Now we are down to playing people for fools...

Ornato didn’t have ‘as clear of memories’ from Jan. 6 as Hutchinson did, Rep. Murphy says

Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.), a member of the January 6th Select Committee, discusses the "credible and courageous" testimony by Cassidy Hutchinson on Tuesday. The testimony "gave color" to existing witness testimony, Murphy said.

So let's ignore the fact that Hutchinson has no actual memories of much of anything she testified to. The memories in this case are from others. She is repeating stories. 

Jan 6 Committee Released Video of President Trump grabbing the steering wheel. pic.twitter.com/pmuSv6LuM6

— Terrence K. Williams (@w_terrence) June 30, 2022

Now Ornato was said to be "shocked" when he heard various parts of Hutchinson's testimony and along with the Secret Service agents in question would like to go on record to get the story straight. At this point, I doubt there is much to gain from this and I wouldn't be surprised if we never do hear any rebuttal. 

But here is the reality:

Only the Ornato and the Secret Service agents have an actual memory of these events. Because Hutchinson was not actually there, she cannot possibly have her own memories. So this isn't a question of whose memory is better, but of who is in a position to actually say what happened.  Hutchinson is in no such position to know (much less testify to her knowledge), regardless of whether she has a photographic memory or a bad one. 

Liberalism and the deep state takes another blow from the USSC

Supreme Court handcuffs Biden’s climate efforts

The Supreme Court dealt a major blow to President Joe Biden’s climate strategy, ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency has only limited authority to regulate carbon dioxide from power plants.

 The ruling means that Biden will face huge obstacles to addressing climate change through executive branch action — on top of Democrats’ failure to get a climate bill through Congress.

Of  course this ruling has nothing to do with Climate Change, but rather it is all about the authority of deep state agencies like the EPA to create their own rules and regulation without the input of Congress. The ruling basically states that if you want a law to regulate carbon on power plants, then pass one. 

This has been one of the favorite tactics of the left especially on political topics where they do not draw necessarily large national support. They pack these federal agencies with politically liberal leaders and workers and then rely on what has been a "broad" power of these agencies to create their own "rules and regulations" that are only indistinguishable from a law by semantics. 

Out of all of the ruling from this session, this one might have the most long standing impact and may open the door to chop much of this deep state legislation through "rules and regulations" off at the knees. 

Post Dobbs CBS poll !!

Was this what they expected? 

In order of high priority:

1. Inflation 82%
2. Economy 80% 
3. Crime 58%
4. Gun policy 57%
5. Immigration 45%
6. Abortion 42%
7. Russia/Ukraine 38%
8. Climate Change 38%
9. Covid 37%
10. Jan 6th 33%

In order of high plus medium:

1. Economy 98%
2. Inflation 97%
3. Crime 92%
4. Immigration 84%
5. Russia/Ukraine 82%
6. Gun Policy 80%
7. Abortion 77%
8. Covid 75%
9. Climate Change 66%
10. Jan 6th 60%

There is little here folks that suggests anything other than the left is out of touch with what the American public wants addressed. They have full control over the Government (minus the courts) and they have concentrated much of their efforts on Jan 6th, trying to spend trillions on climate change proposals, locking us down over Covid, having a bloody conniption over Dobbs, and demanding we ban more and more guns. 

The top two issues (and it really isn't close) are both economically related. Two of the next three are crime and immigration. These are literally the four biggest talking points for the GOP. This is a huge indication as to why November is likely to bring about a serious GOP wave. 

Let's be clear... 

The easiest sale to make is when the customer comes to you looking for what you are selling. The hardest sale to make is the one where you are trying to convince someone that you have what they want (even if they don't know it). 

The public is walking into the mall shopping for economic solutions, inflation solutions, crime solutions, and immigration solutions... all in brick and mortar stores where the sales team are members of the GOP.  Meanwhile you have the pushy get in your face kiosk workers (all Democrats) trying to get you to stop and look at their Jan 6th decorative bad orange man calendars, the $50 Climate change sponsored phone case, or the abortion perfume with a bonus travel case. 

Unfortunately because the economy sucks, these American shoppers can only buy one or two things and they don't really "need" a bad orange man calendar or a climate change phone case. So they will walk on past and talk to the GOP about their solutions to the problems they want solved. I will give you one guess who makes money and who is out of the mall shortly after the holidays. 

Another new low!

Could it get any worse for the worst President of our lifetimes?

