Will the Supreme Court Succumb to Democratic Party Pressure?

posted by Ed Brodow at American Thinker 

Voters in 2024 gave Trump a mandate to execute his agenda. At the top of that agenda is the deportation of millions of people who entered the country illegally but were enabled by what amounted to treason by the Biden administration. Many of these illegal aliens present significant threats to national security and public safety. Democrats are using the court system to block Trump from doing a job that needs to be done.

Democrats wanting to throw a monkey wrench into Trump’s agenda have been able to “forum shop” by seeking out sympathetic district court judges most likely to block the president’s actions. By issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump’s executive orders, these rogue judges have effectively shut down the executive branch of the federal government. “Since Trump took office,” said , “activist judges in district courts have aggressively blocked his executive actions. The fact that an unelected lower court judge can micromanage the commander-in-chief should trouble every single American.”

Does President Trump have the authority to deport people who entered the country illegally? Are illegals entitled to due process when they are deported, and if so, what does that mean? Do district judges have the power to issue nationwide injunctions stopping presidential executive orders?

Common sense dictates that the answer to the first question is yes, and the answer to the third question is no. The answer to the second question is more complicated. If due process means giving illegals a court appearance before a judge, the answer should be no. It would take hundreds of years to get millions of illegals into court. The rules of due process must be flexible if millions of illegals can be deported quickly.

“People who are enemies of the United States don’t have the same level of due process,” said border czar Tom Homan. agreed with Homan. “It’s important to recognize that illegal immigrants don’t have the same due process rights as citizens,” they wrote. “For more than 100 years, the Supreme Court has held that the only due process to which illegal immigrants are entitled is what Congress gives them through federal immigration law. [Justice Samuel] Alito concurred: ‘The decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by Congress, are due process of law.’”

“That means that illegal immigrants don’t have to be given access to the courts,” von Spakovsky and Stimson conclude. “Just because you don’t see a judge doesn’t mean you aren’t receiving due process,” said former White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

“I'm doing what I was elected to do, remove criminals from our country, but the courts don't seem to want me to do that,” said President Trump. “My team is being stymied at every turn by even the U.S. Supreme Court, which seemingly doesn't want me to send violent criminals and terrorists back to Venezuela, or any other country, for that matter. We cannot give everyone a trial, because to do so would take, without exaggeration, 200 years. We would need hundreds of thousands of trials for the hundreds of thousands of Illegals we are sending out of the country. Such a thing is not possible to do.”

Impossible or not, Democrats are all for it. “[The Democrats] don’t want border security,” said Vice President JD Vance. “They don’t want us to deport the people who’ve come into our country illegally. They want to accomplish through fake legal process what they failed to accomplish politically: The ratification of Biden’s illegal migrant invasion.”

Vance hit the nail on the head. Falling back on due process, Democrats want to perpetuate Biden’s illegal policy. Due process does not require giving a trial to 20 million people who broke into the country in violation of the law. Contrary to the opinion expressed by a small cadre of rogue Democrat-appointed judges, Trump is not thumbing his nose at the Constitution by deporting illegals. He is doing his job.

It comes down to a question of a vague concept, due process, on the one hand and the security of the nation on the other. When national security has been endangered, the normal rules of due process have been waived. National security is at stake where the illegals are concerned.

The Supreme Court has a responsibility to protect the national interest. Sadly, the Court as it is presently constituted cannot be relied upon to do that. A Court that once was respected for its wisdom seems to have lost its way. “For decades, the Supreme Court had been seen as one of the few institutions respected by Republicans and Democrats alike,” says the Annenberg Public Policy Center. “The court had been primarily regarded as a legal institution, not a political one, strengthened by its ‘norms, processes, symbols, and independence,’ and was therefore afforded greater public trust and legitimacy than other institutions.” The public’s perception of the Court has been degraded. One indication of the reduction in trust is that more people support term limits for justices.

