Texas Official Overseeing 2.5 Million Voters Goes Missing

 Texas Official Overseeing 2.5 Million Voters Goes Missing

n elected official in charge of voter registration and tax collection in Texas hasn't swiped into her office for around four years according to an investigation by The Houston Chronicle.

Tax Assessor-Collector Ann Harris Bennett, who is responsible for the records of over 2.5 million voters, last accessed her office building in late 2020 according to county records that were seen by the newspaper. The Democrat, who assumed office in 2017 and is not seeking re-election in November, has oversight over voter registrations in Harris County, the most populous in Texas, which includes the city of Houston.

County records also show Bennett has only sent 18 emails from her work account so far this year, excluding approving staff absence requests, some of which were simply forwarding on other messages.

The revelation comes just weeks before the bitterly contested 2024 presidential election, with polling aggregation site FiveThirtyEight analysis showing Democrat Kamala Harris ahead of Republican Donald Trump by 1.9 percentage points on a nationwide basis. Election integrity is a major concern during the presidential race, following the 2020 contest which Trump claimed was rigged against him, though this allegation was repeatedly rejected in court and by independent election observers.

Photograph of Tax Assessor-Collector Ann Harris Bennett taken from the Harris County Tax Office website (left) and stock photo showing the Texas flag at TDECU Stadium on October 21, 2023 in Houston, Texas (right). Bennett hasn't swiped into her office in nearly four years according to an investigation by The Houston Chronicle. Tim Warner/GETTY/www.hctax.com© Tim Warner/GETTY/www.hctax.com

In an X post last month Trump said that those who "cheated" during the 2020 presidential election will face criminal prosecution and "long term prison sentences" if he is elected in November.

The Houston Chronicle states that Bennett swiped into her office 92 times in 2019, then seven times in 2020, with her last entry being recorded as in October of that year. In 2023 she was paid a salary of $1,711,199 according to the Harris County auditor's office.

Her prolonged absence from public view raises questions about what she has been doing since she was reelected in 2020.

Newsweek contacted Ann Harris Bennett's office and her spokesperson Laura Smith for comment on Tuesday via email, telephone and voicemail message outside of regular office hours.

In October 2023 Bennett released a statement on Facebook saying she would not be seeking re-election as tax assessor-collector as she wanted to "focus on my family and my health" and "give someone else an opportunity to work for Harris County residents."

In 2020 an independent elections office was created for Harris County after the Democratic majority on the Commissioners Court backed the move in a 3-2 ruling along party lines. This was opposed by Bennett, who said it undermined "checks and balances," along with Harris County Clerk Diane Trautman.

However, in 2023 the state legislature abolished the elections office, sparking a legal battle and handing significant power back to Bennett.

Polling suggests Trump will win the 2024 presidential election in Texas, as he did in 2020 and 2016. A survey of 950 likely Texas voters conducted by Emerson College Polling/The Hill/Nexstar Media between September 22-24 gave Trump a five-point lead in the state, with 51 percent of the vote against 46 percent for Harris.

However, Democrats have been pouring resources into Colin Allred's bid to unseat Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. During the third quarter of 2024 Allred, who is currently a House representative, raised $30.3 million according to campaign finance filings, well ahead of Cruz who pulled in $21 million across three accounts.

Recent polling has given Cruz a lead over Allred of between one and seven percentage points.

Make No Mistake – Lawfare Is on the Ballot

posted by Nicholas Waddy at Townhall 

The ravages of Trump Derangement Syndrome make “progressives” say and do some pretty outrageous things, but, of all the fruits of TDS, undoubtedly the most bitter and potentially dangerous is lawfare: the manipulation and weaponization of the justice system to punish Democrats' opponents, distort public opinion, and even make the free expression of dissent punishable by incarceration.

Everyone is by now familiar with the most egregious form of lawfare: the elaborate campaign of persecution mounted against President Trump over the last two years. Note that, before Trump declared that he was running for reelection in the fall of 2022, he had been charged with precisely zero feloniesin his entire life. Once he became, for the third straight time, a serious threat to the Democrats' and the Deep State's grip on power, the felony charges suddenly flowed like wine. We're up to 88, and already the dastardly Dems have achieved 34 felony convictions in the state of New York, based on, by all accounts, the weakest single case against Trump. No matter – in an election year, convictions were what the powers-that-be required, and convictions they obtained.