Polling Data

Poll	Date	Sample	Approve	Disapprove	Spread
RCP Average	6/12 - 6/28	--	38.0	57.5	-19.5
Reuters/Ipsos	6/27 - 6/28	1005 A	38	57	-19
Rasmussen Reports	6/26 - 6/28	1500 LV	39	59	-20
Economist/YouGov	6/25 - 6/28	1359 RV	39	56	-17
Politico/Morning Consult	6/24 - 6/26	2004 RV	39	58	-19
NPR/PBS/Marist	6/24 - 6/25	868 RV	40	54	-14
Trafalgar Group (R)	6/20 - 6/23	1079 LV	35	60	-25
Quinnipiac	6/17 - 6/20	1357 RV	35	58	-23
USA Today/Suffolk	6/12 - 6/15	1000 RV	39	58	-19

So this was a surprise attack against Trump and the Secret Service...

New Secret Service Comment About Actions of J6 Committee Shows How Partisan It Is

The Committee announced about a week ago that they weren’t going to be holding any more hearings until July. Then suddenly, they announced on Monday, June 27th that they were going to be holding a surprise hearing on Tuesday–and we got Cassidy Hutchinson with these allegations. So, it would appear that it was in that short period the Committee came upon the allegations.

We cannot prove anything, but we can lie a lot! 

What did they do to try to confirm those allegations with the Secret Service agents who had already testified? The agents hadn’t made similar allegations or the Committee would have put them forth. Why did they run with the allegations of someone who wasn’t even in the car, rather than the agents who were there? Read on.

The Secret Service said earlier on Wednesday that the agents are available to testify regarding the allegations. But the Secret Service is now also saying that the Jan. 6 Committee never reached out to them over the past 10 days to try to confirm or ask about Hutchinson’s story.

So at the end of the day, this "surprise" hearing with little advanced notice was a way to get around having to actually "vet" the story that was being told by Hutchinson. They didn't want to have to reach out to the Secret Service (which would have been a near necessity had they sat on this for two weeks - because the story would have been leaked out). Moreover, no reasonable hearing would ever move forward on hearsay testimony when the people running the hearing had access to the first hand accounts. The fact that they didn't decide to call the secret service agents (rather than Hutchinson) is bad enough. The fact that they did not bother to even contact them to vet the story?

Unethical.

But instead they announced on a Monday that they would hold an emergency session on Tuesday to put forth hearsay testimony... because they are more interested in a dishonest narrative than in getting to the truth. 

Regardless of what side of the aisle you are on. You should never support (much less applaud) this sort of action.

Oh my!!!! The bombshell was another hoax!!

The question was asked... why bring in a "hearsay witness" that would not be even allowed to testify in an actual court of law? Why not bring in the actual secret service or the limo driver in question. After all, the commission does have subpoenea authority here. The answer, of course, is that the legitimate "first hand witnesses" would not have testified to the story they wanted told.

🚨 A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.

— Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) June 28, 2022

The only question left folks... is why is the left so bloody gullible?

They got him now! For sure! No question!

The big revelation!! Ketchupgate! 

I heard you can get 10 years in Federal Prison for wasting good ketchup!

CHENEY: "How did the President react" to hearing AG Barr say the DOJ found no evidence of widespread voter fraud?

HUTCHINSON: “There was ketchup dripping down the wall and there was a shattered porcelain plate on the floor.” pic.twitter.com/W5s0KzMZRG

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) June 28, 2022

They took the phone without a valid warrant and no allegations of any crime that they are investigating?

As Eastman explains a warrant requires that you provide the reasoning for the seizure and what you are looking for. None of that was presented to Eastman when they seized his property. To claim it is on a separate document is illegal according to multiple legal sources. You cannot walk into someone's house (or do it on the street), take their property and not tell them why.

Our increasingly totalitarian government seems to have adopted the infamous mantra of Levrentiy Pavlovich Beria, the Chief of Josef Stalin’s Secret Police, the NKVD: “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.” Here's the latest on John Eastman via @TuckerCarlson pic.twitter.com/NbM6VcxEG7

— Claremont Institute (@ClaremontInst) June 28, 2022

This is Gestapo stuff here folks. An administration out to use Federal law enforcement to punish their political opponents. But what comes around goes around and you can bet your bottom dollar that when the GOP takes control in 2024 that the new Feds WILL be all over Hunter and Joe Biden like stink on shit and there ARE obvious crimes there. Not made up ones. 

Moreover, Eastman is just the latest in a growing line of people who the Feds have arrested, seized property from, searched their homes and businesses, all in regards to Trump and at this point in time not a one of them have been convicted, charged, or even indicted. People like Eastman have not even been "accused" of any crime.  Just hassled like a common criminal in the streets. 