At least two justices, Sotomayor and Jackson, are willing to allow their political ideology to conflict with what is best for America. Justice Sonia Sotomayor has embraced the pathetic strategy known as “Get Trump.” Sotomayor told the American Bar Association that lawyers across America should “fight this fight," obviously meaning against President Donald Trump and his administration. Justice Sotomayor, by her own admission, is an anti-Trump attack dog. We should not tolerate this kind of behavior on the Court. “Apparently,” said Mike Miller at RedState, “Sotomayor missed the ‘justice is blind’ thingy in law school.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is not far behind Sotomayor. She has condemned the Trump administration’s attempts at deporting illegals. “What problem is the government facing from being told it has to stop doing this,” Jackson asked in support of district court injunctions. She is pretending that the country does not face any danger from 20 million or more illegals.

Instead of doing her job by condemning the judicial overreach of district court judges, Jackson has sidestepped the issue by accusing the Trump administration of trying to intimidate those judges. Such alleged intimidation “undermines democracy,“ she insists. “I urge you to keep going, keep doing what is right for our country,” she said in support of the rogue judges. Her opinion misses the point of “what is right for our country.” Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, has criticized activist judges like Jackson who are putting the country at risk while erasing the legitimate powers of the presidency.

If district courts are allowed to continue their assault on Trump’s executive orders, the president will not be able to fulfill the mandate given to him by the American people. Justices Alito and Thomas understand the need for the Court to step in. The remaining justices seem to blow with the wind. We need five justices to ensure that the Court does the right thing by supporting the legal powers of the president. Will five justices step up to the plate or will the Supreme Court succumb to pressure by the Democratic Party to sabotage Trump’s agenda?

X22, And we Know, and more- May 21

 

We’re Living Barack Obama’s Racial Legacy In Real Time

posted by Vince Coyer at American Thinker 

Obama’s legacy started early in his presidency. Not quite in office for six months, Obama showed his hand with his characterization that “The police acted stupidly” in reference to the arrest of Henry Louis Gates a professor at Harvard who, locked out of his house, broke in. A neighbor, not recognizing Gates, called 911. The police arrived, things didn’t go well, and Gates was arrested.

When asked about race and the incident a week later, Obama responded:

I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home, and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there’s a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.

Without the facts, Obama stated the police acted stupidly and implied that racism might have played a role. Nothing, however, about Gates’ reported “loud and tumultuous behavior.” For Obama, it was just racism and police misbehavior.

But this was just the beginning. After George Zimmerman was acquitted of criminally causing Trayvon Martin’s death, Obama said:

You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son...Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me, 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African-American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African-American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away.

Again. All race, no facts.

But there’s more.

About Michael Brown’s death, Obama said:

In too many communities around the country, a gulf of mistrust exists between local residents and law enforcement… Too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement — guilty of walking while black or driving while black, judged by stereotypes that fuel fear and resentment and hopelessness.

About the jury failing to indict the NYPD officer involved in Eric Garner’s death, Obama said:

[T]hat we are going to take specific steps to improve the training and the work with state and local governments when it comes to policing in communities of color; that we are going to be scrupulous in investigating cases where we are concerned about the impartiality and accountability that’s taking place.

In these instances and more, Obama made it all about race when a black man was affected by a police action or killed by a non-black person. (George Zimmerman was called a “white Hispanic.”) It’s no surprise that the BLM movement began under Obama, nor that the fiction of “systemic racism” took hold, nor that the black victimization ideology became omnipresent.

That’s unfortunate.

As Rod Serling might have said, imagine if you will, if Obama had handled those incidents differently.

What if he had said about Gates: He should probably have remembered that the police were simply trying to protect his neighborhood after neighbors called them. Misunderstandings happen.

Or this about Brown: Michael Brown was killed after stealing from a store, attacking the proprietor, and attacking a policeman. Had Mr. Brown not done these things, he’d likely be alive.

What if he had responded to the riots in Ferguson, Missouri, after Brown’s death by taking to the airwaves and telling black Americans that the problem in their communities is not racist police, but criminal activity and fighting with police?

