The Supreme Court ruled that a state is not allowed to remove a candidate from a ballot. Democrats are losing their mind and planning legislation to remove him despite the ruling. Donald Trump responded to the ruling. Former President Trump explained that the Supreme Court recognized people in robes shouldn’t decide who is or isn’t […] The post Former President Donald Trump Speaks After SCOTUS Ruling appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

A 2022 study on Electric cars is again making the rounds. It found that EVs release MORE toxic emissions than gas-powered vehicles and are worse for the environment. The report indicates that EVs weigh 30 percent more than gas cars‚ causing tires to wear out faster The tire tread releases toxic particles 400 times greater […] The post EVs Release More Toxic Emissions Than Gas Cars appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

A lot of the discussion you’ll hear about “identity politics” focuses on how immoral and destructive it is‚ and for good reason. Judging people on the basis of characteristics they can’t control is wrong. Decent people understand that. But a lesser-known side effect of identity politics is that it leaves the people who believe in it — the daytime anchors of MSNBC‚ for example — completely bewildered by major political events. Identity politics makes its adherents significantly dumber; there’s no other way to put it. Take the election of Donald Trump in 2016‚ for example. This was eight years ago‚ and by now‚ most of us have a pretty good idea why it happened. Trump‚ unlike Hillary Clinton‚ did not tell coal miners that he was going to put them out of business. He didn’t describe half the country as “deplorable‚” or extol the virtues of free trade in towns where all the good jobs have moved overseas. Instead‚ Trump’s message — not his skin color‚ or his gender‚ or any other aspect of his identity — resonated with tens of millions of Americans. Whether you disagree with his message or not‚ that should be obvious. But somehow‚ it’s not obvious to MSNBC. As of this week‚ in the year 2024‚ they’re still very much unsure why Donald Trump won in 2016‚ and why he’s leading in every presidential poll today. Watch: The premise of this intro is that‚ by default‚ you’d expect Joe Biden to be dominating the vote among white rural voters‚ because unlike Donald Trump‚ Joe Biden’s dad was a used-car salesman and his family was middle-class growing up. This is how MSNBC anchors (and their viewers) see the world. They vote on the basis of identity — that is‚ characteristics that candidates can’t control. And because the essence of modern liberalism is projection‚ they think everyone else must vote the same way‚ too. It doesn’t matter to them that Biden devoted his entire professional life to representing the interests of banks and credit card issuers in the Senate‚ to the point that a bank hired Biden’s son just as Biden was pushing major legislation that would benefit the same bank. They don’t care that Biden somehow owns multiple mansions despite the fact he’s supposedly been earning a politician’s salary his whole life. They don’t even care about anything that Trump campaigned on‚ or delivered in office. All that they can process is the respective “identities” of the two candidates‚ which were determined at birth. WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show The problem with this level of ignorance is that a critical mass of Americans now subscribe to it. So at this point‚ one of two options is possible. Either the Left can renounce identity politics and start debating ideas or they can double down on identity politics‚ which inevitably means declaring war against the identities they see as the enemy. As this MSNBC segment went on‚ it became very clear which option they’re going with. Mika Brzezinski introduces two authors who just wrote a book entitled‚ “White Rural Rage: The Threat to American Democracy.” Watch as the authors describe the supposed threat that “white rural voters” pose: I need to stop it there to make a few points. First of all‚ it needs to be said that when they use the term “white rural voters‚” they really just mean “white poor voters.” Throughout the book‚ these white rural voters are described as being “beleaguered‚” having “stagnant incomes‚” and high rates of “poverty‚ unemployment‚ [and] homelessness.” They just as easily could have titled their book “White Poor Rage‚” if they wanted to. That’s pretty obvious‚ but it’s notable that they still feel the need to cloak their elitism in euphemism. Presumably they realize that‚ if they started complaining about the behavior of poor white people‚ then it would be pretty easy to point to the behavior of poor black people in this country — which doesn’t compare particularly well by any objective metric‚ including (most notably) rates of violent crime. In fact‚ both poor black males and wealthy black males have a greater chance of committing a felony in their