Lastly, there once was a time when everyone respected attorney client privilege. But like everything else, what you say to your attorney might be in that next bit of information that law enforcement seizes without explanation as to why. This is not just Eastman having his rights violated, but every client he has who has had rights violated. 

Bad enough when your law enforcement pursues leads they know are untrue and uses information they know to be fake to justify FICA warrants on political opponents. But now we are going from spying to actually hassling and seizing from your political opponents on the streets. 

Btw... the economy sucks right now!

USSC is crushing the left and it must be driving them crazy...

USSC rules that football coach can actually pray on his own time after a football game has finished and that he should not be fired?

For years the left ran to court whenever they didn't like what was happening in the legislature. They relied on an activist liberal court to provide rights to an abortion, gay marriage, and a slew of other things. Now we can argue and bicker about whether these were good things or bad, but the fact was that none of the issues ultimately decided by the court had the amount of political capital needed to get them to pass at any sort of Federal level. Most of these court rulings were brought forth because of a state law that was passed by the will of the people that offended liberals generally on the other side of the country. 

The left got so used to running to court and generally winning on many of these subjects that you almost felt that they got lazy when it came to actual politics. 

Ironic that they all complain today that a conservative court is "illegitimate" and start screaming about court packing, term limits, and everything in between. On the flip side many of us would argue that a constitutional originalist court like we have today is exactly the sort of court we need to get these same liberals back under control. 

After all... they got away with whatever "they" wanted to for so long that why would they believe that firing a football coach for "preying" wouldn't be supported by a court system that had been attacking religion and free speech for years. They believe that they pass crazy gun control legislation because previously there always seemed to be enough Justices unwilling to "hear" gun cases that they were basically safe to continue pushing those boundaries. 

But at the end of the day you now have five Justices who are not afraid to put these cases on the docket and not politically petrified as to how decisions will be perceived. Of course you still have the three crazed liberals jumping up and down with their arms flailing, and of course Roberts will take a quarter stand three quarters of the time, and three quarters of a stand the other quarter of the time. But it would appear that there are five adults willing to stick to the constitution and the law regardless of how the Washington elites view it.

This is driving the left completely bonkers!

Dobbs ruling shows you how these Judges think more than anything else

The court is divided into three differing views

The conservative originalists -  While not all of the conservatives call themselves originalists, I would suspect that most of them are defined that way by a lot of observers. In order of originalistic tendencies I am referring to Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Comey, and Kavanaugh. If you read their rulings on Dobbs it was 100% about the constitution, the rule of law, and pretty much zero about anything else. Dobbs reverses both Roe and Casey because they were poorly thought out decisions, not because of the underlying concept of abortion. In fact, they wrote almost nothing about abortion, the effects of the decision, and stayed completely out of the political ramifications of the decision for all practical purposes. In fact, they probably annoyingly avoided the political ramifications for many people.

The incrementalist - Chief Justice Roberts is now the sole member of this group. There was a time when others may have fallen into this category, but not anymore. For Roberts, there was literally no argument with the five originalists in regards to Roe and Casey being flawed decisions. He literally did nothing to debate or undercut the opinion of any of the originalists. He agreed that the 15 week law in question should be allowed to stand. But what he suggested outright was that he would have stopped short of completely overturning Roe and Casey, likely making Dobbs a sort of Casey II, whereas Casey clarified Roe, Dobbs would further clarify Casey. In other words, lets get rid of the vague "undue burden" test that Casey established and replace it with something that does not eliminate the courts from stepping in again and again, but makes the legal questions at least somewhat more obvious. 

The political liberals - Obviously, this would include Breyer, Sotomayer, and Kagan. In direct contrast to the originalists, the liberals were light on the constitutional principles involved and heavy on the political ramifications.  Generally when you see a dissent, the dissent attempts to show how the majority got the rule of law wrong. That didn't happen here. They provided pretty much no real legal defense of Roe or Casey as a matter of constitutional law or argued with the actual reasoning of the majority opinion. What they did was largely give a history lesson on the rulings repeating what are generally non-constitutional reasoning for why Roe and Casey did what Roe and Casey did. Their argument with the majority wasn't even so much about stares decises as it was about their own personal feelings about abortion rights and how important they see them. It tugged at the heartstrings of what "could" happen when evil people running bad states try to do something that they personally feel is wrong or even immoral. They obviously feel compelled as members of the USSC to displace those bad views with their good view and prevent them from happening. Now this has been, is, and likely always will be an effective means to appeal to those who see the court as another political wing of the Government and reject the concept that they play some form of umpire or referee. 

