercise bands.

The defense does not dispute that she killed the children. Instead, Reddington has argued that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and therefore was not criminally responsible for her actions. Unfortunately, her act and the publicity it has garnered has resulted in several copycat acts by other mothers.

That argument was apparently enough to leave a jury hopelessly divided after 38 hours of deliberation.

Trump said the case had been difficult to escape because of the enormous amount of television coverage surrounding it. He also predicted that Clancy would face consequences, whether that meant confinement in a psychiatric institution or prison. In my humble opinion, Trump should have completely stayed out of it altogether.

“There’ll be a price,” Trump said, adding that he believes prosecutors would bring the case to trial again and calling that scenario “too bad.”

Meanwhile, Massachusetts Superior Court Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial Friday after the jury, consisting of nine women and three men, failed to reach a unanimous verdict.

“With a heavy heart, we report we cannot come to a unanimous decision,” the jurors wrote in their final note to the judge.

The most serious charges were three counts of first-degree murder, each carrying a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole.

For now, Clancy is expected to remain at Tewksbury State Hospital, a psychiatric hospital.

Reddington claimed he believed the jury was split 11-1 in favor of finding Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity. He seemed to implicate one of the three men on the jury which has led to several tons of controversy as the country has taken sides. The Left wants to excuse Clancy and the Right wants something called justice to be served. 

Unfortunately for anyone hoping to turn that into a definitive legal fact, the actual vote remains unknown.

As of Tuesday, Reddington said he had not spoken with any jurors, and none had given media interviews.

Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz said Friday that his office remains committed to seeking justice for the three children, although he stopped short of announcing whether prosecutors would retry the case. 

Does anyone have bets that Clancy will roll free?

“Our priority has always been to fight for Cora, for Dawson, and for Callan. The noise in this case may be louder than it is for other prosecutions in our county, but we have treated it the same as any other case,” Cruz said. “Children were murdered, and it’s our job to seek justice.”

That would seem like a fairly straightforward mission statement.

Three children were murdered.

The government is supposed to seek justice.

The defense attorney, naturally, has a different vision.

Reddington said he remains optimistic that he can negotiate some sort of deal that would prevent Clancy from facing another trial. He described her almost like a member of his own family, calling her a daughter and an “incredible person” with whom he shares a “strong bond.” [Imagine if your own daughter murdered your grandchildren.]

“I’m willing to listen to Tim [Cruz]. I’ve known Tim for 30 years. He’s a very high-charging prosecutor, conservative gentleman,” Reddington told ABC. “I hope, however, after sitting through this trial and seeing the evidence that was presented from the government as well as from the defense, that he would revisit that issue and hopefully would be able to work something out that would be acceptable to both sides.”

There is, of course, nothing wrong with a defense attorney doing his job. That job is to advocate for his client.

But asking the president to pardon someone convicted, or potentially convicted, of a state crime is roughly like asking the fire department to issue you a driver's license.

And perhaps that's the most fitting conclusion to this bizarre chapter.

Three children are dead.

A jury could not agree.

A retrial may be coming, as I believe it should. 

A defense attorney wants a deal.

And somewhere along the way, somebody apparently decided the Constitution was an inconvenient barrier. 

I'd be happy to know what you guys think, so feel free to comment.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

House Democrats Vote To Preserve Supreme Court At Nine Justices Until Democrats Get Around To Changing It

House Democrats voted Wednesday to block a constitutional amendment that would permanently lock the Supreme Court at its current nine justices, apparently deciding that nine is perfectly acceptable as long as Democrats retain the option of making it 13 or more later.

The amendment, introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), needed a two-thirds majority because, inconveniently, it would actually amend the Constitution. It received 212 votes to 206, falling well short of the required threshold, with all but one House Democrat voting against it.

The proposed amendment was remarkably straightforward. It would state, “The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices consisting of one chief justice and eight associate justices.”

Biggs explained that the amendment was necessary because Democrats [aka progressives, aka leftists] have increasingly expressed dissatisfaction with a Supreme Court that occasionally issues rulings they do not like, leading some on the left to propose the time-honored solution of simply adding enough new justices until the correct answer appears.

“If a sitting majority can change the size of the Supreme Court the moment it dislikes its rulings, what happens the next time the other side is in power? That’s why I’m urging my colleagues to support my resolution for a Constitutional Amendment to permanently fix the number of Supreme Court Justices at Nine,” he said.

House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-MA) urged Democrats to reject the amendment, arguing that permanently keeping the Court at nine justices would deprive Congress of the ability to change the number whenever circumstances, election results or disappointing judicial opinions make it necessary.

Comrade Clark

“This proposed constitutional amendment would permanently fix the number of Supreme Court justices at nine, stripping Congress of yet another constitutional authority that is meant to be controlled by the American people’s representatives,” the leftist argued, adding that discussing the size of the Supreme Court could distract Congress from more pressing matters such as affordability, which apparently has nothing to do with the number of Supreme Court justices.

Of course, the Constitution itself does not specify how many justices should sit on the Supreme Court. Congress has historically handled that little detail.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 established the Court with six justices. Congress added a seventh in 1807, increased the number to nine in 1837, and then added a tenth during the Civil War in 1863.

Congress subsequently reduced the number to seven in 1866, partly to prevent President Andrew Johnson from filling vacancies. In 1869, the Judiciary Act restored the Court to nine justices, where it has remained ever since.

That consistency apparently became suspicious.

Back in the 1930s, President Franklin Roosevelt proposed adding as many as six additional justices to the Court after the existing justices repeatedly ruled against portions of his New Deal agenda. The proposal became known as the infamous court-packing plan, although it might more accurately be described as an early attempt to discover how many Supreme Court seats were required to produce the desired constitutional interpretation.

The plan generated enough backlash, including from members of Roosevelt's own party, that it was eventually abandoned.

Nearly a century later, however, court packing has returned, this time with considerably less embarrassment.

“I think that we are in a position now that calls for some significant actions taken by the Congress, and we ought to expand,” Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) said. “Thirteen is a pretty good number. A baker’s dozen would be a good number to have on the court. And I would hope we would get people on the court who will follow the constitutional underpinnings of this great nation of ours.”