Slightly less familiar to many voters, but equally outrageous, has been the legal campaign against the man who is now almost as hated on the Left as DJT, and is in many ways as potent a threat to their dominance: Elon Musk. Musk is facing nonsense lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions. In fact, the campaign of persecution against Musk is even transnational: the European Union has repeatedly threatened to ban X/Twitter, and Brazil's high court recently pulled the plug on the social media platform in order to coerce Muskinto censoring its internal enemies. Many observers expect that, in the long-term, legal pressures will seriously undermine Musk's business model, and, sooner or later, the Deep State may even succeed in throwing him behind bars.

Lawfare isn't just about nailing the Left's critics and adversaries to the wall, however, although that is a big part of it. It's also about reminding even the establishment's friends and allies that their continued good fortune is contingent on their allegiance and their obedience to the Left. Witness the Department of Justice's antitrust case against Google, part of a broad expansion of antitrust action pursued by the Biden-Harris Administration on what appear to be ideological and partisan grounds.

Now, arguably few companies in the world today more closely resemble a monopoly than Google, which is far more than a search engine. It's also YouTube, Android, etc etc. One might conclude, therefore, that the DOJ's case against Google is a sign that the government's lawyers are, in fact, impartial and public-spirited. Well, one might conclude that, if one was terminally naive, but the fact is that Google has not been, and never will be, broken up, or even seriously inconvenienced by the aforementioned lawsuit. There is ample reason to believe that, in reality, this lawsuit is a feint by the DOJ, a stunt, the purpose of which is to remind Google – whose motto was once “Don't be evil” – that evil, in the form of algorithms and other forms of digital sleight-of-hand that disadvantage and deplatform conservatives, and that advantage and amplify leftists, is not only expected but required of the social media giant. In other words, Google, which has been almost slavishly obedient to leftist narratives and almost uniformly hostile to conservative and Republican voices, is placed on notice by the DOJ's antics that its dominant position in the digital marketplace can and will be taken away, should its loyalty to the Left flag even for a moment.

How far will the Deep State go to send this message, and how widely will the impact be felt? Consider the similar antitrust case against Visa, which is accused of having a monopoly position in the debit card industry. Given the multiplicity of options that Americans now have to pay bills in electronic form, the weakness of the government's case against Visa is palpable, leading one to question whether it can possibly be motivated by legal considerations of any sort, or might instead be part of a wider campaign to shake down and intimidate corporate America. Note that the Deep State may be particularly keen to flex its muscles and underline its dominance over major companies in the financial sector, because the next major push to consolidate the Left's and the establishment's dominion may well come in the sphere of debanking, i.e. denying to conservatives and other dissidents the ability to use a wide variety of financial services and thus to function in the modern economy. Just ask Nigel Farage in the U.K. how far the political/corporate/financial establishment will go to silence one of its critics!

In the end, the threat that lawfare, in all its forms, poses to freedom, pluralism, and democracy is arguably more serious than media bias, wokeness in education, a broken border, and election fraud combined. That's because, if the campaign of lawfare succeeds, opposition movements won't just be handicapped or marginalized in America – they'll be legally prohibited, for all intents and purposes. Any attempt to criticize the Deep State, or mobilize against it, will be crushed by the forces of “law and order” before it can even find its footing or voice its grievances.

To preserve our constitutional system, our rights, and our democracy, therefore, the Democrats and their Deep State allies simply cannot be permitted to win in 2024. If they do, lawfare may become the law of the land and a permanent fixture in American politics. And that, quite possibly, would mean...GAME OVER.

X22, Red Pill News, and more- Oct 22

 

Five Factors That Make This Election the Most Important Ever

posted by Scott Morefield at Townhall 

Last week, I wrote about the factors that make some elections more important than others. This week, I’d like to make the case that the upcoming election is the most important of our lifetimes, perhaps even in the history of this Republic. 

I ended the previous column by bringing up the strong case for 2016, especially because Donald Trump could turn the Supreme Court completely in a conservative direction. However, the more we consider the structural changes Democrats have proposed of late, the more critical future elections become. These people are playing for keeps, so we are forced to do the same or lose everything.

Here are the factors that make 2024 so critical:

Supreme Court: Sure, Trump turned the tables during his one term, but two of our best, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, are well past retirement age and well into the age where, especially for males, anything can happen. The ability to hold serve and appoint younger justices would solidify our majority and keep Democrats from turning the tables on us should something unfortunate happen to either or both of these two legends over the next four years.