Two big problems for Democrats found in these numbers

More than 1 million voters switch to GOP in warning for Dems

WASHINGTON (AP) — A political shift is beginning to take hold across the U.S. as tens of thousands of suburban swing voters who helped fuel the Democratic Party's gains in recent years are becoming Republicans.

More than 1 million voters across 43 states have switched to the Republican Party over the last year, according to voter registration data analyzed by The Associated Press. The previously unreported number reflects a phenomenon that is playing out in virtually every region of the country — Democratic and Republican states along with cities and small towns — in the period since President Joe Biden replaced former President Donald Trump.

But nowhere is the shift more pronounced — and dangerous for Democrats — than in the suburbs, where well-educated swing voters who turned against Trump's Republican Party in recent years appear to be swinging back. Over the last year, far more people are switching to the GOP across suburban counties from Denver to Atlanta and Pittsburgh and Cleveland. Republicans also gained ground in counties around medium-size cities such as Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Raleigh, North Carolina; Augusta, Georgia; and Des Moines, Iowa.

Two big problems for Democrats here. The first is obvious. These people who are switching Parties are voters.  People who don't vote, don't tend to switch their Party affiliation. The second is that for every person who had taken the time to switch Parties there will be many others who are moving in that direction, but are either politically unaffiliated or unwilling to take the official step of switching Parties.

Now is it possible that there are some Democrats who switched Parties to vote in the GOP primaries against certain Trump Republicans? Certainly possible in places like Georgia. But nowhere near enough to undo the concept of a mass exodus of voters from the whiny liberal complaining Democratic cry fest.

To put this in perspective if a million voters have switched in 43 states, that would just under 25,000 per state. If those are voters switching votes, that is a 50,000 vote swing in each of these states. Enough to have swund the 2020 election to Trump and more than enough for the GOP to have held the Senate. 

Either way... there is a shift that is happening right now and it is based entirely on the lack of real leadership and accomplishment from the Democrats, who were gifted in 2020 with full control of the White House and both chambers of Congress. They have not done much of anything "right" and would appear that they want to make the 2022 elections about things that have nothing to do with what Biden and the Democrats have done or things that are actually in their control.

Badabababaaa - Trump's lovin it!

Trump takes victory lap on Supreme Court's Roe ruling at Illinois rally

"Thanks to the courage found within the United States Supreme Court, this long divisive issue will be decided by the states, and by the American people," Trump told the crowd at the Adams County Fairgrounds. "That's the way it should have been many many years ago, and that's the way it is now."

"I especially want to commend the justices for standing strong in the face of outrageous threats and even violence," he continued. "You've been seeing what's been going on. There's never been a time like this. The left-wing campaign of terror directed at the Supreme Court in recent months is unlike anything in the history of our country."

And manages to say what what many people are thinking right now

The former president went on to condemn "attempted assassination of Justice Kavanaugh, the illegal intimidation of justices homes, and the radical Left's violent terrorist attacks on pro-life centers" as "a frontal assault on our republic." "This was an organized and concentrated effort to threaten the court and interfere with its decisions," Trump said of the outrage that ensued ahead of the ruling. "But the justices stood their ground against these extremists and these terrorists, and they did not back down."

In his most notable comments, he condemned Democratic Party leadership for not focusing their own ire on the threats made against Supreme Court justices after the Dobbs draft was leaked in May. Instead, Trump argued, Democrats kept their focus on the Jan. 6 select committee hearings that began this month."At the very moment the radical Democrats are staging a ridiculous fake trial over January 6, their party leaders are saying nothing about the violent intimidation of the United States Supreme Court," he said. "They refuse to talk about it. They refuse to do anything.

This will certainly solidify Trump's position as a frontrunner in the GOP nomination for 2024... which depending on to what degree Slow Joe and his minions have recovered from destroying the country might be more important than the General (which no Democrat could win if that election was held next week).

But poll after poll after poll after poll has suggested that the Country expects their elected officials to govern the country and concentrate on the tangible issues that they are elected to serve. They want to buy a tank of gas without having to take out a loan, they want to find basic necessities at the store, they want a better economy, they want more crime prevention, more security at the border, and a basic degree of competence in world affairs. They are worried about the supply chain, inflation, their job security and how bad our upcoming recession will actually be. 