Nothing says respect for the constitutional underpinnings of the nation quite like ordering a few extra Supreme Court seats from the judicial bakery.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris has also indicated support for a 13-member Court, suggesting that the idea is gaining momentum among Democrats who apparently view the current nine justices as less of a constitutional institution and more of an insufficiently large focus group.

Rep. Don Davis (D-NC) was the only Democrat to vote for Biggs' amendment. Rep. Kevin Kiley (I-CA), who normally caucuses with Republicans, voted against it.

For now, therefore, the Supreme Court remains at nine justices.

Not because Democrats have suddenly concluded that nine is the ideal number.

Not because they have discovered some timeless constitutional principle requiring it.

And certainly not because they have decided that voters should not be able to change the Court's composition through the creative use of congressional arithmetic.

The Court remains at nine because, for the moment, Democrats do not have the votes to make it larger.

Should the political winds change, however, Americans can apparently expect the nation's highest court to undergo the same basic transformation as a congressional seating chart: If you don't like the outcome, simply add more chairs until you do.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Karmelo Anthony Supporter Reportedly Fired as Other Backers Face Backlash Over Verdict Remarks

A parole supervisor reportedly lost her job and university professors publicly challenged the verdict, blamed the victim, which seems par for the racist course.

Judge John Roach Jr. is standing firm on his call to keep cameras out of the Karmelo Anthony murder trial. Anthony, convicted of fatally stabbing Austin Metcalf, is appealing his reasonable 35-year sentence. The judge brushed off any nonsense about personal connections to Metcalf's family and made it clear that a fair trial was the only thing that mattered, even as the usual suspects scream about racial dynamics.

Karmelo Anthony's fans are still out there melting down over his conviction and sentencing for murder.

Anthony was found guilty and hit with 35 years on Tuesday, June 9, for stabbing 17-year-old Austin Metcalf to death at a Frisco, Texas, high school track meet last year.

His supporters insist the convicted killer was just defending himself when he plunged that knife into Metcalf's chest.

One of those supporters is Donna Robinson, a parole supervisor with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The Dallas Morning News reported that a Facebook comment cost her the gig. Addressing comments about the sentencing, she wrote that "Anthony would be protected in prison, adding she didn't care about the victim's family's loss," according to the outlet.

Fox News Digital also reported that Howard University professor Stacey Patton penned an opinion piece on her Substack titled "Dear Jeff Metcalf: Your Son Is Dead Because You Failed to Teach Him That Black Boys Have Boundaries," which basically pins the blame on the dead kid.

Another backer, W. Burlette Carter, professor emerita of law at George Washington University, took to X after the verdict to air her grievances.

She made a post on X that said, "Karmelo Anthony was entitled to a jury of his peers. He did not get that. On that ground alone, he is entitled to a new trial. Minorities are not interchangeable. The prosecutor’s reported proffered reasons for striking all black jurors, that they were teachers, appears to be pretext. Anthony needs a new lawyer on appeal and in a new trial."

Anthony's trial featured jurors who are fellow U.S. citizens, also known as a "jury of one's peers." In all criminal prosecutions, the U.S. Constitution says the accused has "the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."

Thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Unrelenting Trump critic says why he was wrong to eliminate the bushy bearded, now dead guy and his pals in Iran

Chennai, India-born Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) attacked President Donald J. Trump's decision to attack and quickly eliminate the bushy-bearded Shi'a cleric and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with other Islamic Republic Guard Corps (the 's' is silent) in Iran.

"Trump killed the religious and spiritual leader of Iran," Rep. Jayapal said, carefully leaving out the President's title. "He seemed nice with his cute hat and bushy beard. I don't understand why Trump had him eliminated."

The congresswoman defended her Iran War Powers vote:  "Congress alone has power to declare war," warning of long-term consequences and adding it "shouldn’t be partisan." 

The last time Congress formally declared war was on June 4, 1942 and Jayapal asked, "Isn't it about time Congress did again? We do so little during the year it's about time we earned our money legally."

Since the United States was formed back in 1776, Congress has formally declared war 11 times across five conflicts since the Constitution adoption in 1789:

War of 1812: Great Britain (1812)
Mexican-American War: Mexico (1846)
Spanish-American War: Spain (1898)
World War I: Germany (1917) and Austria-Hungary (1917)
World War II: Japan (1941), Germany (1941), Italy (1941), and Bulgaria/Hungary/Romania (1942)

The House voted on a Democrat-led Iran War Powers Resolution designed to limit President Trump's  [aka The Commander-in-Chief] military authority in Tehran. This brings to the forefront once again, the issue over executive powers and what level a president must consult with the loose-lips of members of Congress before waging military strikes. 

If passed, Trump would have to end the use of U.S. troops against Iran and thus allow the regime to continue killing Iranian civilians, as it currently appears to be the case.

Republicans, meanwhile, maintain that the White House is acting within its authority in the best interests of the country and of the remaining Iranian people who have not been killed for protesting the theocratic dictatorship they live under.

And while Jayapal is consistent in her efforts to give Congress the power that Commanders-in-Chief had in the past, others like Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Adam Schiff (D-CA) supported former President Joe Biden's attack on Syria.

For those keeping score, here is a short list by Grok of past presidents who bypassed Congress to use military force: 

Harry S. Truman (1945–1953): Korean War (1950–1953) — Truman committed US troops under UN auspices to repel North Korea's invasion of South Korea, without a declaration of war (often called a "police action").

Lyndon B. Johnson (1963–1969) and Richard Nixon (1969–1974): Vietnam War escalation (major US combat from 1965–1973) — Johnson used the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (1964) as authorization to deploy hundreds of thousands of troops; combat continued under Nixon.

Ronald Reagan (1981–1989): Invasion of Grenada (1983, Operation Urgent Fury) — Troops deployed to restore order and protect US citizens after a coup.

George H.W. Bush (1989–1993): Invasion of Panama (1989, Operation Just Cause) — Troops sent to depose Manuel Noriega and protect US interests. Also initiated Operation Desert Shield/Storm (1990–1991 Gulf War) — Large-scale deployment to liberate Kuwait from Iraq, authorized by Congress and UN.

Bill Clinton (1993–2001): Interventions in Somalia (ongoing from Bush era but combat under Clinton), Haiti (1994, Operation Uphold Democracy), Bosnia (1995 NATO bombing/air campaign), and Kosovo (1999 NATO bombing campaign) — US forces engaged in combat roles, often under NATO/UN frameworks without new congressional war declarations.