Unfortunately, the number of justices is just the beginning of the potential for disaster here. Democrats have stated their intention to "pack" the Supreme Court should they gain the power necessary to do so. In other words, they want to see a Democratic president appoint as many justices as needed to get a leftist majority. It would be difficult and involve having a majority in both legislatures and successfully doing away with the Senate filibuster (we’ll talk about that later). Still, it’s completely doable and definitely on their bucket list.

Immigration: There are only so many years of unlimited Third World immigration that a First World country can take without becoming Third World itself. By failing to stop the incoming hordes, we risk not just Democrats successfully building the "permanent Democratic majority" they've been dreaming about but also the standard of living that has made America great throughout its history. 

Turns out, they DO want to ‘replace’ us, and they’ve wanted that for a long time. If we lose the immigration battle, all is lost. The next four years with the immigration spigot turned off or even down would be far better than having it wide open as it has been throughout the Biden administration. A Trump administration would also be far less likely to sign a disastrous citizenship bill that would almost certainly pass with a Democratic president and the help of squishy, treasonous Republican legislators.

Statehood for places that vote Democratic: Democrats know the Senate map ultimately doesn't favor them, especially as voters in Red states like West Virginia and Montana get wise to politicians who pretend to be ‘moderate’ yet vote with their party on critical issues. So what better way to turn the tables than to make ‘states’ out of many places with no business being states? They'll pretend it's about "justice" or "equality," but it's really about power. Letting them have that power would be disastrous.

Election integrity: Democrats want to rig the game so cheating can't be detected or audited, and anyone with or without a pulse or identification of any kind can vote. They’ve already made significant headway in places like Michigan, but if we let them do it in every swing state, we'll never win another election.

Senate Filibuster: To enact the changes they want to make, Democrats need to be able to ride roughshod over GOP objection in the Senate, a body expressly constructed to move slowly, deliberately, and with some degree of consensus. Consequently, they have repeatedly stated their intention, should they gain the power to do so, to do away with the Senate filibuster and pass legislation on a simple majority vote. This cycle, Republicans have a shot at winning the Senate and keeping that from happening for at least two years. If this happens, they should threaten to preemptively nuke the filibuster themselves if Democrats don't help strengthen the rule, so they can’t do the same when they get power back.

The structural changes Democrats have been proposing of late would seal them in power forever. Essentially, they want to rig the game to gain and wield power over their political enemies. We know how this playbook goes, and we also know that people who run it are evil to the core and shouldn't be trusted with the title of 'dog catcher,' much less actual elected office. 

Whatever you think of Donald Trump, right now, he's the man standing between freedom and these ghouls holding unlimited power over you. And even if we win this one, 2028 will be even more important, and so on, until Republicans can neutralize the ability of Democrats to impose the structural changes they desire, if that’s even possible.

So yeah, this election is definitely the most important election of our lifetimes. Please vote accordingly

Is Kamala Harris a Marxist?

posted by James S. Spiegel at American Thinker 

There has been a lot of analysis and commentary about last month’s presidential debate, regarding everything from the ABC moderators’ selective fact-checking to Harris’s statement that she is a gun owner to Trump’s reference to reports that Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio are eating dogs and cats. Also remarkable was Trump’s assertion that “[Harris] is a Marxist. Everyone knows she’s a Marxist. Her father is a Marxist professor in economics. And he educated her well.”

But perhaps the most significant -- and almost universally overlooked -- aspect of the debate was something that did not happen: Kamala Harris did not deny that she’s a Marxist. Moreover, she still has not denied she is a Marxist.

Many commentators have taken pains to deny this, such as by arguing that Harris’s plan is not sufficiently socialistic to be Marxist. Others have appealed to Communist Party disavowals of Harris, distancing Harris from her father’s views or tried to refute the claim that Harris’s father was a genuine Marxist. But Harris herself has yet even to address Trump’s accusation.

Is Kamala Harris a Marxist? To answer this question, we must first define the term. Essentially, Marxism is a materialistic, anti-religious socio-economic philosophy that views the human condition in terms of class struggle, sees capitalism as oppressive, and advocates socialistic redistribution of wealth. So to what extent, if at all, are Harris’s views consistent with these tenets? Here are four things to consider.

