Posted on by

NY Times Says Ukraine Aid Benefits GOP Districts, So It’s A Shame Many Republicans Are Against It

How long do they expect this war to last?

As Ukraine Aid Benefits Their Districts, Some House Republicans Oppose It

By early next year, this city best known for being the rodeo capital of Texas is on track to become a centerpiece of the U.S. effort to increase artillery production vital to the war in Ukraine.

A hulking new plant going up next to a highway exchange not far from downtown Mesquite promises to nearly double current U.S. output, replenishing stockpiles and preparing more ammunition to beat back the Russian invasion.

For a city in the midst of engineering an economic renaissance, the General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems factory is a major boon. It is expected to employ at least 125 people; bring business opportunities to local suppliers, retailers and restaurants; and, city officials hope, potentially help turn the area into an industrial hotbed of well-paying jobs.

None of that appears to have persuaded Rep. Lance Gooden, the Republican whose district will house the new plant, to support continuing U.S. aid to Ukraine. Over the summer, he joined dozens of his GOP House colleagues in calling for an end to American support for Ukraine’s fight, voting for measures to strip $300 million in security assistance for the war-torn country from next year’s defense budget and prohibit Congress from approving any more funds for the conflict.

His opposition and that of many others in his party has imperiled President Joe Biden’s request for $24 billion in additional funding for the war, threatening to derail an emergency spending bill that lawmakers in both parties are working to push through Congress this month.

The war started on February 24, 2022, and we’re fast approaching the 2nd year, with little change all around. Ukraine’s spring offensive didn’t end up doing a whole lot, and Biden wants to continue showering Ukraine with billions, holding aid to Maui hostage. But, consider what the NY Times is saying: that artillery plant won’t go into operation till next year. At that point, it will take time to start production of the shells and shipping them. How freaking long is this war supposed to go on? How long will the U.S. be funding and supplying Ukraine?

It reflects how the “America First” mentality popularized by former President Donald Trump has spread and intensified among Republicans, prompting increasing numbers of lawmakers — including some whose constituents benefit directly from continued U.S. aid to Ukraine — to refuse to keep supporting it. And it is one major driver of the spending showdowns to come this fall as lawmakers toil to reach agreement on both the routine annual spending bills and an extra package of aid for crises at home and abroad.

Of course there’s some Trump Derangement Syndrome included. This is not about “America First”, it’s about not spending money we don’t have on a war that has little consequences to the U.S. when our own people need that money.

“We’re proud that they’re made in Ohio’s 4th District,” Rep. Jim Jordan, the Republican whose district includes the Lima Army Tank Plant, said of the Abrams tanks, “but our constituents have great concerns about seemingly unlimited taxpayer money being used to fund the war in Ukraine, especially when Americans are struggling at home with rising inflation and places like East Palestine and Maui continue to be ignored by the Biden administration.”

There are lots of Democrats and Independents who are wondering why we’re funding Ukraine, with much of the money going to pay the lawmakers and rich folks in Ukraine. They’re wondering when this will end. And wondering why our citizens are suffering.

Posted on by

Good Grief: Biden Gives Iran $6 Billion Of Frozen Funds On 9/11 For Five Prisoners

Of all the days to take care of avowed enemies, a government, and many of the people, who chant “death to America” and actually mean it. A country attempting to get nuclear weapons, which would destabilize the Middle East, and could cause Israel, and even Saudi Arabia, to strike first

President Joe Biden Bows to Iran on 9/11: Pays $6 Billion for Five Prisoners

The Biden administration has reportedly approved a deal with Iran to pay the rogue regime $6 billion in exchange for five detained American citizens.

The deal, according to the Associated Press (AP), entailed the Biden administration issuing a blanket waiver for international banks to transfer $6 billion in frozen Iranian money from South Korea to Qatar without U.S. sanctions. The money would then be held in Qatar’s central bank for Iran to use, reportedly for the purchase of humanitarian goods.

In addition, the Biden administration agreed to release five Iranian citizens held in the U.S.