George W. Bush (2001–2009): War in Afghanistan (2001–2021, Operation Enduring Freedom) — Invasion to oust Taliban and pursue al-Qaeda post-9/11, authorized by 2001 AUMF. Iraq War (2003–2011, Operation Iraqi Freedom) — Invasion to remove Saddam Hussein, authorized by 2002 AUMF.

Barack Obama (2009–2017): Escalated drone strikes and special operations in multiple countries; 2011 Libya intervention (NATO-led air campaign with US combat role); expanded operations against ISIS in Iraq/Syria (2014 onward, under 2001 AUMF).

Other presidents (e.g., Eisenhower, Kennedy, Ford, Carter, Biden) authorized combat in limited contexts (e.g., Lebanon 1958/1982–1983 under Eisenhower/Reagan, or ongoing counterterrorism under Biden), but often smaller-scale or continuations of prior conflicts. 

None of them asked for permission.

So there you have it--hypocrisy on the Hill. 

Thanks for following Brain Flushings, guys. Please consider subscribing, and if you would like to support my work, visit the sponsors on this page, or you can Buy Me A Coffee. 

Tweet

Judge rules on motion to dismiss illegal alien's lawsuit

The Maryland man and his lovely speed bag

Well here we go again. The Biden Justice Department just got a judicial smackdown that’s worth popping some popcorn and sitting back to enjoy the deal. 

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis didn’t just deny their motions to dismiss Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s lawsuit over his botched deportation to El Salvador, she called one of their arguments straight-up “meritless.” Ouch, that’s gotta sting for the DOJ’s legal eagles, who probably thought they could waltz into court and sweep this mess under the rug.

“You made three arguments, defendants, and none are availing … meritless,” Xinis told DOJ attorney Bridget O’Hickey, who must’ve felt like she was back in law school getting a failing grade. The judge wasn’t playing around, and she had every reason to be angry. 

Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national, was one of over 250 Venezuelan and Salvadoran men deported to El Salvador’s maximum-security CECOT prison in March. The guy sued over his deportation, and now he’s back in the U.S., facing human trafficking charges in Tennessee. But here’s where it gets juicy: the government didn’t bother telling Xinis or Abrego Garcia’s lawyers when they brought him back in June and slapped him with an indictment. Classy move, DOJ.

Xinis, who’d already ordered the feds to get Abrego Garcia back to the U.S., wasn’t buying the government’s excuses. She grilled O’Hickey, asking if the U.S. cooked up the indictment just to drag him back. “Obviously you did have power to produce Mr. Abrego because you produced him less than a week later,” Xinis said, pointing out the DOJ’s shady timeline. A sealed indictment in Tennessee dropped six days after the government claimed in Maryland they had no power to bring him back. Sounds like someone’s pants were on fire.

The judge didn’t stop there. She called it “highly problematic” that the feds were scheming to investigate and prosecute Abrego Garcia without looping in her court. “We knew it was coming because eventually it was unsealed,” she said, noting that his lawyers only found out he was back in the U.S. from news reports. Imagine that, your client’s fate hinges on a Comedy News Network ticker. 

Xinis wasn’t amused, asking O’Hickey, “How can this representation be one I can credit?” Good question, Your Honor.

O’Hickey tried to spin it, claiming the U.S. was “negotiating” with El Salvador to bring him back while simultaneously filing motions to dismiss. “At some point, don’t you have an obligation to me to say, ‘Judge, we have the power, we produced him, moot,’” Xinis shot back. She even questioned whether the DOJ’s lawyers knew the Tennessee indictment was coming. O’Hickey’s response was a vague word salad about “ongoing negotiations” and “tandem proceedings,” which would have made Kamala Harris proud. 

Xinis wasn’t having it: “Is the indictment one of those steps? Since we are talking about my court order.”

Here’s where it gets even messier. The DOJ claimed Abrego Garcia wasn’t under investigation until April, a month after his lawsuit started. O’Hickey doubled down, saying, “I don’t believe that’s true, your honor,” even though that contradicts what law enforcement said in Tennessee. 

Xinis also shut down the DOJ’s second motion to dismiss, which argued the lawsuit was moot since Abrego Garcia’s back in the U.S. She’s worried he could be deported again if released from custody, and she’s not wrong to be skeptical. The government’s track record here isn’t exactly inspiring confidence. Xinis laid out a path for the feds to prove they won’t screw this up again: name a country where they’d send him and give him time to challenge it, or promise in a “binding way” that he’ll get due process. 

You know, that pesky thing called the U.S. Constitution.

O’Hickey tried to downplay the deportation as an “isolated error,” insisting, “We’ve acknowledged this was an error and have no intention of making that error a second time.” 

Xinis wasn’t buying the mea culpa. “For three months your clients told the world they weren’t going to do anything to bring him back,” she fired back. “Doesn’t that matter?” She even pointed out that the president, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and Attorney General Pam Bondi all claimed there was no error. “I have been told that there was no error,” Xinis said, before ruling, “I don’t find at the moment that this case is moot.”

The DOJ’s Jonathan Guynn admitted that if Abrego Garcia is released from pretrial detention in Tennessee, DHS plans to deport him again, destination TBD. Xinis, fed up with the vagueness, ordered government officials with “firsthand knowledge” to testify Thursday about what happens if he’s released. “It’s like trying to nail Jello to a wall trying to find out what is going to happen next week,” she said, making it clear she’s not letting the feds “spirit him away again” without due process.

This whole saga is a masterclass in government incompetence. The DOJ’s been caught playing fast and loose with the truth, and Judge Xinis is holding their feet to the fire. 

There will definitely be more to follow.

Hey amazing readers! If you love the content you find here please consider supporting Brain Flushings. A quick coffee donation via Buy Me a Coffee fuels late-night writing sessions and fresh ideas. Every sip—er, dollar—helps me create more of the posts you enjoy. Join the crew, toss in a coffee, and let’s keep the good vibes brewing! 

Tweet

Antisemitic NYC mayoral candidate wants apartheid-inspired higher taxes against Whites

Don't let his smile fool you

Let's look to New York City, where the Democratic nominee for mayor, Zohran Mamdani, has unfurled a banner of socialist ambition that threatens to unravel the very fabric of the metropolis. 