What polls are showing (on the flip side) is that a growing majority of the country do not want "woke" liberal social issue style politicians. They are not willing to pay $6/gallon for gas, watch inflation hit the 8% range, and watch our country fall into a recession, so they can elect more whiny liberals who simply want to push a doctrine. They want politicians like Ocasio-Cortez to show the same passion for the economy as she does for a USSC decision that she literally do nothing about as a congresswoman. 

But hey...

That is just what the electorate wants. Your liberal media, liberal scholars, liberal DOJ, liberal education system are all going to push their own nonsense. Some of you will be dumb enough to listen! 

Sunday Funnies

Will anyone here be arrested, held without bail for 18 months, and forced to plead guilty to wild charges that the Government could not prove?

Insurrection in Arizona: Pro-Abortion Protesters Besiege State Capitol Building

The Arizona State Senate was going about routine business on Friday evening, voting on a water bill and another bill to expand the state’s private school voucher system, when the pro-abortion zealots arrived. “While working inside,” Arizona state representative Sarah Liguori recounted, “we were interrupted by the sound of bangs and smell of tear gas. Protestors cleared from the Capitol.” Ironically, Liguori herself is pro-abortion; earlier Friday she tweeted, “I’ve been talking to confused and scared physicians, nurses, and women this morning. Our Supreme Court has failed us all by dismantling a human healthcare right in favor of religious extremism.” But when her more violent compatriots attacked, Liguori was trapped inside with everyone else targeted in this — what’s the word for it again? Ah, yes — insurrection.

 

Why are liberals so dumb?

There was never any "right" to an abortion, there is not a single law that will be overturned anywhere, and the court did not "legislate" from the bench.

How do you know you lost an argument? When you have lie, misrepresent, or use rhetoric rather than come up with a logical argument. I get that this is an "emotional" subject, but being overly emotional does not make your argument any more valid. In fact, it generally means your argument is missing something substantial. 

What I have heard from pro-choicers for the most part is emotional arguments that we have heard a thousand times before. It really doesn't matter how emotional you are, how strongly you feel, or how long you have held a belief.  The idea that abortion was a "privacy" right (when you cannot find that same privacy argument regarding smoking a joint in your own home) was not, is not, and never will be a good argument. Under the same logic, one could offer that there is a privacy concern for almost all actions (even many that are currently illegal). 

To be clear, the original decision was one where the result was predetermined and the court had to simply come up with a legal reasoning to justify it. This happens quite a bit I suppose, but in some cases the "reach" that is required to get to that predetermined position is longer than other times. There is little question that scholars from both sides of the philosophical debate agreed that the merits of Roe were lacking in an extreme fashion. The issue (for many) was to simply demand Judges "promise" them not to use actual legal reasoning if it came down to it. They wanted the bad decision "protected". 

I have no issue with someone who will come out accept that this was going to happen eventually and that we need to work as a country to comes up with a solution. What I take issue with are those who demand that this was nefarious, unjustified, and ruled based on bad judgement. 

At the end of the day, this is a Republic with a whole ton of differing opinions on a whole ton of subjects. Why is it that certain people feel the need to literally "control" the actions of everyone else everywhere else. If California and their residents want to allow the killing of a baby up until the point the doctor slaps the ass and it starts to breath, well then... that is California. If Missouri wants to ban abortions for any reason other than health, well that is their right as well.  

If we want to get together as a country as a whole and actually legislate something, then both sides need to understand that the country is neither going to follow California or Missouri. They are going to want a compromise that satisfies the most people, while likely pissing off the 20% of the zealots on either side.

Will the left demand incitement charges for AOC if the pro-choice mob riots?

AOC Calls on People to Get “Into the Streets” to Protest Supreme Court Abortion Decision

She just wants to date Justice Thomas!

What did Thomas "really" say?

I will be curious as to how real legal scholars are reading this, but my guess is that the media's initial take on this is incorrect  

The Court today declines to disturb substantive due process jurisprudence generally or the doctrine’s application in other, specific contexts. Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965) (right of married persons to obtain contraceptives)*; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015) (right to same-sex marriage), are not at issue. The Court’s abortion cases are unique, see ante, at 31–32, 66, 71–72, and no party has asked us to decide “whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised,” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 813 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Ante, at 66.

For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

It sounds to me as if Thomas is wanting to overrule the "precedents" rather than overrule the actual rulings. As it stands, the court has no ability to actually rule on anything that isn't brought before them. So unless some state wants to enact a law that makes contraceptive illegal or that bans sex between partners they will not be ruling on them.