According to the AP, Secretary of State Antony Blinken signed off on the deal late last week, but Congress was not notified of the deal until Monday, which was also 9/11, the 22nd anniversary of the U.S. suffering terrorist attacks by Islamic fundamentalists.

The deal appears to go against the U.S. policy of not paying countries to release American prisoners so as not to incentivize the behavior.

This will very much help the unhinged terrorists running Iran. Good job, Joe! Though, of course, Credentialed Media outlets like the Washington Post can only lightly chide Biden despite

The deal marks a major breakthrough for the longtime adversaries who remain at loggerheads over a range of issues, including the rapid expansion of Tehran’s nuclear program, its ongoing military support for Russia and Iran’s harsh crackdown on dissent. Though it remains unclear when the two sides could complete the prisoner transfer, Monday’s announcement comes as President Biden and Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi each prepare to travel to New York for the annual U.N. General Assembly next week.

In other words, this is a huge win for Iran, and the WP would be lambasting Trump if he did this. It’s not like Iranian proxies have directly threatened the US recently or something.

Meanwhile, as Biden gave a little, barely coherent speech in Alaska (because AF1 typically stops in Alaska to refuel, so, Biden stepped out for a brief appearance, so he didn’t have to do anything when he got back to DC)

(Fox News) President Biden claimed Monday, without evidence, that he stood at Ground Zero in New York City viewing the damage from the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks just one day later, despite records showing he was in Washington, D.C. that day.

“Ground Zero in New York — I remember standing there the next day and looking at the building. I felt like I was looking through the gates of Hell, it looked so devastating because the way you could — from where you could stand,” Biden said during his speech at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska marking the devastating acts of terrorism 22 years ago.

However, according to C-SPAN coverage of U.S. Senate proceedings on September 12, 2001, Biden was in Washington, D.C. and gave a speech on the floor of the Senate. Records show the Senate met in the morning, and a classified briefing was held for all senators that afternoon at 2:00 p.m. ET.

Typical Biden lying. Oh, and AF1 landed at the aforementioned AF base, which is the norm, so, he didn’t really have to travel far.

Who had a WWIII watch including Iran on the bingo card?

Posted on by

GOP Squishes Start Coming Out Of Woodwork Over Impeaching Biden

Republicans can only afford to lose a few for any vote on impeachment, including a vote to start impeachment. How many squishes are out there?

GOP rep says House shouldn’t ‘repeat mistakes’ of Trump impeachment with Biden

Rep. French Hill (R-Ark.) said Sunday the House should not “repeat the mistakes” of former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) impeachment inquiry into former President Trump when weighing the same for President Biden.

“We don’t want to repeat the mistakes we think that Nancy Pelosi made by prematurely moving to impeachment during the Trump administration,” Hill said in an interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has suggested the House could hold a vote to launch an impeachment inquiry as soon as this month, despite hesitation from some GOP moderates.

House Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.), who is leading a congressional investigation into Biden’s family and business dealings, said last week he believes there are enough votes in the House to open an impeachment inquiry.

Hill said he does not believe Comer nor House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) have “even remotely completed” the investigations into the Biden family’s foreign business dealings.

“I don’t believe they’ve even remotely completed their work on the kind of detailed investigations and quality work that Speaker McCarthy is expecting both those committees to produce before someone goes to, you know, an impeachment activity,” the Arkansas representative said.

How much more does he want? Here’s just part of Greg Stuebe’s submitted article of impeachment

ARTICLE 1: ABUSE OF POWER: BRIBERY, HOBBS ACT EXTORTION, & HONEST SERVICES FRAUD
Robert Hunter Biden (Hunter Biden) and James Biden sold access to then Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. (Joe Biden) while he was in office from 2009 to 2017 and sold promised access to a future Biden Presidential Administration while he was out of office from 2017 to 2021. Hunter and James appear to have promised official actions by Joe Biden in return for payments and business opportunities from foreign and domestic business partners. Joe Biden assisted by making appearances, phone calls, meeting with the “business partners,” and knowingly allowing his family members to promise access to him and actions by him in furtherance of these schemes. Hunter Biden threatened business partners that official actions could be taken against them if they did not meet terms or make payments. In at least one instance, Hunter implied that Joe Biden was aware of these threats and willing to assist in enforcing the threats, potentially through official actions. Hunter Biden attempted to enrich himself and the Biden family by threatening official actions from his father, who he claims was willing to assist in the scheme.