This 33-year-old anti-Semite, who only deigned to become an American citizen in 2018, has proposed a scheme as audacious as it is divisive: to “shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods.” 

Yes, you read that correctly, whiter neighborhoods. The phrase drips with the kind of racialized rhetoric that ought to raise eyebrows in any society that values fairness over tribalism.

Mamdani, a self-professed socialist with a penchant for radical posturing, has laid out his vision in a policy memo that accuses the city’s property tax system of favoring “wealthier homeowners in gentrifying neighborhoods.” 

His remedy? To lighten the load on lower-income homeowners while, in his words, “raising the amount paid in the most expensive Brooklyn brownstones.” One might ask whether this is a policy rooted in equity or a thinly veiled exercise in class warfare, tinged with a troubling fixation on race.

Is it even constitutional? I doubt it.

But this is merely the tip of Mamdani’s ideological iceberg. His platform reads like a fever dream of far-left fantasies: city-owned grocery stores, defunding the police, and rent freezes. It is as though he has taken a leaf from the playbook of every failed utopian experiment and decided to test it on one of the world’s greatest cities. 

The backlash has been swift and deserved. Republicans and moderates alike have recoiled, with Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee leading the charge. In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Ogles called for Mamdani’s American citizenship to be stripped, citing the candidate’s alleged support for foreign terror organizations, a reference to Mamdani’s professed “love” for individuals convicted of funneling money to Hamas. 

Ogles did not mince words: “Zohran ‘little muhammad’ Mamdani is an anti-Semitic, socialist, communist who will destroy the great City of New York,” he declared, adding, “He needs to be DEPORTED. Which is why I am calling for him to be subject to denaturalization proceedings.”

The outrage is not confined to political circles. New York billionaire Bill Ackman, a man not known for sitting idly by, has thrown his considerable weight behind efforts to thwart Mamdani’s ascent. “There are hundreds of millions of dollars of capital available to back a competitor to Mamdani that can be put together overnight,” Ackman declared, signaling a financial bulwark against this socialist insurgency.

Mamdani’s improbable rise, having bested former Governor Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic primary, now pits him against incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, who is running as an independent in November’s general election. The stage is set for a clash not just of personalities but of visions along with sanity vs. insanity: one tethered to the realities of governance, the other soaring into the ether of ideological purity. 

New Yorkers, one suspects, will have much to ponder as they decide whether to entrust their city to a man whose policies seem less about progress than about settling scores.

Hasn't the West been suicidal long enough? It's time to think about the implications of electing this guy.

Hey guys, if you like my blog,  please feel free to toss a virtual coffee my way on Buy Me a Coffee  It’s like a high-five with caffeine, and coffee keeps me focused, albeit somewhat hyper. No pressure, it's your call.

Tweet

Tulsi Gabbard exposes Biden's secret program to quiet conservatives

They thought they could bury it forever, locked away in a vault of secrecy and bureaucratic jargon. The Biden administration’s blueprint for dismantling American freedom was meant to stay hidden, shielded from the eyes of a public they claimed to serve.

But they didn’t see Tulsi Gabbard coming.

In a bombshell move that’s got the DC swamp in a frenzy, Director of National Intelligence Gabbard just ripped the crap-stained sheets off the Biden era’s most chilling and wordy document: the so-called “Strategic Implementation Plan for Countering Domestic Terrorism.”

“As promised, I have declassified the Biden Administration’s Strategic Implementation Plan for Countering Domestic Terrorism. Read it here: https://t.co/VAXDHkgZTK https://t.co/oNXjKDqamc” — DNI Tulsi Gabbard (
@DNIGabbard) April 16, 2025

Let’s strip away the Orwellian doublespeak. This isn’t a “plan to counter terrorism”—it’s a straight-up playbook for targeting conservatives. While Biden droned on about “unity,” his team was weaponizing Big Tech to silence dissent and building a surveillance state to track Americans with the “wrong” opinions. To his credit, Biden was likely not aware of what his handler[s] was doing because he wasn't aware of most everything beyond ice cream and hair.

The document’s a progressive fever dream: monitor “suspicious” online speech (read: anything right of AOC), bloat federal watchlists with conservatives, and—surprise—find fresh ways to gut the Second Amendment.

Don’t buy the “protecting democracy” hogwash. The Government Accountability Office confirms this wasn’t just talk—it was in motion. How many patriots got labeled “threats” for posting a MAGA meme or questioning an election?

They even slapped Tulsi Gabbard on the TSA’s terrorist watchlist. That’s the Left's America for you.

The plan’s biggest issue? A push for red flag laws and gun restrictions, cloaked as preventing “lethal means.” In their world, owning a firearm or loving the Constitution makes you a “domestic terrorist.”
The SIP ordered agencies to hunt down “DT-related content” online, cozying up with Big Tech to monitor, flag, and erase speech that didn’t toe the progressive line. First Amendment? What’s that?

The Twitter Files already exposed this game—government goons leaning on tech giants to smother dissent on COVID, elections, you name it. The report brags about agencies sharing “relevant information on DT-related and associated transnational terrorist online content” with private companies.

 
This wasn’t a misstep—it was a deliberate attack on the liberties that define America. While the left shrieked about “democracy under threat,” they were laying the groundwork for tyranny.

Gabbard’s declassification is a gut punch to the establishment, exposing what Biden’s “moderate” crew was cooking up in the shadows. Now we’re left wondering: what else is lurking in those classified files?
The founders would be spitting mad. But maybe this is the wake-up call America needs—a reminder of what happens when we let power-drunk bureaucrats run wild, far from the sunlight of accountability.

Next time you hear a Democrat preaching about “saving democracy,” remember this plan. Their version of “democracy” is a far cry from the Republic our founders bled for.

And know that Tulsi Gabbard has bigger balls than Biden and his handler[s], figuratively speaking, of course.

If you enjoy my blog, feel free to toss a virtual coffee my way on Buy Me a Coffee – it’s like a high-five with caffeine! No pressure, it's your call.

Tweet

Maxine Waters proves she knows the law like goldfish know algebra

California Dumb-o-cratic Rep. Maxine Waters speaks like a person on crack. She suggested President Trump should deport his wife, Melania, as she went on an anti-DOGE protest in Los Angeles this weekend.