lifetimes than white males of any income level. These are the kind of comparisons you can avoid when you use euphemisms like “poor rural Americans” instead of “poor white Americans.” You also have some plausible deniability when people accuse you of being an elitist snob who finds lower income people repugnant. It’s not lower income people you’re mad at‚ after all. It’s just those pesky rural whites. But let’s put the euphemism aside for a second and get into the substance of what you just heard. According to the authors of this book — which is really more like an anti-white screed: We show 30 polls and national studies‚ and we provide the receipts in Chapter 6. Supposedly these “receipts” — because everyone talks like they’re posting on Twitter now — clearly demonstrate that white rural voters are a threat to the country. According to the authors: They’re the most conspiracist group — QAnon supporters and subscribers‚ COVID denialism. Well‚ that sounds pretty bad. But what exactly is “QAnon support” and “COVID denialism?” Those terms are never defined in that interview. So I got a copy of the book and looked through it. Somewhere in Chapter 6‚ I found this: 85 percent of … ‘QAnon believers’ say the COVID-19 virus was human-made in a foreign lab. … [and] QAnon believers are one and a half times more likely to live in rural than in urban areas. Did you catch that? In other words‚ these white poor voters are supposedly nuts‚ because they believe in the crazy QAnon theory that COVID was made in a foreign lab. In case you’re keeping track‚ this happens to be the same unhinged QAnon conspiracy theory that the FBI Director has publicly stated is likely to be true. More importantly‚ it’s the same theory that any reasonable person would concede is very plausible‚ at a minimum. We’ve all listened as the virologists on Tony Fauci’s payroll changed their stories about the origins of COVID. We’ve seen the warnings before the pandemic about the lax security at the Wuhan lab‚ we’ve followed the funding going from the NIH to Wuhan for gain-of-function experiments‚ and we’ve all noticed that the outbreak began practically down the street from the Wuhan lab. Noticing these facts does not make you a “threat to democracy‚” even if you happen to be white‚ or poor‚ or live out in the country. And you get a sense that the authors of this book know that‚ because in this interview‚ they’re very careful to avoid specifying the details of the “conspiracy theories” that they’re complaining about. Instead‚ they call it “COVID denialism‚” and they hope you won’t check. Along the same lines‚ the authors claim it’s a lunatic QAnon conspiracy theory to suggest that global elites are “pedophiles” who participate in a sex-trafficking operation‚ which is probably convincing if you haven’t heard the name “Jeffrey Epstein” at any point in the past decade. And of course‚ there’s also the implication in this book that anyone who believes the 2020 election wasn’t completely on the up-and-up — anyone who has any issue with mail-in ballots‚ or ballot harvesting‚ or Biden getting 10 million more votes than Barack Obama by campaigning from his basement — must be a lunatic. These are the “conspiracy theories” and “threats to democracy” that these authors are referencing in this segment. As unbelievable as all of this is‚ it gets worse. Here’s the rest of the MSNBC interview: He can barely contain himself. He’s practically frothing at the mouth to accuse poor white people of doing exactly what the Democratic Party has been doing for the last several years. It’s astonishing to watch. He claims that it’s poor white voters who are the enemies of the freedom of speech — as if every power center in the Biden administration hasn’t united to destroy Elon Musk for committing the crime of allowing people to talk on the Internet‚ as if every major university in this country won’t punish students for stating out loud that they believe in biological reality‚ as if affirming the basic truth that “all lives matter” won’t get you fired from every major corporation on the planet right now. No‚ it’s the poor white voters who are at war with the independent press and the freedom of speech. That’s what MSNBC would have you believe. The fact they can say it with a straight face is the most revealing part. That’s how committed they are to this fantasy. The whole answer you just saw was one absurdity after another. It’s poor white voters‚ we’re told‚ who supposedly want the president to act “unilaterally” and “without any checks from Congress” or the all-important‚ unelected “bureaucracy” in Washington‚ claim the authors. This might be a compelling argument if you weren’t alive to see Barack Obama in the Rose Garden‚ announcing a unilateral amnesty for millions of illegal aliens in an election year. This might be a compelling argument if you were literally born yesterday‚ and therefore didn’t notice when Biden decided to ignore the Supreme Court‚ and nationalize this country’s