What if he had nationalized National Guard troops to restore peace in Baltimore or Ferguson, rather than standing by and later coercing police forces around the country into “consent decrees that invariably increase crime.

But he didn’t do any of those things. Instead, Barack Obama reinforced the notion that blacks are victims of systemic racism, that they cannot win on an even playing field, and that in any negative outcome, racism must be the cause.

It is that pervasive belief in black victimization that leads us to where we are today. The Internet is simply bulging with videos of blacks behaving badly. Black flash mobs robbing stores. Blacks punching random people on the street. Blacks pushing people in front of trains, running over bicyclists, attacking bus drivers, destroying merchandise in stores, rioting on cruise ships, attacking airline workers, and more. Sure, we must state the obligatory reality that other people commit crimes too, but the fact of the matter is, blacks do so at far higher rates.

Race relations are reaching a boiling point. To put this in perspective, in 2007, 75% of whites and 71% of blacks thought race relations in America were either good or very good. By 2021, those numbers were down to 43% and 42% respectively, and no doubt they’re lower today.

The reality of that dichotomy can be seen in two events from last month.

In April, Karmelo Anthony, a 17-year-old black high school student, knifed and killed fellow 17-year-old Austin Metcalf at a track meet in Frisco, Texas. The family, claiming self-defense, has raised over $600,000 in support, with many of Anthony’s supporters posting explicitly anti-white racist comments.

Later that same month, Shiloh Hendrix a white woman in Rochester, New York was captured on video calling a black child a “nigger”—vile word for certain, but one frequently used by blacks, even as it’s arbitrarily off limits to whites. After claims of death threats and pleas for security, she raised over $700,000, with many of her supporters posting explicitly anti-black racist comments.

Combine all of that with the growing phenomenon called “Black fatigue,” as well as cities, states, and members of Congress calling for reparations, and you get an idea of where America’s temperature is on the scale of race relations.

And that’s where we are today. Obama had the opportunity to go down in history as one of America’s greatest presidents. He not only didn’t take it, but he made it worse.

For longer than I can remember, we’ve been told that America needs to have a Conversation about Race™. We did, for generations, but it was always about whites abusing or keeping blacks down. That is, or at least is now, the wrong conversation. The conversation America needs to have today is pretty much the opposite. Far too many blacks see the system, the police, whites, and society at large as racist, with the corollary that they see themselves as victims...but victims with a pass from law enforcement. (And no, there’s no way to square that pass with “systemic racism.”) Therefore, they feel like they can do anything without consequences. That’s a recipe for disaster, both for blacks and for America. And that’s Barack Obama’s legacy.

There may be a tiny sliver of hope, however. There are a growing number of black personalities and potential leaders who are pushing back on that victimization narrative. Guys like Jason Whitlock, Byron Donalds, Charles Payne, Jason Riley and others are regularly telling their millions of followers how to succeed in life sans the victimization narrative, sort of a wider version of what Chris Rock did with his spectacular video How not to get your ass kicked by the police!

With Donald Trump at the helm, Barack Obama’s legacy has the potential to be reversed as more Americans of all hues decide that the ‘everything is racist’shibboleth and, more broadly, the cancer of DEI get the derision they so badly deserve.

Democrats Can’t Defeat Trump With Their Silly Scandals

posted by Kurt Schlichter at Townhall 

Have you noticed how Donald Trump is getting about ten wins for every one setback? Or maybe you haven’t noticed it. A lot of people haven’t. A lot of people are panicking because there is always something in the news implying that Trump is losing. There’s always a focus on some setback, obstacle, fake poll, or pseudo-scandal; every single day, there’s one of those in the news. But this isn’t bad. This is good. It shows how the Trump Administration is leveraging the inability of the regime media and the Democrats to message outside of the old Alinsky model. There are dozens of things going on every day. The bad guys can only deal with one at any given time, and inevitably, they deal with the shiniest, least important, and easiest to defend outrage. While they’re chasing the squirrel, a dozen honey badgers are running rampant through Washington, D.C.