First, Harris has repeatedly emphasized equity, which is code for treating people unequally in order to achieve equal economic outcomes. For example, in a 2021 White House speech Harris urged that we must be “truly committed to the principles of equity in every way that we as government and as a society can enforce those important principles.” And in her 2022 comments on relief for Hurricane Ian victims, Harris advocated “giving resources based on equity understanding.” The concept of equity provides a clear rationale for wealth redistribution and hearkens to the Marxist dictum “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.” This is why Liz Cheney remarked that Harris “sounds just like Karl Marx.” And, as some have pointed out, the norm of equity actually contradicts the norm of equality, as it is essentially a mandate to discriminate -- a practical consequence of Marxism that has tragically played out repeatedly over the last century.

Secondly, Harris’s endorsements of capitalism are consistently qualified in a socialist direction. For example in a 2021 Forbes interview, she said capitalism even in its best form makes the “false assumption” that everyone starts in the same place “particularly when we take into account race and gender.” She then adds that we must consider these disparities when allowing for economic competition. This, of course, constitutes a virtual blank check in terms of socialistic controls to compensate for such disparities in order to create equal outcomes. This is consistent with Marxist thought, which says that class struggle leads to exploitation and oppression in a capitalistic context -- injustices which can only be redressed through socialistic management of the economy.

Speaking of which, Harris has vowed to implement price controls should she become President, and this is itself a clear signal of a socialist economic agenda. Specifically, she has proposed a federal ban on grocery “price gouging,” capping prices of insulin and other prescription drugs, and generally lowering health care costs. And she promises to give $25,000 to first-time homebuyers. All told, the Harris plan would dole out over $1.5 trillion in government handouts. This is indicative of a philosophy of federal micromanagement of the economy -- an approach very much consistent with Marxist methods. And it is an approach that cannot remain piecemeal but necessarily becomes systemic, as specified market controls create unintended market effects that must then be addressed through further market controls, and so on down the slippery slope to wholesale socialism.

Finally, Harris has been plausibly accused of anti-religious bigotry. While serving as a California senator in 2018, Harris sponsored the Do No Harm Act, a bill that aimed to undermine the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a critical federal safeguard of Americans’ religious freedom. The ironically titled Do No Harm Act would have required religious devotees and faith-based organizations to violate their religious convictions regarding traditional marriage and the sanctity of life.

Later, during her time on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Harris needled several judicial nominees about their membership with the Catholic charity group, Knights of Columbus. Harris repeatedly questioned the nominees’ ability to serve impartially given their standard Catholic advocacy of traditional marriage and the sanctity of life -- again, both views which for most Catholics are deeply informed by religious convictions. While Harris did not critique the nominees’ religious beliefs per se, her targeting their involvement with the Knights of Columbus, whose public services are directly inspired by their theological convictions, amounts to tacit religious discrimination.

Harris’s anti-religious stance was also evident in her 2021 support of the Equality Act, which would have undermined RFRA in the name of gender ideology, and her 2013 petitioning of the U.S. Supreme Court to force Hobby Lobby to cover abortifacients in their health care plans.

Harris’s track record throughout her public career shows a consistent pattern of anti-religious bias, which is, again, consistent with the anti-religion stance of Marxism.

These facts do not prove that Kamala Harris is a Marxist, but they are certainly consistent with that possibility. Given Harris’ economic ideal of equity, her evident hostility toward free market capitalist principles, and her alarming record of anti-religious bias, not to mention her persistent refusal to deny Donald Trump’s nationally televised accusation that she is a Marxist, this should give us serious pause.

A common metaphor for abductive logic says, if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. So what are we to make of Kamala Harris, given this principle? Her record does suggest that she holds to an anti-religious socio-economic philosophy that views the human condition in terms of class struggle, sees capitalism as oppressive, and advocates socialistic redistribution of wealth -- the very definition of Marxism.

It seems Trump’s accusation is indeed plausible: the Harris “duck” might very well be a Marxist one.

Ratio’d | Racist medical school in Canada? This is INSANE - Follows US Democrat Ideology

Toronto Metropolitan University, formerly known as Ryerson University, is launching what may be the world’s first DEI med school where prospective students will be chosen not on merit, but rather on the colour of the skin or ancestry. Of the available 94 seats in the program, 75% of students will be chosen from “equity-seeking” admissions streams which favour black, indigenous and other minorities. The remaining 25% of students will be chosen through the general admissions stream.

Racial discrimination is always wrong and racial quotas are a terrible idea, but when it comes to teaching the next generation of doctors, could there possibly be anything more insane than this?