It would appear, however, that Thomas would like to opportunity to put more emphasis on the fact that the "precedents" used in these cases should be deemed to no longer be valid precedents. Not so much that private sex acts are in jeopardy, but that the reasoning used to get to those decisions should be in jeopardy. The correction of the "error" seene be implied to be in future cases (as stated in Thomas's own wording) and in creating "different" precedents, rather than in actually revisiting the old decisions (which they have no authority to do anyways).

Again... this is my layman's take on this. Even if I am wrong, there is no stomach for anyone to revisit any of these laws at this point, and I doubt that this court or any court is going to allow states to outlaw contraception or private sex acts. But I will be curious as to how others with a better understanding of these opinions read this. 

USSC overturns Roe v Wade 6-3

The only real surprise was Roberts joining the majority

Falls in with the majority

Roe v Wade was never a good decision and is proof of what happens when you decide to run to court when you don't have the votes to change something. In some cases time might help with a court decision. I doubt there will be any reason to readdress gay marriage. But abortion has been a hot button issue, is currently a hot button issue, and will continue to be a hot button issue.

Live by the courts, die by the courts. Better off winning elections and passing laws. Abortion was never a constitutional right or a law. It was always a fragile court decision. Nothing more. 

Never underestimate Biden's ability to fuck things up!

The Ukraine war response is fast becoming Biden’s second blunder

The New York Times reported recently on a June 16 visit to Kyiv by leaders of four NATO countries — France, Germany, Italy and Romania — during which they delivered a dual message to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. At the more public and cosmetic level, the Western leaders demonstrated their support against Russian aggression by offering Ukraine a path to European Union membership but they “did not promise the country additional heavy weapons on the scale it says it needs to repel a bloody Russian advance in the East.”

The European leaders carefully adhered to the Biden administration’s policy by insisting “they were not pressing Mr. Zelensky to accept a peace deal with Moscow,” according to the Times. But, as reflected in the palpable disappointment of the Ukrainians, the EU’s key leaders were clearly signaling the limits of their own support.

This new European stance now places the Biden administration on the horns of a possibly insoluble dilemma, as David Goldman reported in a recent Asia Times article. With the war having reached a critical stage and the world economy reeling from supply shocks in energy and food previously supplied by Russia and Ukraine, Goldman asserts that America’s boasts of “driving Putin from power, destroying Russia’s capacity to make war, and halving the size of Russia’s economy look ridiculous in retrospect.”

A slippery slope filled with a series of bad choices awaits the Biden administration. A compromise peace, which much of the world apparently desires for various self-interested reasons, inevitably would begin with negotiations. Unless Russia is allowed to continue its territorial gains during the negotiations, a ceasefire would be required — and historically, these involve freezing the existing territorial division between combatants for the duration. As we have learned from Korea, the Middle East, and other such arrangements, these temporary demarcation lines often evolve into de facto permanent borders.

Russia has made strategic territorial gains, so such an outcome would be disastrous for Ukraine — and humiliating for the United States. Yet, since European leaders and the U.S. so far have refused to supply the arsenal of modern weaponry that Ukraine has said it needs to survive, it is difficult to see any other scenario unfolding.

Russian troops are pretty close to being in full control of Luhansk and are in control of about 60% or so of Donetsk. Those were the two separatists areas that was the pretense to Putin's original invasion. They also control most of the southern bay area of Ukraine and can now tie Luhansk and Donetsk to Crimea with full areas of control for probably a hundred miles or more in coast. They have not made it anywhere near Odesa (even though that seems in their sights at one cime) and do not seem to be moving much in that direction any more.

If you want my humble opinion I suspect that Putin will put off any form of peace talks until he at least has full control of Luhansk and possibly a bit more of Donetsk. If he could negotiate from that position then there is a pretty good chance that new borders would be created for both Luhansk and Donetsk and will be basically annexed by Russia (just as Crimea was). It might be slightly "different" land, but in terms of mass it probably evens out and is more strategically appropriate for Russia.

The idea that Russia will at this point pull out of all of Ukraine, give all of these gains back to Zelensky and include Crimea for good measure seems little more than a figment of someone's imagination right now. Ever since Putin decided to call off the full frontal attacks on Kiev, the war has gone much better for his troops. Moreover it seems that Ukraine is now taking more of the brunt of the casualties (which is what happens during countermeasures when you are now attacking fortified positions rather than defending them). 

To the degree that Biden pulled off a blunder here as suggested by the Hill author? Well it has to be this idea that we could just straddle the situation and somehow not come out and give Ukraine what they really needed but also not just leave them their to be slaughtered. We have them enough to prolong  the war, but not enough to win it. This, again in my humble opinion, is the worst thing we could have done. Either help them win or get the f out of the way. 