That should be enough for Hill, right? How about Obstruction of Justice, Fraud, and financial involvement with drugs and prostitution? How about his horrendous Afghanistan debacle, while he was off at Camp David relaxing? Violating the 1st Amendment Rights of citizen by telling social media companies to censor citizens? Making deals with Iran with zero statutory authority? Forcing people to wear masks and take the COVID “vaccine”? Leaving the border wide open? Is that not enough for the squishes?

Back when the Dems were going after, and then impeaching Trump twice for nothing burgers, they were told that what’s good for the good is good for the gander, and to expect retaliation. However, there are too many sqishes who just do not want to play politics.

Posted on by

NY Times, Democrats Upset GOP Gets Optics Of Chicago Over-run By Illegals

Why? Because the Democrats will be holding their convention in Chicago in 2024. Is this pouncing or seizing by the GOP?

GOP Gets the Democratic Border Crisis It Wanted

When Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas began sending migrants and asylum-seekers from the southwestern frontier to New York, Washington and Chicago, he vowed to bring the border to the Democratic cities he said were naively dismissing its costs.

A year later, the migrant waves he helped set in motion have put northern “sanctuary” cities increasingly on edge, their budgets stretched, their communities strained. And a border crisis that has animated Republican politics for years is now dividing the Democratic Party. Humanitarian impulses are crashing into desperate resource constraints, and once-loyal Democratic allies have reluctantly joined Republicans to train their fire on President Joe Biden. (snip through a mention of the issues in Chicago, LA, NYC, etc)

Still, the rising clamor is creating a rare convergence between the two parties, which for years have fought in seemingly parallel political universes. Democrats focused on issues like abortion, the preservation of democracy and expansion of health care, while Republicans warned of a migrant “invasion” and railed against “woke” liberal ideology, socialism and expanding LGBTQ rights. Endless Republican news conferences at the border and threats to impeach Alejandro Mayorkas, the homeland security secretary, were dismissed as political bluster.

Now, suddenly, some Democrats are sounding remarkably like Republicans.

Well, they’re caterwauling, but, they aren’t quite at the point of demanding that illegal immigration be shut down, that illegals be sent packing, and that the sham of an asylum system be utterly revamped so we aren’t having them demand entrance, claim asylum, then never leave and just disappear when their claim is denied.

“Upstate New Yorkers shouldn’t be forced to bear responsibility for decades of failed immigration policy, dysfunction and stupidity out of Washington, Albany and places like New York City,” said Josh Riley, the Democratic candidate seeking to unseat Rep. Marc Molinaro, a Hudson Valley Republican. Riley added that it was time for Biden to “to step up and help out.”

Riley is short on details, but, he is calling to secure the border and revamp the visa system. But, will people believe him? Is he gaslighting? Because he has been yammering about “comprehensive immigration reform”, ie, amnesty.

Tom Suozzi, a Democratic former congressperson from Long Island mulling a comeback attempt next year, urged Biden to take a page from one of his predecessors, Bill Clinton. Suozzi said the president should propose to Republicans a moderate package of reforms that balances border security with “the very real human suffering that exists.”

“If the Republicans come to the table with the president and the Democrats, America has a path forward,” Suozzi said. “If the Republicans reject the president’s moderate solution, it exposes them as simply playing politics on this issue.”

Hmm, that sounds like “playing politics”, and sounds just like all the other BS Democrat proposals that are about amnesty and such now for a promise for secure borders later. What Democrats do not want are a ton of illegals bringing their crime and such to Chicago during the DNC.