VIDEO IN COMMENT SECTION

https://tnc.news/2024/10/21/ratiod-racist-medical-school-canada/

Swing Voters DROP BOMBSHELL on Kamala's Campaign

Swing Voters
DROP BOMBSHELL
on Kamala's Campaign

<

Watch Swing Voters from Michigan and Pennsylvania drop a BOMBSHELL Interview that rocks Kamala Harris' campaign. They expose her biggest weakness with voters in this election. In other words, they are not buying her messaging "turn the page" or "a new way forward" because they recognize she the current sitting vice president and the economy has been bad to them. This has allowed Donald Trump to be a better choice because they remember how cheap cost of living was under his administration. We also dive into the new polls from Pennsylvania and show you why Donald Trump will win this state.

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

To the Normies, the Spoils! Plus. . .

Elon’s million-dollar checks and Kamala’s megadonors. 

‘60 Minutes’ keeps stonewalling. Blackouts in Cuba. And much more.

It’s Tuesday, October 22, and this is The Front Page, your daily window into the world of The Free Press—and our take on the world at large. Coming up: The billionaires bankrolling Trump and Harris. The real Hezbollah. Communist Cuba goes dark. And much more.

But first, we are two weeks out from the election, and here’s what I can’t help but notice:

The weird thing about this election is how little has changed given how much has changed. 

Just think about what’s happened since May: Donald Trump was convicted in a criminal trial in New York (May 30). Trump and Joe Biden met in the most momentous presidential debate in American history (June 27). Donald Trump survived an assassination attempt by a whisker (July 13). Joe Biden announced he would not run for reelection (July 21). Kamala Harris accepted the Democratic nomination, after no one in her party challenged her (August 22). Oh, and then another gunman tried to kill Trump (September 15). 

In a word: chaos. 

But the polls? Oddly stable. 

Yes, Biden’s numbers took a knock after the debate, and then Harris got a little honeymoon bump. But the gentle slopes of the polling charts—a percentage-point swing here and there—suggest a very different kind of year from the one we have endured. After all the ups and downs, we find ourselves in a very familiar place: another nail-biter of a race. 

Meanwhile, we are said to be living through a seismic political realignment. Non-college-educated voters are flocking to the Republicans and college-educated voters are becoming a reliably Democratic bloc. Latinos have moved right. The Democrats are losing their hold on black voters. Women are turning blue. Men are turning red. 

Where do these once-in-a-generation shifts, with millions of voters marching leftward and rightward, leave us? 

More deadlock! 

If our perennial 50-50 politics feels weird, that’s because it is weird. That’s what Ruy Teixeira and Yuval Levin argue in a new AEI report, Politics Without Winners: Can Either Party Build a Majority Coalition?

“Stalemate is not the American party system’s natural equilibrium,” say conservative Levin and liberal Teixeira. Both parties, they argue, have waxed and waned over time: The coalition built during the New Deal era set up decades of Democratic dominance; the Republicans dominated in the 1970s and ’80s. But today, no party seems able to build the necessary coalition for an enduring majority. 

“What the Republican and Democratic coalitions have in common is enough strength to stalemate the other party but not enough to dominate,” write Levin and Teixeira. “As a result, a noxious back-and-forth has defined American politics for a generation.” 

The only thing stopping the parties transforming themselves from minority to majority parties is themselves, Levin and Teixeira conclude. Both parties, they argue, “have prioritized the wishes of their most intensely devoted voters—who would never vote for the other party—over the priorities of winnable voters who could go either way.” 

In short, rather than trying to build broad coalitions, “they have focused on fan service.”

Levin and Teixeira’s advice to the parties could be boiled down to three words that any frustrated independent voter has muttered to themselves recently: Just be normal! 

Democrats talking about “Latinx” voters? Just be normal!

Republicans banning IVF? Just be normal!

Donald Trump calling for an encore from the “J6 prison choir”? Just be normal! 

Kamala Harris supporting taxpayer-funded gender realignment surgery for detained migrants?

Just. Be. Normal.

You might think this would be obvious, and yet somehow the parties fail to learn their lesson. Instead they overinterpret their narrow wins, under-interpret their narrow losses, and squander opportunities to grow their coalition. 

Just look at 2020, when Joe Biden campaigned with a narrow anti-Trump message but then governed as if the country had just voted for the Green New Deal and an open border. Meanwhile, Trump didn’t just under-interpret his defeat—he denied it altogether. 