"When he [Trump] talks about birthright, and he's going to undo the fact that the Constitution allows those who are born here, even if the parents are undocumented, they have a right to stay in America. If he wants to start looking so closely to find those who were born here and their parents were undocumented, maybe he ought to first look at Melania," the aged Waters said from the stage at the rally.

"We don't know whether or not her parents were documented. And maybe we better just take a look," the intellectually impaired congresswoman added, not knowing about matrimonial law and citizenship.

Melania Trump was born in the former Yugoslavia and became a U.S. citizen in 2006, according to official government biographies of the first lady. She is the first U.S. first lady to become a naturalized citizen, and the second first lady to be born outside of the U.S. The first was the wife of President John Quincy Adams, Louisa Catherine Johnson Adams. She was born in London in 1775 and is no longer with us, much like Waters brain.

Melania sponsored her parents, who were also from current-day Slovenia, for green cards and then citizenship after securing her own citizenship, the New York Times reported in 2018. Viktor and Amalija Knavs, the first lady's parents, officially became U.S. citizens in 2018. 

Waters was referring to President Donald Trump signing an executive order on his first day in office that bans birthright citizenship. The executive order works to clarify the 14th Amendment, which states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." His executive order narrows the scope of birthright citizenship banning those born to illegal immigrant parents, or those here legally but on temporary non-immigrant visas.

Trump's EO is currently tied up in court, with the President taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court last week.

Waters joined the protest in Los Angeles on Saturday. She apparently loves protests and isn't very adverse to violence or confrontation having called for it in the past. Hundreds of protesters had gathered at the protest of the Department of Government Efficiency's work to cut down the size of the useless parts of the federal government, including auditing federal agencies in search of overspending, fraud and corruption. 

Protesters marched to the VA hospital on Los Angeles' Wilshire Boulevard as part of the rally, the Los Angeles Times reported.

"We are here because we are not going to let Trump, we’re not going to let Elon Musk, his co-president, or anybody else take the United States Constitution down," Waters added in her address to the crowd on Saturday. 

She has previously said in a different venue:  “If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”

Evidently, Maxine Waters believes she owns the USA or at least has the right to tell people to leave where she wants them to leave. 

Waters, by the way, has been labeled the most corrupt person in Congress.

"Thanks for reading! If you’d like to toss a coffee my way, check out my Buy Me A Coffee—means a lot!"

Tweet

Two armed robbers shot by target

San Antonio, TEXAS -- The San Antonio Police Department is investigating a shooting in which two men were rushed to the hospital at about 3:50 a.m. Sunday morning from the 200 block of Ranch Valley.

When officers arrived at the scene, they discovered a 23-year-old man with a gunshot wound to his head. Emergency Medical Services transported him to the hospital, where he was listed in critical condition, according to the San Antonio Police Department. During the investigation, authorities learned that another man had also been taken to the hospital, this one with a gunshot wound to his hip, which was linked to the same incident, SAPD reported.

Per San Antonio police, the two men taken to the hospital were the aggressors, while the person who shot them was the target of an attempted robbery and acting in self-defense.

Police have not disclosed many additional details about the defensive gun use, only confirming that the two men who targeted the 34-year-old armed citizen were also armed. The victim is not currently facing any charges for his actions, and based on what we know, nor should he.

There were other self-defense incidents this weekend but you get the picture: people have the right to defend themselves and their property and the Second Amendment is as important as the First Amendment and the U.S. Constitution overall.

Tweet

Federal appeals court blocks all of Biden's illegal student debt relief campaign scam

"A chicken in every pot, and you get a car; and you get a car; and you do not have to pay the loan you promised to pay back because your neighbors and strangers will all chip in and pay for it, just like they pay all government workers' salaries. Oh, and we're giving ourselves a nice raise."

This is what our political leaders do. They act like Santa Claus and Oprah just to get your votes and then they rarely do anything even close to what they promised. 

Vegetable Biden said he'd go "U.S. Constitution rogue" and relieve students of the loan debts they took out for their college education, which they originally agreed to pay back. The reasons this goes against the Constitution is as follows:

1. Article I, Section 8: The Powers of Congress
- This section grants Congress the power to lay and collect taxes, to pay debts, and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.
- Congress has the authority to make laws regarding the federal budget and expenditures, including allocation of funds for paying off debts.

2. Article II, Section 3: Presidential Duties
- The President is responsible for ensuring that the laws be faithfully executed, which includes managing federal programs and budgets as enacted by Congress.

3. The Appropriations Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 7)

- “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” This clause implies that federal spending, including any student loan debt relief funding, must be appropriated by Congress.

Given these provisions, while the Vegetable President might propose a policy to have taxpayers pay for student loan debt, such funding would ultimately require Congressional approval through the appropriations process. Any initiative by the executive branch would need to operate within the limits set by existing laws passed by Congress.

So-called President Biden did none of this.

The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a request by seven Republican-led states to put on hold parts of the U.S. Department of Education’s debt relief plan that had not already been previously blocked by a lower-court judge.

A federal appeals court on Thursday blocked alleged President Biden’s administration from continuing to implement a new student debt relief plan which provides for lower monthly payments for Americans.

That ruling came last month by U.S. District Judge John Ross in St. Louis. It blocked the department from granting further loan forgiveness under the administration’s Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) Plan but had not blocked all of the plan.

The White House has said that over 20 million borrowers could benefit from the SAVE Plan. The administration in May said that 8 million are already enrolled, including 4.6 million whose monthly payments have been reduced to $0, allowing those lucky ones to pay for tattoos, tongue rings, and gender transitioning.

Taxpayers who did not attend college, and those who did and paid off their student loans because they were responsible, are as happy as legal immigrants who went through the system, waited, and obtained legal resident status and citizenship status.

The Education Department on Thursday said it had already granted $5.5 billion to 414,000 borrowers through the SAVE Plan. So screw you, to the millions more who were responsible or who paid their taxes and didn't benefit from the handout.

Another federal judge in Kansas had also blocked parts of the SAVE Plan in June, via a different federal appeals court, the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Tweet

Pelosi attacks US Judiciary branch of government: "They have gone rogue"

Lip locked anger

As we all know, there are three branches of government: the executive branch, currently held by a man suffering from dementia; the congressional branch, composed of the House of Representatives and the Senate; and the judiciary, which is the Supreme Court comprised of nine justices.