rental properties and “forgive” billions of dollars in student loan debt‚ meaning offload it to taxpayers. This might be a compelling argument if you somehow missed the bombs that every administration in modern history has dropped without bothering to consult with Congress‚ much less seek their approval. They’re lying‚ to your face‚ again and again. And they’re doing it for a reason. It’s the same reason that the authors claim it’s poor white people who “excuse or justify violence as alternative to peaceful public discourse.” To believe this‚ you would have had to miss the torching of churches‚ police stations‚ and small businesses during the George Floyd riots. You’d have to ignore the fact that‚ as people were being murdered in the name of “civil rights‚” Kamala Harris was raising bail money for violent thugs. You’d have to focus‚ entirely‚ on January 6th‚ as the singular act of so-called political violence in the past decade‚ even though it’s the one act of “political violence” in which only one person was killed — and it was a protester. You would have to subscribe‚ without reservation‚ to an alternate reality — all in the name of demonizing white‚ poor‚ predominantly Christian voters who don’t want to support Joe Biden‚ that humble child born into a middle-class family who turned out to be as corrupt a politician as Delaware has ever seen — which‚ if you know Delaware‚ is saying something. There’s one more clip from this interview I want to show you because it underscores how little these people care about poor white people — even when they’re dying by the tens of thousands. Watch: It’s an incredible statement. Basically‚ it amounts to this: “If you discount the fact that poor white people are killing themselves far more often than any other demographic group‚ and if you ignore the fact that they’re overdosing on fentanyl far more than any other demographic group — basically if you ignore the two leading causes of death among young people — then‚ poor white people have it pretty good.” That’s what he just said. This is the level of visceral disdain that the corporate press and the mainstream Left have for white Americans. The point of going through all of this is not to rip apart the dumb arguments in some stupid book. The point is to ask — why exactly did the authors go to these lengths to lie about a very specific racial demographic? And why did one of the biggest media conglomerates on the planet decide to promote their lies‚ and overt racial disdain? The truth is that‚ in spite of the euphemisms about “rural whites” that these authors use‚ they’re actually being very direct in their dehumanization and villainization of a class they see as undesirable. Corporate media has always hated poor whites‚ of course‚ but now they’re (almost) coming out and saying it. This MSNBC segment is as clear a declaration as we’ve ever seen — clearer even than Barack Obama’s demonization of Pennsylvania voters clinging to guns and religion‚ clearer than Hillary Clinton’s complaints about “deplorables” — that the Left now stands for the unabashed hatred of poor white Americans‚ who already have been stripped of status‚ who have been discriminated against at every turn‚ and who have lost their economic security at the altar of globalization. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP And you know that’s true‚ because no publisher would ever sell a book titled “Black ghetto rage” or something similar. Instead of addressing that topic‚ they’re more likely to excuse black crime and violence as a symptom of “late stage capitalism.” In fact‚ that’s precisely what the Washington Post just did. They published this image of the CVS in Columbia Heights of Washington‚ D.C.: Empty shelves in the Columbia Heights CVS‚ as seen in January. (Michael Reynolds/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock) Here’s how the story begins: There is almost nothing left to steal at the CVS in Columbia Heights‚ and that gives you an idea of which items have actual value. … Blank CDs‚ for example — the thieves don’t even bother with them. The greeting card section has been left alone. … Everything else that remains in the store in Northwest D.C.‚ which is not much‚ is under plexiglass … It has been like this since at least October‚ when the Legend of the Empty CVS of Washington began to spread beyond the District’s borders. It became a horror story of Late Capitalism. So‚ when poor white people point out that COVID came from a lab‚ they’re the enemies of democracy. When poor black people steal so much from a local CVS that toothpaste has to go behind plexiglass‚ the issue is “late capitalism.” Where this leads is racial resentment and ultimately racial violence. For all their projection‚ that’s what they want. They’re not really afraid of poor white voters. They’re afraid that‚ in less than a year‚ for the first time in several years‚ someone in power might actually care about what all these poor white people have to say.