Whoever wins in two weeks, the party that stands the best chance of breaking out of the stalemate is the one who listens to the message from the voters: Just be normal. And get serious about building an enduring coalition. 

 

https://www.thefp.com/p/to-the-normies-the-spoils-plus?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=260347&post_id=150540426&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=rd3ao&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

YouTube's Policies Threaten 'GunTubers' Livelihoods

Tom Knighton reporting for Townhall 

Imagine building an entire career--a life, even--based on the rules of a given platform, only to see it all threatened not because of your own actions, but because of a change in policy? Not governmental policy, mind you, but on the very platform that allowed you to build that life in the first place.

The idea seems outrageous, and yet, it's the reality for "GunTubers," the term for YouTubers who focus on firearms.

They're expressing those concerns, too, and even The Daily Beast seems willing to listen.

“

Despite the platform’s history of gun content restrictions, YouTube is home to a plethora of gun-themed channels with more than one million subscribers, not including the myriad of smaller accounts.

“The entire industry feeds off of YouTube, whether they will admit it or not,” said Jon Patton, a YouTube gun reviewer with 369,000 subscribers, on the firearms podcast “The Reload.”

Gun reviews are only part of the “GunTube” community which also includes creators who use the site to display their personal collections or perform stunts using guns.

These channels turn a profit through sponsorship deals from companies making make guns or firearm accessory. According to Bloomberg News, successful “GunTubers” can earn hundreds of thousands of dollars annually in ad revenue and sponsorships. The platform’s tighter restrictions directly impact this process.

With their revenue stream being weakened, several popular gun accounts have moved their operations to Rumble, a video app with notoriously lax rules. The alternative site has become popular among those banned from mainstream social media platforms, including white nationalist Nick Fuentes.

While YouTube has not said why it’s leaning into stricter rules, the site has endured years of backlash for promoting gun culture from advocacy groups and government officials like Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. A spokesperson for the platform told NBC News, however, that the decision is not in response to a “specific moment or change in law.”

”

Now, it's not like The Daily Beast is sympathetic, but they at least ran this, which is interesting.

What's also interesting is that while the platform is cracking down on gun-related content, it continues to allow some absolutely vile individuals to keep making videos and posting them on the site.

YouTube is a private entity, so it can make whatever rules it wants, but what it's really doing is creating a completely different set of rules for GunTubers when compared to other content creators. People built their livelihoods based on what the rules were. They didn't break them, but the rules change in such a way that these folks stand to lose everything.

That might be legal, but it's not right.

What's more, YouTube hasn't really thought it through, either.

If gun owners start moving over to Rumble, then they might start watching more Rumble in general. As they find new videos, they'll stop linking to YouTube and send friends to Rumble. Over time, YouTube may well end up shooting itself in the foot (pun fully intended) and losing market share.

Frankly, I'd love to see the whole thing implode after years of catering to leftist causes and their intense efforts to destroy the YouTube gun community.

Why Is Loretta Lynch Suing America on Behalf of a Chinese Military Company?

Katie Pavlich reporting for Townhall 

Former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch is suing the United States government on behalf of a Chinese Military Company, arguing the Department of Defense is unfairly classifying the firm as a threat at the Pentagon. 

"Obama-appointed attorney general Loretta Lynch is representing a U.S.-designated Chinese military firm in its lawsuit against the Pentagon," National Review reports. "Shenzhen DJI Technology Company sued the federal government Friday, alleging that the Chinese-military label 'violates the law and DJI’s due-process rights.' At issue is the Defense Department’s 2022 addition of DJI to its 'Chinese military company' blacklist, a policy designed to counter China’s military-civil fusion strategy."

It gets messier. 

And messier.

Republican Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, who spoke out in March when Lynch took a job as a lobbyist for the Chinese firm, is slamming the lawsuit. 

“Barack Obama’s former Attorney General Loretta Lynch has turned her back on her nation, selling out to our greatest adversary Communist China and suing the United States on behalf of CCP-owned drone company DJI," Stefanik released in a statement Monday,. "Not only is her lawsuit full of factual errors, it is also an obvious effort by DJI to distract from CBP’s recent halting of DJI imports due to Uyghur slave labor concerns and a futile attempt to disrupt the momentum behind my unanimously passed Countering CCP Drones Act. DJI’s time in the United States is rightfully coming to an end and Loretta Lynch’s sham lawsuit is not going to save them.”