During Donald Trump's first presidency, and hopefully not his last, he appointed three SCOTUS Justices: Neil Gorsuch, 2017; Brett Kavanaugh, 2018; and Amy Coney Barrett, 2020.

As with most justices, their judicial philosophies and decisions often reflect conservative viewpoints, particularly in areas such as individual liberties, regulatory powers, and social issues. Both Coney Barrett and Gorsuch are considered originalists, while Kavanaugh is aligned in that direction but he is also pragmatic in his approach.

The term "originalism" is the judicial philosophy that interprets the U.S. Constitution as it was originally intended to mean or be understood when it was enacted. Thus, the words of the Constitution should be assigned the same meaning as it did when adopted and its interpretation should be grounded in the text itself and the historical context and intent of the framers. Therefore, it limits the role of the Supreme Court and calls for the need for change to come from the legislation or amendments rather than the Court changing the law via judicial interpretation.

Naturally, the judicial philosophy of the Supreme Court with its conservative majority tends to piss off the left, who, when in power, would like to make the rules of the game to their advantage.

Former Speaker of the House, Nancy "Hands-a-Blur" Pelosi (D-CA) had a covert conniption we must assume, when Trump made those appointments to SCOTUS. The ample dentured octogenarian said in an interview on the Communist Network News (CNN) with Anderson Cooper, that the Supreme Court has "gone rogue" when asked about their legitimacy.

Pelosi [aka "Dancing Dentures"] made the remarks Monday night about the judiciary branch of American government because she doesn't agree with their rulings, and anyone who disagrees with her has no right to do so.

“No, I think they have gone rogue. It’s most unfortunate,” she claimed, when asked about their legitimacy. “But it’s unfortunate further to see what the other justices … what happened to the chief justice? Did he go weak or did he go rogue? I don’t know. And that’s the same thing with these members of Congress, if I can take it back to that, because, as tragic as that night was — and they were coming after me to put a bullet in my head. They were going to hang the — have a gallows for the vice president of the United States.”

“So, no, I don’t have confidence in the Supreme Court,” the congresswoman of the failed state of California later added. “I think that some of the decisions they have — see, I respect their point of view. If they have a point of view about a woman’s right to choose, okay, but that’s not what they’re there to do, to advocate for a point of view. Run for Congress.”

She claimed that the justices voted “their opinion on policy” rather than follow “the oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States.”

“I want us to get back to a place where the three branches of government, as our Founders initiated, are respected across the board,” she claimed. “But I don’t have a lot of confidence in this court, unfortunately. I say that with a heavy heart."

The fact that Trump undid Roe v. Wade and gave the power back to the states, thus taking it away from the Supreme Court, shows exactly the opposite claim made by Pelosi. This is why we are a republic as opposed to a pure democracy. But people like Pelosi [aka "The Ice Cream Lady"] want the power of the majority to rule over the minority, even when the difference in number is nearly the same.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." This is often attributed to Benjamin Franklin, but he probably didn't say it.

Pelosi may not like the existence of protections in the U.S. Constitution and our checks and balances in government, which protects us from the tyranny of the majority, but these safeguards are what makes the country the best we have on earth. We aren't perfect, but we are far beyond what's out there.

Tweet

The Deep State has a plan to deal with Trump

Biden has nothing to show for his term as President. In fact, some say [like me] that he's not running the show and is actually an 'alleged' president, or a 'so called' president. He is down in the polls and the Democrats are desperate to do something.

Former President Donald Trump is by far the leading candidate for the GOP so the left is doing the "threat to democracy," "he's no different than Hitler" schtick. They have to do this because they have nothing to show for their time in leadership other than porn in the schools, two serious wars, incredibly high inflation, a President who craps his pants in front of the Pope and who is as confused as a pedophile in Boys' Town. 

Biden is a total failure but the left cannot admit it so they go after Trump.

The Red State reported that the Democrat powers that be are trying to do something about the Donald, as per an NBC revealed. According to an NBC report, they worry that if Trump wins the presidency they don't know what he will do so "a loose-knit network of public interest groups and lawmakers is quietly devising plans to try to foil any efforts to expand presidential power, which could include pressuring the military to cater to his political needs."

Boys and girls, can you say 'paranoia'?

According to the NBC report, these people are quietly studying Trump's past behavior and his 2024 policy positions in order to be ready should he win this November. They are ready to take legal action and threaten Trump's appointees if they undermine constitutional norms--something the Democrats believe is only their right to do.

“We’re already starting to put together a team to think through the most damaging types of things that he [Trump] might do so that we’re ready to bring lawsuits if we have to,” said Mary McCord, executive director of the Institution for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law.

McCord must be referring to actions like using the DOJ to prosecute only those who don't follow the President's narrative--oh wait--that wasn't Trump. Perhaps she is referring to calling for military strikes against the Houthis in Yemen without going through Congress--oh dang--that wasn't Trump.

This garbage needs to stop right now. Trump may or may not win, but if he does get elected, those unelected scumcrumpets better not interfere with the workings of government.

Tweet

Biden's DHS "likely" violated First Amendment by working with Big Tech to censor election content

" . . . it makes sense, ice cream has no bones."

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

An injunction was ordered Tuesday on the Department of Homeland Security by a federal court after it found that the agency probably violated the First Amendment by coordinating with social media companies to effectively censor "election-related speech."

[H/T Fox News Digital]

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals extended the scope of an injunction in place that limits the Biden administration's communication with big tech companies to include the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) within the Department of Homeland Security.

Of course it wasn't Biden himself who did the communicating now that it's obvious communicating isn't one of Joe's strong points--it's likely someone behind the curtain pulling his strings.

According to Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey (R), who is leading the litigation against the Biden administration, CISA is the "nerve center" of the White House's "vast censorship enterprise" and "the very entity that worked with the FBI to silence the Hunter Biden laptop story." 

"CISA was created to protect Americans from foreign attack, and now it has begun targeting its own citizens," Bailey told the outlet.

A three-judge panel determined that CISA was the "primary facilitator" of the FBI's interactions with the social-media platforms and worked in close coordination with the FBI to push the platforms to change their moderation policies to cover "hack-and-leak" content.