Posted on by

New Mexico Governor Suspends Law Abiding Citizens From Carrying In Albuquerque

The wacko knows it will face legal challenges, yet, still did it

New Mexico governor temporarily suspends open, concealed carry across Albuquerque: ‘Violence at every turn’

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, issued an emergency order on Friday suspending the right to carry guns in public across Albuquerque and the surrounding Bernalillo County for at least 30 days following recent instances of gun violence.

The governor said she expects the order to face legal challenges but that she believed she needed to act in response to recent gun-related deaths, such as an 11-year-old boy who was shot and killed outside a minor league baseball stadium earlier this week.

“When New Mexicans are afraid to be in crowds, to take their kids to school, to leave a baseball game — when their very right to exist is threatened by the prospect of violence at every turn — something is very wrong,” Lujan Grisham said in a statement.

The suspension was classified as an emergency public health order, and applies to open and concealed carry in most public places, excluding police and licensed security guards. The restriction is connected to a threshold for violent crime rates met only by the Albuquerque area.

So, what happens when the crime rate does not go down, because the vast majority of the shootings are by people who do not lawfully own the firearm, meaning no background check. Darn sure haven’t gone through the process of obtaining a concealed carry permit. Who fired the shots at the baseball game? No one knows at this point. No arrests, no person of interest. The only thing they know was that it was road rage and it was a newer black Dodge Durango SRT.

Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen said in a statement Friday night that he has concerns about the order but is prepared to cooperate to address gun violence.

“While I understand and appreciate the urgency, the temporary ban challenges the foundation of our constitution, which I swore an oath to uphold,” Allen said. “I am wary of placing my deputies in positions that could lead to civil liability conflicts, as well as the potential risks posed by prohibiting law-abiding citizens from their constitutional right to self-defense.”

And there will be suits.

State Sen. Greg Baca, the Senate’s top-ranked Republican, denounced the governor’s firearm suspension.

“A child is murdered, the perpetrator is still on the loose, and what does the governor do? She … targets law-abiding citizens with an unconstitutional gun order,” Baca said.

Even a victim right’s advocacy group is unimpressed. Why not crack down on the criminals?

Miranda Viscoli, co-president of New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence, praised the governor’s order as necessary in order to reduce gun violence.

“If it saves one life, then it’s worth doing,” Viscoli said.

Will it save one life? Because most shootings are not from people who acquired their firearms lawfully. This sounds more like a test run for long term restrictions on law abiding citizens, all while criminals run rampant under softish on crime Democrat policies.

Posted on by

California General Assembly Sends Anti-Inappropriate Book Ban Bill To Governor

Does this mean that the other books banned by school districts in California, like To Kill A Mockingbird, Huckleberry Finn, Of Mice And Men, The Cay and Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry will now be taught/available in the libraries? Probably not. This is all about protecting highly sexualized and white people hating books from being removed from schools despite being completely inappropriate for the children’s age

California Legislature sends Newsom his ‘anti-book ban’ bill

California Democrats on Thursday passed legislation that would fine school districts for rejecting textbooks or school library books for discriminatory reasons — a bill backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom that he is expected to sign.

Assembly Bill 1078, carried by Assemblymember Corey Jackson (D-Perris), this year became the administration’s central legislative response to conservative school boards’ embrace of the education culture wars. Newsom aides worked to craft the latest version of the legislation in response to a GOP-backed school board in Temecula that gained notoriety with state Democrats for blocking social studies textbooks over their inclusion of gay rights icon Harvey Milk.

“California is the true freedom state: a place where families — not political fanatics — have the freedom to decide what’s right for them,” Newsom said in a statement after the bill cleared its final legislative hurdle Thursday. “All students deserve the freedom to read and learn about the truth, the world, and themselves.”

Not mentioned is that most of the books being challenged are so sexualized that school boards won’t even let parents read from them at meetings?

There is such a thing as age appropriate, and most of these books are being kept out of schools from the classroom to the library for young kids, much like these same young kids shouldn’t be going to PG-13, R, and X rated movies. They can’t if it’s R or above. Yet, the material in those books is often X rated. And other books tell white kids how horrible and racist they are for what adults did long, long ago. Why are Democrats so hot to force this stuff on children?