The Alinsky agitation model, suited for a 20th-century media landscape, is entirely unsuited for 2025. It requires a unified establishment that polarizes around a single issue via a total focus by every Democrat and all the regime media lackeys. The idea is to catch the public’s attention with some big, bad narrative to the exclusion of everything else. That requires leftist coordination, which they eagerly submit to. They literally have memos going out with the outrage of the day. That’s why they always say exactly the same thing. They are all reading off the same script.

The outrage must be something that can be explained – almost always falsely – in about one sentence. It’s an elevator pitch. The negative aspect must be very obvious. It can’t require a lot of thought because it’s not directed at people who think deeply. The idea is to get everybody talking about it so that the victim is unable to do anything else but deal with it, and by the time he finishes dealing with that one, there’s another one. Instead of going on the offense, the victim is on perpetual defense. He’s always losing.

But Trump doesn’t play by those rules. Trump frustrates them by defying their expectations. He defends once, then moves on and stays on the offense. He dismisses these bogus claims offhand, even as his people do a dozen other important things. The left has no bandwidth to resist all those. They are set up to fight one battle at a time, and he’s attacking on multiple axes. They thought this tactic would frustrate Trump. He’s turned it into a tool to frustrate their attempts to stop him.

Let’s look at some of these recent imbroglios. A couple of weeks ago, it was a Qatari 747 that Trump was supposedly pocketing as a bribe, and, of course, it didn’t turn out to be anything like that. The story came out about how Trump was getting a gold-plated jet as a personal gift from some sultans in the Middle East. The left dutifully jumped on it. The story went from 0 to 100 in about an hour, with Democrat politicians and regime media outlets spewing the same nonsense, evidence of the coordination behind the fake news. They thought they had him. On the surface, a bunch of desert sheiks giving him a half-billion-dollar jet would seem pretty bad. You didn’t need to explain why. People just understood. It was the perfect bogus scandal.

But, of course, it was baloney. That didn’t matter when the regime media could gate-keep out the truth long enough for the lie to get fixed in the collective consciousness. However, by 2025, we won’t have just three networks and two major newspapers. On X, people like, well, me, instantly warned that this story would turn out to be total bullSchiff. And that’s what happened in a matter of minutes. No one was signing the jet over to Donald Trump. The Department of Defense was going to get it because Boeing is massively incompetent. Trump didn’t give an inch; he immediately responded that he’d have to be an idiot not to take a free half-billion-dollar airplane on behalf of the country. The critics, sadly, including the usual conservative suspects who are never happier than when they’re wagging their girlish little fingers at Donald Trump’s antics, were forced to shift the goalpost. With the bribery hook gone, they had to fuss impotently about how it didn’t look good for reasons.

In the meantime, they were not talking about all sorts of other initiatives, things like cutting off money to Harvard and other garbage campus commie conformity factories, firing more government workers, and ditching more regulations. Instead of Trump being unable to do anything but respond to them, they can’t do anything but try to prop up their dying, bogus narratives. Mention the Qatari jet now, and people just roll their eyes: “Whatever. What else you got?”

Then, over the last weekend, the big thing was a Supreme Court holding. We’re all supposed to be totally demoralized by it. Nah. It was bad, but nowhere near as bad as people think for reasons that don’t really matter here. They tried to paint it as “Dictator Trump got repudiated by the Supreme Court!” That’s supposed to make people angry at Trump, but it doesn’t. The Supreme Court telling the American people that we can’t deport even the worst of the 20 million Third World peasants that the Democrats let invade over our border doesn’t make Trump look bad. It makes the Supreme Court look bad. And it makes the people crowing about it look bad. While this holding was dumb, there were some other holdings where Trump won in other courts. He is slowly winning these cases, and he may very well win this one – after all, this was only an interlocutory proceeding, not a final decision on the merits.