The opinion in the order describes CISA’s "switchboarding" operations as "merely relaying flagged social-media posts from state and local election officials to the platforms." But the judge said that "in reality, the practice is ended up being "[s]omething more,'" the order reads.

"CISA used its frequent interactions with social-media platforms to push them to adopt more restrictive policies on censoring election-related speech. And CISA officials affirmatively told the platforms whether the content they had ‘switchboarded’ was true or false," it added.

"Thus, when the platforms acted to censor CISA-switchboarded content, they did not do so independently. Rather, the platforms’ censorship decisions were made under policies that CISA has pressured them into adopting and based on CISA’s determination of the veracity of the flagged information. Thus, CISA likely significantly encouraged the platforms’ content-moderation decisions and thereby violated the First Amendment," the judges said.

Well this is worse than Watergate and J6 combined. 

The injunction stems from a lawsuit brought by Missouri and Louisiana attorneys general against the Biden administration that accused high-ranking government officials of working with giant social media companies "under the guise of combating misinformation" that ultimately led to censoring speech on topics, including Hunter Biden’s laptop, COVID-19 origins and the efficacy of face masks.

If any word in the English language can be used to promote Marxism, that word is "misinformation." Because it's the ones who define what misinformation is, that has the power to shut down dissent.

The attorneys general deposed Dr. Anthony Fauci, and FBI Special Agent Elvis Chan. Federal Judge Terry A. Doughty of the Fifth Circuit ordered the first injunction on July 4th (Independence Day) preventing White House officials and other federal agencies from meeting with tech companies about ways for them to impose "Big Brother" tactics in order to censor social media.

The scathing injunction said the government's actions during the pandemic were akin to "an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.'"

"If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history," the injunction states. "In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the Federal Government, and particularly the Defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech."

The Justice Department has appealed the court order to the Supreme Court, arguing that the government faced "irreparable harm" because Doughty's order may prevent the federal government from "working with social media companies on initiatives to prevent grave harm to the American people and our democratic processes."

But the truth is, the American people would face "irreparable harm" if these leftists had their way.

Tweet

Lying Dem Rep. said GOP tried to "provide themselves with a pay raise"

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) may not be the prettiest lawmaker to grace the halls of Congress, but she is one of the Democrats' biggest liars. She accused House Republicans on Saturday of trying to "provide themselves with a pay raise" as she objected to a stopgap spending bill which she eventually voted for as there is nothing she really stands for other than the freedom to look like an old woke hippy fool.

DeLauro said that the "many changes" between what was originally offered in the bill and the version that was offered in the Senate, showed a pay increase for those serving in Congress, and blamed the GOP for that.

"Here is one that I believe the majority will not mention," the lovely DeLauro said. "They amend the Senate bill to give themselves a pay raise. A pay raise. It's there. You can look at me, you can smile but what you did was you amended the Senate bill to give yourselves a pay raise."

DeLauro's claim was met with immediate pushback from House Republicans, who shouted her down, yelling "That's false."

Which of course, it is.

So she took to social media, hoping to get lots of positive feedback when she wrote: "The Member Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) automatically takes effect unless it is blocked. The Senate blocked this in their CR. The House GOP CR does not.

"News flash: a COLA is a pay increase for Members of Congress."

Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., later took issue with DeLauro's statement, claiming it was "simply not true" and an "excuse" not to vote in favor of the measure.

Rep. Austin Scott (R-CA)

Disproving DeLauro's claim, and proving she either doesn't know the law or is a liar, Scott read aloud the 27th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states: "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened."

"You need to know who's telling you the truth and who's not telling you the truth," Scott said. "Recently, you heard my colleague from Connecticut tell you that the Republican bill has a pay raise for members in Congress. It's simply not true, and if it did, it would be unconstitutional. And if the Senate bill changes the compensation for members of Congress, then it, too, is unconstitutional.

"They are simply grasping at straws. They have intended to shut down the government from the start," Scott added. "Disregard totally what you're hearing from the other side. They are grasping at straws, making excuses and telling flat-out lies about member compensation as an excuse to vote against this piece of legislation."

Democrats lying? Wow, who would have ever thought that?

Everyone who is not a Democrat.

The House later voted to pass a short-term spending bill, as usual, and moved to avoid a government shutdown if the Senate approves the measure. If expedited there, Congress could avoid a shutdown by a hair.

It's just the lies, more lies and damn lies that are annoying.

Tweet

Even New Mexico's Democrat AG refuses to defend Gov. Lujan Grisham's unconstitutional gun ban

Self-identifies as a dictator

The New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez refuses to defend Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham's illegal gun order, which faces a number of lawsuits. He told the governor in a letter on Tuesday that he believed the so called emergency order violates state and federal constitutions as it bans law abiding folks from carrying firearms in public spaces across Bernalillo County.

Torrez wrote: “I am writing to inform you that my office will not defend your administration in the above referenced cases challenging” Lujan Grisham’s order.

“Though I recognize my statutory obligation as New Mexico’s chief legal officer to defend state officials when they are sued in their official capacity, my duty to uphold and defend the constitutional rights of every citizen takes precedence,” his letter continued. “Simply put, I do not believe that the Emergency Order will have any meaningful impact on public safety but, more importantly, I do not believe it passes constitutional muster.”

Because it doesn't. It's a power-grab and will fail in court, but in the meanwhile, it may be put in place before it is heard there. Predictably, many law enforcement officials have said that they will not enforce the order because they plan to live up to their oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Lujan Grisham is domestic.

Lujan Grisham signed an executive order on Friday that banned open and concealed carrying firearms in Albuquerque and the rest of the surrounding county. The governor enacted the order — to remain in place for 30 days — after a spate of shootings that killed several children by scumbags who obviously will not abide by the order, leaving the rest of the public defenseless. 

She's not the brightest light in the tool shed.

“The tragic deaths of 5-year-old Galilea Samaniego in a recent drive-by shooting and 11-year-old Froylan Villegas in a road rage incident should serve as a wakeup call to everyone,” Torrez wrote. “I encourage you to engage in a more thoughtful and deliberative process with members of the New Mexico Legislature rather than taking unilateral action that infringes on the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens while having little if any discernible impact on the underlying dynamics driving gun violence in our community.”