Posted on by

Splodin’: SCNY Mayor Says Illegal Immigration Will Destroy City

Back in the day when I and so many used to blog a lot about terrorism there was something called “splodin'”, which was when a jihadi unintentionally set off their bomb early, usually taking themselves and other jihadis out. My favorite was a jihadi strapping on his suicide vest in Pakistan, then tripped and fell down the stairs from the 2nd floor and it went off. Good stuff. Watching liberal mayors of declared sanctuary cities lose their sh*t reminds me of splodin’

Adams: Cost of migrants ‘will destroy New York City’

New York City Mayor Eric Adams made some of his strongest comments yet on his concerns about the unending flow of migrants coming to the city, warning it will upend neighborhoods and continue to strain resources.

“Never in my life have I had a problem that I did not see an ending to. I don’t see an ending to this,” Adams said Wednesday night.

Adams, a Democrat, was speaking at a town hall organized by his office on Manhattan’s Upper West Side. His opening remarks lamented the financial impact of the city’s efforts to house and serve more than 100,000 migrants over the last year.

“This issue will destroy New York City. … All of us are going to be impacted by this. I said it last year when we had 15,000, and I’m telling you now at 110,000. The city we knew, we’re about to lose,” he continued.

It’s a real shame when Democrats have to deal with their beliefs when they wanted the problem to be Someone Else’s problem, eh?

Republicans praised Adams, jumping off his words to promote the party’s position of reducing immigration and knocking the White House for not doing more.

“The first step towards solving a problem is admitting you have one. Credit to Mayor Adams for being truthful in this clip about the scope of NYC’s migrant crisis,” Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) wrote on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. “Now, he must repeal NYC’s sanctuary policies & President Biden must reinstate Remain in Mexico to help solve it.”

The solution is simple: shut down the borders as much as possible. Anyone here illegally is to be deported immediately. This includes visa overstays. End asylum, allowing those here legally to assimilate, like has been done several times in the past. We can work on the “Dreamers”. I like my plan, we could also do Rand Paul’s plan, however, his doesn’t include forcing the people who “sinned” by bringing the kids illegally to leave the U.S. Enforce visas. No more constant reauthorization when they aren’t supposed to be, with the visa holders being here so long they demand citizenship, and are bringing over all their relatives. No. Increase the temporary worker permits, especially for Mexicans, we can get back to where everyone could cross the border at will and then everyone goes home.

Otherwise, Abbott and DeSantis should triple the buses going to sanctuary areas.

Posted on by

Federal Judge Orders Texas To Move River Barriers

Too bad the judge didn’t order the Brandon regime to actual secure the border, as required by federal law and the U.S. Constitution

Federal judge orders Texas to remove floating barriers aimed at deterring migrants on Rio Grande

A federal judge ordered Texas to remove floating barriers in the Rio Grande and barred the state from building new or placing additional buoys in the river, according to a Wednesday court filing, marking a victory for the Biden administration.

Judge David Alan Ezra ordered Texas to take down the barriers by September 15 at its own expense.

The border buoys have been a hot button immigration issue since they were deployed in the Rio Grande as part of Gov. Greg Abbott’s border security initiative known as Operation Lone Star. The Justice Department had sued the state of Texas in July claiming that the buoys were installed unlawfully and asking the judge to force the state to remove them.

In the lawsuit, filed in US District Court in the Western District of Texas, the Justice Department alleged that Texas and Abbott violated the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act by building a structure in US water without permission from United States Army Corps of Engineers and sought an injunction to bar Texas from building additional barriers in the river. The Republican governor, meanwhile, has argued the buoys are intended to deter migrants from crossing into the state from Mexico.

Biden doesn’t want anyone to get in the way of unfettered illegal immigration. Abbott should invest in a lot more buses. Doesn’t Biden have a fence at the White House? One being built at his beach house? Barriers at the DOJ building?

Texas swiftly appealed the judge’s order.