There’s also the big, beautiful bill, which is the subject of fighting between fiscal conservatives and Republican moderates. The Democrats and the regime media are hoping and praying to their pagan weather gods that Trump’s flagship legislation will founder on the rocks of party disunity. But that’s not going to happen. The party has already come together to advance it this far against all odds. Everybody, from Chip Roy to Mike Lawler, has a huge interest in getting something passed. Plus, Trump wants it and knows how to get what he wants. There’s going to be a compromise. Nobody will be happy about it, which simply makes it a compromise. Once again, Trump will rise above the story du jour in victory.

Their model also fails when Trump swoops in and steals their issues. It was Trump who took on Big Pharma with his price regulations. The “principled” conservative crowd cried about it, but the Democrats stewed. They thought that was their issue. The Democrats used to be, allegedly, the party of peace. We’ll just leave out who started Vietnam, since that’s awkward. Today, Trump’s all aboard the peace train. He’s trying to talk Ukraine and Russia into peace, and he’s trying to achieve peace in the Middle East. His trip to the Gulf was massively successful and included the release of the last American held by Hamas. But, while the Democrats and regime media were stressing about other things, Israel sent the last of the scuzzy Sinwar brothers to his virgins, who I hope look like the striking Starbucks baristas. He was hiding in a hospital, dirtbag that he was, and the regime media didn’t have space to weep over the Palestinians suffering the consequences of their own decisions.

The Trump juggernaut juggers on. Trump is rolling back regulations. Trump is hunting terrorists. Trump is defunding leftist institutions. Pretty soon, he will have his picks for the federal courts start moving. He’s getting things done, fulfilling the dreams conservatives have had for 40 years. Yeah, he occasionally has a setback, but this guy is batting .900. There’s more to come, and his opponents are in disarray. They will be focused on some nonsense that he will dismiss with a wave of his hand while he will be getting awesome things done, things we conservatives have been fantasizing over for decades. Advantage, us.

Report warns of Muslim Brotherhood bid to reshape French society from within

 A government report on the Muslim Brotherhood in France will be presented at a Defence Council meeting – chaired by President Emmanuel Macron – on Wednesday. Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau said the report warns of “a very clear threat” to the country.  

The 73-page document was commissioned in May 2024 to examine “political Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood movement”. 

Prepared by two senior civil servants, the report remains classified at the lowest level of French national security, confidentiel-défense – however excerpts were published on Tuesday by the rightwing daily Le Figaro.

According to the extracts, about 7 percent of France’s 2,800 Muslim places of worship are linked to the movement. On Fridays, roughly 91,000 people attend prayers across all sites.

The report also raises concern about the spread of radical Islam in around 20 departments and expresses concern about a more conservative or rigid approach to religious practice.

“Things are very clear,” Retailleau told journalists on Tuesday. “There is a quiet Islamism spreading, notably by trying to enter and infiltrate sports, cultural, social and other associations.” 

Retailleau said he first received the report when he took office at the Interior Ministry in September 2024. 

Pushing political Islam

The Muslim Brotherhood is a Sunni Islamist movement founded in Egypt in 1928.

While it began as an anti-colonial and religious reform group, today it promotes a form of political Islam that seeks to influence society through religious, educational and charitable networks.

The movement has no central leadership and operates differently around the world. It has been banned in several countries including Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

Officials in Europe say the Muslim Brotherhood seeks to influence society through quiet or indirect means.

Retailleau on Tuesday said the Brotherhood's “ultimate goal is to push all of French society towards sharia law”, which he called “unacceptable”, and “incompatible with the principles of France and the goals of national cohesion”  

The report is now at the centre of a Defence Council meeting on Wednesday called by Macron.

Focused on “separatism and entryism” – the latter referring to attempts to quietly gain influence within institutions – the meeting brings together senior ministers including those responsible for defence, foreign affairs, the economy and the interior. 

Links to French institutions

The report names several organisations in France it says are linked to the Brotherhood. They include the Averroès high school in Lille, the Al-Kindi school group near Lyon and two European Institutes of Human Sciences, which focus on teaching Arabic and the Quran.

It also identifies a broader “ecosystem” in several French cities, with Brotherhood-linked structures in education, charity work and religion. These organisations reportedly cooperate with one another. The report points to attempts to influence local councils.