USSC - No need to "show" a "special need" to own a gun

BREAKING: SCOTUS tosses "may issue" firearm carry permit laws in Bruen, 6-3

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), we recognized that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense. We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.

The parties nevertheless dispute whether New York’s licensing regime respects the constitutional right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense. In 43 States, the government issues licenses to carry based on objective criteria. But in six States, including New York, the government further conditions issuance of a license to carry on a citizen’s showing of some additional special need. Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution.

So bottom line, the six states in question are no longer going to be allowed to place another "burden" on citizens to own and carry handguns. As stated, objective requirements are fine. Subjective requirements that place the onus on the individual are not. From everything we know about these laws, they are an excuse to issue almost no permits to anyone for any reason. In some of these states you had to have a job that required the use of guns. Nobody who just wanted a gun for protection was issued one. 

This is all part of the push to slowly but surely make gun ownership a privilege rather than the right that it currently is. 

Whatever law is eventually passed now will likely come before the court as well. The red flag portion of the current law going through Congress is another one that will likely come down to a USSC decision. That will involve whether or not the law allows for adequate "due process" before taking away the right to bear arms. Again, given this is a "right" and not a "privilege" there has to be real standing to take it away. That will be an interesting debate when the time comes. 

Be careful what you wish for!

You push Trump aside and a more viable DeSantis just takes the spot and wins even easier...

No question that the entire Jan 6th committee is little more than an attempt to disqualify the former President from running in 2024. If they cannot technically disqualify him by coming up with some crazy charge that the AG would run with and make stick, they are hoping to convince people that he should not ever be President again.

Much of this comes from a place that suggests that Donald Trump would beat Biden and all other Democratic comers in the 2024 election. Democrats cannot have that? But what does it say when DeSantis is leading Biden in New Hampshire and pushing a nine point swing in that state. Imagine how that sort of swing would play out nationally. DeSantis would win in almost landslide fashion.

Would the Democrats be happier with a for sure winner Ron DeSantis in a 2024 Presidential nomination or the supposed still likely (but not as certain) winner in a Trump nomination in 2024? It would seem with DeSantis, you are almost conceding the GOP will control the White House come 2025, but with Trump there seems to be a fighting chance! 

More to the point, what if Trump and DeSantis both ran for the nomination? Think of the infighting that would take place. This would be the political equivalent of a blood sport. But with Trump out of the way, there may not even be a serious challenge to DeSantis, and anyone who did challenge him would likely be in an entirely different "lane" (think Paul Ryan or Mike Pence).   

Be careful what you wish for? Might be better off with Trump over DeSantis if you are the Democrats and are still praying that they can figure out a way to keep the White House for another four years. But they seem hell bent to open the lane to DeSantis who they will have almost no chance to beat.

Biden at all time high disapproval...

Polling Data

Poll	Date	Sample	Approve	Disapprove	Spread
RCP Average	6/8 - 6/21	--	39.6	55.8	-16.2
Quinnipiac	6/17 - 6/20	1357 RV	35	58	-23
Rasmussen Reports	6/19 - 6/21	1500 LV	39	59	-20
Economist/YouGov	6/18 - 6/21	1290 RV	43	53	-10
Politico/Morning Consult	6/17 - 6/20	2004 RV	42	56	-14
USA Today/Suffolk	6/12 - 6/15	1000 RV	39	58	-19
Reuters/Ipsos	6/13 - 6/14	1005 A	39	56	-17
FOX News	6/10 - 6/13	1002 RV	43	57	-14
IBD/TIPP	6/8 - 6/10	1310 A	37	49	-12

You don't pull on Superman's cape, you don't spit into the wind, you don't pull the mask off that old lone ranger.... and you don't mess around with Trump;

Britt Wins After ‘MAGA Mo’ Feuds With Trump

Getting into a messy, months-long public spat with former President Trump, it turns out, isn’t a winning strategy in the Republican stronghold of Alabama. Rep. Mo Brooks, a conservative Republican whom Trump endorsed, then unendorsed last year, had been griping for days over Trump’s decision to endorse Katie Britt, his GOP rival for the Senate seat left open by six-term Sen. Richard Shelby’s retirement.

Meanwhile, Britt, a former top Shelby aide, kept her eye on the prize and her talking points trained on substance, including hitting the Biden administration on inflation, illegal immigration, and what she calls “the biggest geopolitical threat” to the U.S.: China.