“This ruling is incorrect and will be overturned on appeal. We will continue to utilize every strategy to secure the border, including deploying Texas National Guard soldiers and Department of Public Safety troopers and installing strategic barriers,” Abbott’s office said in a statement, adding that the state “is prepared to take this fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Well, it won’t be a long trip, but, Gov Greg Abbott should send a busload or two of illegals and drop them off outside Ezra’s court in Austin, Texas. And drop a bunch off at the DOJ building in D.C. And the White House. On the face of it, the ruling may be correct per law, being an international border, but, I hope Texas argues on appeal that the federal government is not doing much to stop illegals from crossing into the U.S.

Meanwhile, more justice system run amok

California Judge Halts School District’s Transgender Parental Notification Policy

A California judge granted the state government’s request for a temporary restraining order against the Chino Valley Unified School District’s new policy requiring parents to be notified if a child wishes to become transgender.

Though the full case will resume in October, San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Thomas Garza — appointed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) in 2007 — seemed inclined to rule in favor of the state’s argument that the policy violates the rights of children who say they are transgender, and against the district’s contention that the policy is a common-sense rule that protects children and the rights of parents to be involved in their children’s upbringing.

Our justice system is protecting illegal aliens over U.S. citizens and groomers over the well-being of children.

Posted on by

Democrats Now Want Ground Rules On Presidential Impeachment

Where was Evan Davis (D) during the unhinged impeachments of Donald Trump? He worked for the Democrats who were looking to impeach Nixon. But, now, with a potential impeachment of Biden (really, I’m not sure the House GOP has the cajones, and there are too many squishes who might vote against even having an investigation), Davis wants to argue that rules need to be set

We need to set ground rules for presidential impeachments

Constitutional scholar Garrett Epps has called presidential impeachment “the atomic bomb of domestic politics.” It should not become a conventional weapon of political polarization.

We’re on the verge of that, however, if we as a nation don’t set a floor under the grounds for presidential impeachment.

Doing so requires public discussion of the impeachable offense of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” contained in the U.S. Constitution. What is it? What does it cover?

As a task force leader in the U.S. House Judiciary Committee’s inquiry into the impeachment of former President Nixon, I saw this question wrestled with first-hand. After detailed study, we concluded that “[b]ecause impeachment of a President is a grave step for the nation, it is to be predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office.” What does that then preclude?

You know what it precludes? “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” That’s it. It should be serious, but, as usual, Democrats blew that out the window during the Trump years, and tried to get there during the Bush43 years. We warned you wackos that if you wanted to play games with Trump it could blowback on you

First, it requires that a president be impeached only for offenses committed while serving as president. There can be no violation of the constitutional duties of the presidential office until one becomes president. Moreover, the weight of historical precedent is key in fixing the scope of impeachable offenses: The four presidential impeachments and 15 judicial impeachments have all been for conduct while in office.

Actually, it doesn’t. Nothing in the passage from Article II Section 4 makes that claim. What if we found out the president killed someone before he/she took office? Can they not be impeached? Damned right they can. But, see

Yet there is talk on Capitol Hill of impeaching President Biden for actions taken either while vice president or in the four years between his terms as vice president and then president. As shown, the Constitution does not envision a president being put out of office for something that took place before he was elected to the office. Similarly, American voters should not be disenfranchised based on actions taken by an individual before being elected president. There are other legal remedies for such actions.

And there it is: Democrats want to exclude the crimes by Biden before he was President. Nope. That’s not going to fly.

One claimed ground for impeaching Biden, for instance, is that as vice president he conditioned aid to Ukraine on the firing of a corrupt prosecutor to help a Ukrainian company on whose board his son served. Putting aside the problem of basing presidential impeachment on conduct as vice president and the factual implausibility and speculative nature of this claim, the alleged conduct is not a crime or the abusive solicitation of a personal benefit in return for official action.

Influence peddling and extortion, especially using The People’s money, is a crime. Mr. Davis could go to jail for extortion. Why not Joe Biden?