Outside France, the document names the Brussels-based student group Femyso, which promotes anti-racism and campaigns against Islamophobia. A financial network called Europe Trust, based in London, is also mentioned.  

“This report corroborates real facts and will allow us to act,” government spokesperson Sophie Primas told Europe 1, describing it as an “awareness of the reality of the danger”.

Officials at the Élysée said some decisions would follow Wednesday’s meeting, though certain measures would remain classified. A redacted version of the report is expected to be released later.  

https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20250521-report-warns-of-muslim-brotherhood-push-to-reshape-french-society-from-within  

France is home to Europe's largest Muslim population 

🎭 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. 

Here Are 9 Questions About The Biden White House That Must Be Answered After Cancer Diagnosis

Acknowledging Biden’s poor health triggers the big question that leads to a major scandal. Who was running the country?

Beth Brelje reporting for The Federalist

It is now socially safe to state the obvious out loud. Former President Joe Biden was not physically or mentally healthy enough to be president. And based on his 2020 presidential campaign when he was often hidden from public view and mostly stayed home, Biden was probably not even well enough to campaign.

The reason that talk of Biden’s poor health makes the left bristle is because it triggers a big question that can only lead to possibly the biggest presidential scandal in our nation’s history.

Who was acting as president in the shadows, running the country from Jan. 20, 2021 to Jan. 20, 2025 while Biden held office? That key question leads to more detailed questions. The American people deserve answers.

Who was making policy?

This is the main question. Who was calling the shots? Was it mainly a single person, a small team, or a total free-for-all for bureaucrat-led agencies to make any policies they wanted with little, if any, oversight?

Was it family members? Former President Barack Obama staff members who permeated Biden’s inner circle? Appointees? Or a combination of all of these?

Biden was inaugurated, but the American people did not know who was acting as president. The situation created an administration with no accountability. Don’t like the decisions coming out of the White House?  Go blame Biden. He is too isolated to hear the complaints. The people pulling the strings stay hidden and shielded from blame.  

Biden struggled to communicate, but managed to issue 162 executive orders.

Was it Biden’s job-killing idea to revoke the permit to build the Keystone XL Pipeline on his first day? Was it Biden’s plan to reverse President Donald Trump’s immigration orders on Day One, opening the borders for four years? Or was he advised by more assertive staffers who told him what to do? How can we be sure this never happens again?

Who operated the autopen?

How many people operated the autopen, one or many? Was Biden told about everything signed in his name? Was he unable to write his own name, or incapable of understanding the content of the documents? Do items signed with autopen in the name of a president who was not cognitively capable to make decisions stand as legitimate, or can they be challenged? Rep. James Comer, R-Ky. last week announced the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will investigate this question.

What was former Vice President Kamala Harris’ role?

The vice president is the natural choice to fill roles when the president is not capable. But Harris was given mostly fluffy assignments. She is not capable of articulating complicated concepts.

When Biden’s handlers put Harris in charge of the border, she was criticized because she did little and nothing changed. It was not until she became the presidential candidate that she finally went to the U.S.-Mexican border in September 2024, while campaigning.

Harris has always maintained she did not detect any problems with Biden’s health. Was Harris one of Biden’s handlers, or was she taking directions from the same people who were managing Biden?

Who coordinated Biden’s live events and how were they able to sleep at night, did they have no shame?

The clearest public sign of Biden’s decline was his behavior at live events. Impromptu question and answer sessions were limited. The measure of a good speech from Biden was not the substance, but if he managed to get through it without an off-topic story of questionable truth or a newsworthy gaffe.

Biden was given notecards with instructions that a seasoned politician should not need, such as how to get to the podium, where to go after the speech, which reporters to call on, and his answer. But if a guy can’t figure out how to get off stage, he should not oversee the codes to launch a nuclear war.

Who wrote Biden’s scripts? Who decided what policy answers Biden would give and what are they doing now? Who decided which media to call on?

Why did they let Biden debate?