On Tuesday night, Britt, 40, triumphed to win the GOP nomination by more than 30 percentage points, ending Brooks’ 11-year Washington tenure. Britt’s lopsided win in deep-red Alabama all but assures a victory in November’s general election, positioning her to become Alabama’s youngest-ever U.S. senator – and the first woman senator representing the state of Alabama. Her Democratic opponent is pastor Will Boyd, a perennial candidate who has made unsuccessful bids for Senate, House, and lieutenant governor.

I would like to give deeper analysis on this race, but I am distracted by the fact that Britt looks almost exactly like an older version of an college girlfriend I had. Either way, the concept is if you are in a state like Alabama, you better love the Tide, talk the talk, and get Trump's backing. Or you will likely lose!   

Musk trims the diversity and inclusivity departments from Tesla

As if this EVER had anything to do with building cars?

Elon Musk lays off the top people in charge of Tesla’s diversity and inclusivity programs, including the executive who was president of Tesla’s LGBTQ employee community group. Anyone surprised? pic.twitter.com/nu4msPfXpa

— Mike Sington (@MikeSington) June 20, 2022

Here they come... all of those USSC decisions

Supreme Court strikes down Maine tuition aid policy that barred religious schools

The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a Maine education policy that made K-12 schools with religious instruction ineligible for taxpayer-backed tuition aid. The 6-3 decision broke along ideological lines, with the court’s six conservatives ruling that the state’s so-called sectarian exclusion violated constitutional religious protections.

Maine law gives school-age children the right to free public education. But because many rural districts lack a public high school, a workaround was devised that allows these students to attend nearby qualifying private schools with public assistance.

Under Maine law, however, schools that offer religious instruction had been ineligible. This exclusion prompted a challenge by Maine parents, who argued that barring families’ preferred schools from the tuition aid program based on religion violates constitutional religious rights under the First Amendment.

Pretty simple... if your sole criteria for declining aid is the idea that there is religion being taught or discussed certainly goes to the point of the first amendment, which gives freedom to people to practice their religion or talk about their religion without repercussions from the Government. 

The age old argument seems to keep coming up, with liberals demanding that the First Amendment does not provide freedom "of" religion, but freedom "from" religion... with conservatives generally disagreeing and seeing things the other way around. Look for more of these sorts of decisions that may even reverse previous decisions where Religion WAS actually used to discriminate against Government aid and other benefits. 

Well the "dumb" Democrats are buying it...

Poll: Even Dems not buying Biden's "Putin Price Hike" spin

Of those responding, 64% said Biden was “responsible,” choosing either “very responsible” (38%) or “somewhat responsible” (26%). Just 25% answered “not responsible”, with 17% saying “not very responsible” but a far-smaller 8% saying “not at all responsible.” “Not sure” was 10%.

But most surprising of all, Democrats have thrown in the towel on Biden’s economic leadership, with 53% blaming Biden’s policies for inflation vs. 39% saying they weren’t responsible.

Indeed, of all the major demographic groupings followed by the I&I/TIPP Poll, just one was below 50% overall: self-described “liberals.” All the other groups, including blacks (61%), Hispanics (61%), men (68%), women (61%), along with every income group, every age group, and every education group, all felt Biden’s policies caused the current inflation mess.

I am curious as to how stupid someone has to be to blame "Putin" for inflation that started prior to Russia even invading Ukraine. Of course, these are likely the same Democrats who still argue that Putin was in cahoots with Trump during the 2016 election and helped "steal it".  In other words, some people will believe "anything" they are told if they want to believe it enough. 

Yellen downplays the chances of a recession?

I wonder if this person believes this or is being ordered to say this for political reasons?

Treasury Sec. Janet Yellen tells @GStephanopoulos that a recession isn't “inevitable," but says inflation is "unacceptably high."

"I expect the economy to slow." https://t.co/xMZVnzRLgN pic.twitter.com/Xx9UpkmWz4

— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) June 19, 2022

So the top economic official for the Biden Administration is not on record as being 180 degrees separated from the conventional wisdom of pretty much all of our blue chip economic experts. Everyone (except the Biden White House) is expecting a recession.

Technically we already had a quarter of negative GDP and the GDP Now projections from the Federal Reserve of Atlanta (a pretty accurate projection) shows the second quarter sitting a 0.00% gain. So depending on how our economic data goes over the next week or so, we could already be in a recession.

Yesterday was Juneteenth and observed for some today...

So a day late and a dollar short! Sort of! 

Somehow we know that a couple if nitwits with no impulse control will ruin this thread with Jan 6th commission propaganda because they hate black people!