New Mexico Attorney General tells the Governor that he won't defend her carry ban, saying "I do not believe it passes constitutional muster." pic.twitter.com/ORat27wAvn

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy)

Torrez, a Democrat, joins a handful of other officials in refusing to enforce or defend the order. Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller, also a Democrat, said in a statement to social media that the city’s police force would not be responsible for enforcing the governor’s order. Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen announced on Monday that he would not enforce the order either, calling it unconstitutional.

Dictator Lujan Grisham responded to Allen in a statement to the NM Political Report, saying that her administration had “given you the tools, Sheriff Allen — now stop being squeamish about using them. I will not back down from doing what’s right and I will always put the safety of the people of New Mexico first.”

He isn't being squeamish; he's being patriotic.

Lujan Grisham said in an interview on CNN: “It’s not for police to tell me what’s constitutional or not. They haven’t supported one, not one gun violence effort in the State of New Mexico including domestic violence protections, universal background checks.”

The guns have not responded to her comments against them.

Hopefully, Lujan Grisham will be impeached and soon thrown out of office.

Tweet

NM Gov. gets her comeuppance on gun-ban move

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-of course) seems to believe that she has the authority to ban law abiding citizens from being allowed to carry guns in Albuquerque and the surrounding county for the next 30 days or more.

The far-left governor signed an executive order Thursday stating that gun violence is a public health emergency, implying that her definition of health is twisted. While health is the state of being free from illness or injury, the gun "health emergency" is more of a societal problem which the left refuses to address.

On Friday, Grisham used her political position to suspend open and concealed carry laws in Albuquerque and the surrounding area and threatened to lengthen or renew her unconstitutional order.

Although she basically agreed that her order might be unconstitutional and she might lose in court, she went ahead and became New Mexico's first dictator.

Her decision was so crazy that even far, far-left anti-gun activist David Hogg criticized her.

“I support gun safety but there is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution,” Hogg posted on X.

I support gun safety but there is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution. https://t.co/6GfbOZLc7g

Even far, far-leftist and anti-intelligence Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) had negative words about Grisham's executive order, causing many Republicans to experience the vapors upon hearing his words of reason:

“I support gun safety laws. However, this order from the Governor of New Mexico violates the U.S. Constitution,” Lieu wrote on X. “No state in the union can suspend the federal Constitution. There is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution.”

New Mexico GOP state Reps. Stefani Lord and John Block on Saturday said that they were going forward to impeach Grisham.

“I am calling on counsel to begin the impeachment process against Governor Grisham,” Lord said. “This is an abhorrent attempt at imposing a radical, progressive agenda on an unwilling populous. Rather than addressing crime at its core, Governor Grisham is restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Even Grisham believes this emergency order won’t prohibit criminals from carrying or using weapons; a basic admission that this will only put New Mexicans in danger as they won’t be able to defend themselves from violent crime.”

Block said that there was “no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution.”

And what makes anyone on the left really believe that if you take the rights of law abiding individuals to defend themselves, that lawless miscreants would go along with the gun ban? All it serves to do is leave the good people of Albuquerque defenseless.

Elon Musk responded on his X platform to Grisham’s order posting: 

At risk of stating what should be obvious, deliberately violating the Constitution is next-level illegal.

How soon can this person be removed from office?

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 9, 2023

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) responded, “She’s nuts, but she’s taking what the tyrants did during COVID (forced jabs, travel bans, closed businesses, suppressed speech — with no laws passed) to the next level.”

She's also doing what the Nazis did to the public by taking away their means of self-defense against a tyrannical government. Who does she think she is anyway? Gretchen Whitmer?

Tweet

Joe claims he won't pardon Hunter: believe him this time?

POTUS seen here picking his nose

It's hard to tell when President Joe Biden is lying because it's hard to decipher the sounds emitted from his mouth. So when the White House's incompetent black lesbian Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre [KJP] speaks on Joe's behalf, it's best to wait and see what ends up being the truth.

KJP was her usual adamant self when she claimed that Joe's drug-addled, whoring, bag-man son, Hunter, would not be granted clemency by the President. This comes one day following his rejected probation-only plea deal on gun charges and taxes that U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika issued after she realized Hunter's lawyers were trying to play her. 

“Is there any possibility that the president would end up pardoning his son?” a reporter asked the affirmative action Press Secretary at her regular briefing.

“No,” KJP replied, uncharacteristically responding to the question with a related answer.

When the same Fox News reporter tried to ask a follow-up question, KJP snapped, “I just said no — I just answered” and called on a different journalist, but not the guy from Africa who she always refuses to call on but someone who would ask easier questions.

The way the U.S. Constitution is worded, a president could pardon anyone they want, and in our geriatric president's case, that would be his son. However, if he did, that would cause a huge political blowback.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (RINO-CA) has made comments this week about a possible impeachment inquiry into the President's role in Hunter's foreign business dealings such as those in China, Mexico, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine, where Hunter did not register as a foreign agent as the law requires, and where he paid off someone referred to as the "big guy."

A reporter from the far-left Salon asked a question to which KJP claimed that Hunter did not receive "favorable treatment" from his father's Justice Department, and amazingly, nobody rolled on the floor laughing their ass off.

He borrowed Dad's aviator glasses

In fact, two IRS whistleblowers revealed that Biden-appointed US Attorneys in Washington, DC and Los Angeles blocked charges against Hunter leading to what assistant US attorney Leo Wise repeatedly admitted in court Thursday was an unprecedented plea deal.

The Salon "reporter" asked KJP, “Can you state categorically that the administration has neither sought nor received favorable treatment from the DOJ for any investigation into the president, members of the administration, his family or former President Donald Trump?”

“Absolutely not,” the incompetent Press Secretary responded. “The Department of Justice is independent, the president respects the rule of law, he’s been saying that since he was before [sic] president and that will remain the case,” she said, hoping anyone would believe the load she was shoveling.

Joe Biden repeatedly interacted with his son’s foreign business partners in spite of him lying that he never was involved with any of Hunter's business deals.

Hunter’s plea deal to two tax misdemeanors and a gun possession felony would have been expunged after two years had the judge fallen for the gambit his lawyers tried to trick the judge into signing.

The sides will appear again in court in 30 days after filings on next steps.

Tweet