The presidential debate was held in June 2024, which is earlier than usual. Before Biden and Trump debated, Biden shirked his presidential duties, spending days at Camp David practicing on a replica debate stage with political handlers.

Surely they saw Biden was bombing in practice. Did they want the public to see Biden fail?

Immediately after the debate, propaganda media was in lock step, reporting Biden tanked and there is no way he could continue to run for president.

The debate was no worse than some of Biden’s daily gaffes, but suddenly everyone agreed he had to go.

If Biden was in no shape to run a campaign, why wasn’t he removed from office for the same reason? Why not put Harris in to fill out the rest of his term, giving her an incumbent advantage in the election? Was it because the White House handlers didn’t want the public to see Harris in action? Or because they wanted to get as much done as possible while the cooperative puppet was still in place?

What did Biden know?

Occasionally, Biden said something in a speech like, “I’m not supposed to say this …” indicating he was being critiqued or even admonished about how he spoke in public.

It was hard to watch when he fell at the Air Force Academy graduation in 2023, or the several times he fell while climbing the stairs to Air Force One.    

Bone cancer is painful, often before it is diagnosed. Was Joe Biden in pain? And if so, was he using powerful medicines to manage pain?  

How aware was Biden that he needed extraordinary help? Did he resent it? Was he cooperative? If he was very aware, is Biden a victim, or at fault himself for remaining in office after it was clearly too much for him? Did Jill Biden intervene and advocate for the 25th Amendment to have Biden removed for a disability? Did Kamala Harris? Did anyone have the compassion to seek an end to Biden’s humiliation?

Who orchestrated the Covid response?

In September, 2021, the Biden administration mandated mandatory Covid shots for employees at companies with more than 100 workers and workers at health facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid. Employees were forced to choose between their job or taking a shot some were opposed to. The military lost many seasoned workers and, while hospitals were crowded with patients, employees opposed to the mandatory shot were quitting. The courts were filled with people who wanted to keep their jobs without submitting to the Covid shot.

Who came up with the policies about masking, shots, and social distancing? Who wrote the document “Path Out Of The Pandemic: President Biden’s COVID-19 Action Plan,” and did Biden read and understand it? Who is responsible for the devastating, life changing effects these policies had on Americans?

What did world leaders think of Biden?

Whether slow walking with a teetering Biden during the G7 Summit, or watching him nap during an economic summit in Africa, world leaders saw a weak version of America on Biden’s watch.

Some heads of state had prior experience with Biden and his family.

The Federalist’s Margot Cleveland recounted a House impeachment report, writing, “Joe Biden conspired with his family members and their business partners to monetize his position as vice president. In exchange for access to then-Vice President Biden, foreign individuals and entities gave various Biden family members and their friends more than $27 million —some of those proceeds passed directly on to the Big Guy.”

Biden arrived at the White House already improperly entangled with Kazakhstan, China, Romania, and Ukraine, the report shows.

In 2014, Hunter Biden, with no energy expertise, was placed on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma. While his son was on the board, in 2015, then-Vice President Joe Biden demanded Ukraine remove a prosecutor or lose $1 billion in loans from the International Monetary Fund. The U.S. has spent billions of dollars on defense for Ukraine’s in its war with Russia, and Biden was committed to spending more.

Did Biden’s suspicious dealings with Ukraine years earlier compromise Biden’s willingness to negotiate peace with Russia? (Would he have even been capable of brokering peace?) And if so, how did that play out once his handlers got involved?

Will there be accountability?

Anyone in the Biden Administration’s inner circle who watched Biden and his family benefit from the clout of the presidency while covering up his numerous deficiencies should be punished. At minimum, they should never again be able to hold office or a government job. After lying to the public, no taxpayer should ever back their paycheck again.

Will Republicans and thinking Democrats find avenues to prosecute Bidens and all the players involved in this four-year long open secret.

Joe Biden's Last PSA Test Was Eleven Years Ago? 

We're Supposed to Believe That?

Ward Clark reporting for RedState

Sometimes something comes along, usually from Washington, that just doesn't pass the smell test. While we won't wish cancer on anyone, nevertheless, the more we learn about the facts and history of former President Biden's diagnosis, announced on Sunday, the more questions it raises. 

Here's the latest: A Biden spokesperson, according to CNN reporter Arlette Saenz, is claiming that the former president's last PSA (Prostate Specific Antigen) test was in 2014.

Baloney.

Arlette Saenz: 

A Biden spokesperson tells me that the former President Joe Biden, his last known PSA, which is a screening that could be used for prostate cancer, was conducted in 2014, and that he was never diagnosed with cancer before the Friday diagnosis that was handed (sic) from his doctors. Now to give you a bit of a background, the PSA test checks the blood for levels of a protein called Prostate Specific Antigen that might indicate the presence of prostate cancer. Many medical associations say that whether to have this test is usually determined between a patient and their doctor and independent experts who have reviewed some screening studies for U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommend against screening for prostate cancer for men 70 and older. In 2014, Biden would have been in that 71-72 age range. 

Now this new disclosure from Biden spokesperson comes as President Donald Trump and some of his allies have questioned why Biden's cancer diagnosis was not revealed earlier. On Friday, Biden received that diagnosis of prostate cancer which has spread to his bones, his office disclosed that on Sunday, and now they are providing a bit more background into what some of his previous screening has been like, so that last PSA, the last known PSA, was in 2014 when he was Vice President.

Ms. Saenz does accurately present the upper age limit for prostate testing, that is, unless you listen to the American Cancer Society, which calls for testing if you are over 50 and at average risk - they don't name an upper limit. The American Urological Association recommends no screening when over 70, while the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force calls for testing for men aged 55 to 69.

Even so, this latest claim still sets off the old Bravo Sierra detector. Here's why.

First of all, the former president's cancer is at an advanced stage. Prostate cancers are notoriously slow in developing; my urologist (yes, like many men my age, I see a urologist yearly) says that most of the less dangerous prostate cancers are only detected at autopsy. But Mr. Biden is said to have a more serious kind of cancer, and it's straining credulity that he hasn't had some symptoms that would have prompted him to consult his physician, especially while he was still president. And he was, we must remind ourselves with trepidation, until only four months ago.

Second, the American Cancer Society's recommendation of "men over 50" seems like it would be the one that, in an abundance of caution, would apply to the Vice President or the President of the United States. These people get (at least) annual examinations, and generally, much is made of the release of the results of those physicals. My father had a PSA check as part of his yearly checkups into his 90s; I know because he used to brag about the results of his physicals, as a lifetime in the outdoors had made him one tough old man. It's not likely that the leader of the free world would be allowed to just opt out of a test that might reveal cancer.

Mr. Biden's cancer is serious and advanced. It's not likely that it just went unnoticed this long.

The former president’s prostate cancer has been characterized by a Gleason score of 9 (grade group 5) with "metastasis to the bone." The ranking of Biden's cancer on the Gleason scale, a grading system for prostate cancer severity, has sparked concerns, as it correlates with high-grade cancer.

While we may sympathize with old Joe and the Bidens for this diagnosis, especially after the loss of Beau Biden to cancer, we cannot overlook the national security aspects of all this. Joe Biden was mentally and physically impaired. Republicans and many independents were expressing doubts as to old Joe's capacity from the time he took office, and Democrats in the White House and Congress ran interference even as Joe Biden grew visibly more impaired and less capable. They continued to gaslight the American public until Joe's disastrous debate performance, when they couldn't hide it any longer - but they kept him in office.

This is the scandal of the century - so far. This cover-up of an enfeebled president placed the nation in serious danger. The American people deserve to know what happened, and more importantly, why it happened. And one of the people who must answer some of these questions, one who was intimately and daily involved in this cover-up, was the person whom the Democrats anointed to replace Joe: Kamala Harris. This serves as one more reminder of the fact that we, the American people, last November, dodged not only a bullet, but an entire ammunition factory.