Donald Trump won big at the Supreme Court on Monday. The Supreme Court voted unanimously that Colorado could not toss him off their ballot for the presidency.  A couple of months ago‚ the Supreme Court in Colorado decided it was perfectly acceptable to invalidate Donald Trump on the ballot in Colorado in the primaries of the general election because he was an “insurrectionist.”  The basic premise of their argument was truly inane‚ claiming that because the Constitution of the United States bars insurrectionists from office‚ the state government of Colorado could simply declare Trump an insurrectionist and then toss him off the ballot.   That claim had many legal problems. One: how do you define “insurrectionist”? Two: Even if you were going to define “insurrectionist‚” that would theoretically have to be done at the federal level‚ not the state level. Three: How do you even define “insurrectionist” in terms of which party defines it in the federal government? Is that done by some sort of election board? Is it done by the legislature? How does the insurrectionist clause distinguish itself from‚ for example‚ issues with age? A state could theoretically throw someone off the ballot if they were not 35-years-old but still running for president‚ saying simply that this person was not eligible and‚ therefore‚ does not get listed on the ballot. But that would be pretty obvious from the federal language. WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show On Monday‚ the Supreme Court wrote: Proposed by Congress in 1866 and ratified by the States in 1868‚ the Fourteenth Amendment “expand[ed] federal power at the expense of state autonomy” and thus “fundamentally altered the balance of state and federal power struck by the Constitution.” … Section 1 of the Amendment‚ for instance‚ bars the States from “depriv[ing] any person of life‚ liberty‚ or property‚ without due process of law” or “deny[ing] to any person . . . the equal protection of the laws.” And Section 5 confers on Congress “power to enforce” those prohibitions‚ along with the other provisions of the Amendment‚ “by appropriate legislation.”  Section 3 of the Amendment likewise restricts state autonomy‚ but through different means. It was designed to help ensure an enduring Union by preventing former Confederates from returning to power in the aftermath of the Civil War. … Section 3 aimed to prevent such a resurgence by barring from office “those who‚ having once taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States‚ afterward went into rebellion against the Government of the United States.”  Section 3 works by imposing on certain individuals a preventive and severe penalty—disqualification from holding a wide array of offices—rather than by granting rights to all. It is therefore necessary‚ as Chief Justice Chase concluded and the Colorado Supreme Court itself recognized‚ to “‘ascertain[] what particular individuals are embraced’” by the provision. … Chase went on to explain that “[t]o accomplish this ascertainment and ensure effective results‚ proceedings‚ evidence‚ decisions‚ and enforcements of decisions‚ more or less formal‚ are indispensable.” … For its part‚ the Colorado Supreme Court also concluded that there must be some kind of “determination” that Section 3 applies to a particular person “before the disqualification holds meaning.”  The Constitution empowers Congress to prescribe how those determinations should be made.  So they have said that under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution‚ it should be Congress defining who is an insurrectionist and who is not. They say Congress’ Section 5 power is critical when it comes to Section 3. This case raises the question whether the States‚ in addition to Congress‚ may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices‚ especially the Presidency.  The court is making two separate arguments. Argument number one is that only Congress can define the word “insurrectionist” for purposes of who gets on the ballot and who does not. Argument number two is that even if that were not the case‚ the states do not have the capacity to do that. So theoretically‚ a different part of the federal government could actually create an enforcement mechanism that wasn’t the legislature. But states don’t have any power to enforce Section 3 with regard to federal offices‚ especially the presidency. The court goes on to state‚ “Such power over governance‚ however‚ does not extend to federal officeholders and candidates. Because federal officers ‘owe their existence and functions to the united voice of the whole‚ not of a portion‚ of the people‚’ powers over their election and qualifications must be specifically ‘delegated to‚ rather than reserved by‚ the States.’”  Ultimately‚ there were two arguments made: that it can only be Congress that determines who is an insurrectionist and who is not‚ and that states cannot simply toss people out for federal office because that’s the federal government’s job. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP Although all nine members of the court agreed with the result‚ a slight dissent on sort of the rationale came from the liberal justices Sotomayor‚ Kagan‚ and Jackson. That dissent was written specifically to create a sideshow of controversy — because there really was no controversy. Everyone agreed Colorado couldn’t just toss Trump off the ballot. But the minority opinion here‚ concurring in judgment‚ tried to find a point of differentiation from the majority opinion specifically so they could say that the majority opinion was overreaching in favor of Trump. They agreed that allowing Colorado to simply declare who can and can’t be on the ballot would violate the Constitution of the United States.  But the Court also stated: Yet the majority goes further. Even though ‘[a]ll nine Members of the Court’ agree that this independent and sufficient rationale resolves this case‚ five Justices go on. They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy. … Although only an individual State’s action is at issue here‚ the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3‚ and how they must do so. The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so‚ the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement. We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily‚ and we therefore concur only in the judgment.  Basically‚ what they have said is that the conservative majority on the Court did this for Trump. What’s weird is that they’re claiming the Supreme Court majority went beyond its remit in order to help Trump‚ presumably because they think that if Congress were run by Democrats‚ a simple piece of legislation not defining insurrection‚ but just saying Donald Trump cannot run because he is an insurrectionist‚ might be sufficient. In the end‚ the bottom line is what Amy Coney Barrett stated: This is 9-0. We’re done here.

The FBI is on the hunt for an Iranian intelligence operative who has been allegedly plotting to assassinate current and former U.S. government officials‚ including Mike Pompeo‚ the secretary of state under former President Donald Trump. Last week‚ the Bureau’s Miami field office issued a public alert as it sought information on Majid Dastjani Farahani‚ who is suspected of being a member of Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security‚ Semafor reported. The FBI warned of Farahani‚ 42‚ in a Most Wanted notice on Friday‚ saying that he speaks Farsi‚ French‚ Spanish‚ and English and will often move between Iran and Venezuela. According to the FBI‚ Farahani was recruiting “individuals for various operations in the United States‚ to include lethal targeting of current and former United States Government officials” as part of a revenge operation for the U.S. taking out Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani in 2020 under Trump and Pompeo. MAJID DASTJANI FARAHANI/FBI Wanted Poster Semafor reported that U.S. officials said Pompeo and former special envoy for Iran Brian Hook were given 24-hour security after the FBI warned of Farahani. In 2022‚ the Department of Justice indicted members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) for an alleged plot to assassinate former National Security Advisor John Bolton‚ who also served under Trump. Farahani is also accused of recruiting people to run “surveillance activities focused on religious sites‚ businesses‚ and other facilities in the United States.” Soleimani was killed in a U.S. drone strike ordered by Trump in January 2020. The brutal Iranian general had been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American troops in Iraq‚ and the U.S. State Department says Soleimani was directly behind 17% of all U.S. personnel deaths during the Iraq War. Shortly after Soleimani’s death‚ the top Iranian general and other officials vowed that Iran would get revenge on the U.S. Iran’s volatility raised concerns again when Iranian-backed Hamas terrorists launched an attack on Israel on October 7‚ killing over 1‚200 and taking hundreds hostage into the Gaza Strip. The IRGC said two months after the terrorist attack on Israel that it was “one of the revenges” for the killing of Soleimani. While Hamas denied it had the same reason as the IRGC for its 10/7 atrocities‚ Iran’s threats‚ and thirst for bloodshed following the death of its beloved general were heard clearly. U.S. forces were even attacked by Iranian-backed terrorists in January‚ and three American soldiers were killed. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP The Iranian-backed Houthis have also been causing chaos in the Red Sea and the Middle East‚ launching attacks on shipping vessels and Israeli forces. The U.S. has responded to the ongoing terrorist actions with limited strikes inside Yemen and a drone strike that killed multiple terrorist leaders in Baghdad‚ Iraq‚ last month.

Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D-CO) took a wave of criticism after she first declared former President Donald Trump ineligible to appear on her state’s primary ballot — claiming that he was guilty of insurrection — and then complained that the Supreme Court had unanimously decided in Trump’s favor. Griswold’s initial order‚ citing Section 3 (the insurrection clause) of the 14th Amendment‚ stated that Trump was guilty of insurrection despite the fact that neither Congress nor any court had found him to be so – and for that reason‚ he was ineligible to appear on Colorado’s primary ballot. “States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices‚ especially the Presidency.” Griswold made an appearance on MSNBC shortly after the ruling was handed down — in which the Court declared: “States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices‚ especially the Presidency.” WATCH: Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold looks like she’s about to cry on MSNBC: “It will be up to the American voters to save our democracy.” pic.twitter.com/7BkeBMBPWY — Greg Price (@greg_price11) March 4‚ 2024 “My larger reaction is disappointment‚” Griswold told MSNBC host Katy Tur. “I do believe that states should be able under our constitution to bar oath-breaking insurrectionists. And ultimately this decision leaves open the door for Congress to act‚ to pass authorizing legislation. But we know that Congress is a nearly non-functioning body. So ultimately‚ it will be up to the American voters to save our democracy in November.” Critics were quick to point out that if Griswold were truly interested in saving “our democracy‚” the American voters should have been her first choice rather than a backup plan only adopted after her attempt to enforce her own will had been thwarted. “Truth has been getting inverted at a cyclic rate lately and I’m just glad regular people see through it‚” The Daily Caller’s Geoffrey Ingersoll said. “Absolutely bats*** that a person who unilaterally removed a candidate from the ballot can worry about ‘democracy being subverted’ and not get laughed right off the screen.” Truth has been getting inverted at a cyclic rate lately and I’m just glad regular people see through it. Absolutely batshit that a person who unilaterally removed a candidate from the ballot can worry about “democracy being subverted” and not get laughed right off the screen. https://t.co/l4hBHGte4b — Geoffrey Ingersoll (@GPIngersoll) March 4‚ 2024 “GOD how they hate leaving “democracy” up to the voters!” actor Nick Searcy added. GOD how they hate leaving “democracy” up to the voters! @msnbc @JenaGriswold https://t.co/ywGFWiHohL — Nick Searcy‚ iNSURRECTIONAL FILM &; TELEVISION STAR (@yesnicksearcy) March 4‚ 2024 “Gotta admire a fascist crying that they tried to seize power to ‘save democracy‚'” Derek Hunter said. Gotta admire a fascist crying that they tried to seize power to "save democracy." https://t.co/kIayM2S65T — Derek Hunter (@derekahunter) March 4‚ 2024 “In other words: ‘We tried to substitute our own leftist opinion for the will of the voters and got smacked down‚'” added Tim Murtaugh. In other words: “We tried to substitute our own leftist opinion for the will of the voters and got smacked down.” https://t.co/2oht3jkU6c — Tim Murtaugh (@TimMurtaugh) March 4‚ 2024

Michigan Wolverine’s legend Braylon Edwards is being called a hero after he rescued an 80-year-old man who was being attacked by a 25-year-old man in a Detroit YMCA locker room. Edwards‚ who went on to play in the NFL‚ said he heard some people arguing and at first said he didn’t think anything of it but when he heard a large thud he decided to jump in‚ WDIV Local 4 Detroit reported. “I walk into the locker room after work‚ and basically‚ I hear about four rows behind me arguing about music and how it was being played too loud‚” Edwards told the outlet. “So I’m not paying attention‚ and I was just minding my business.” “The noise escalates‚ and then you can hear some pushing and shoving‚ so you know what fighting sounds like‚ but once I hear a thud‚ that’s when I got up and turned around‚” he added. “And then I see the guy for what I was thinking was reaching for a phone underneath the victim grabs the back of the victim’s head by the hair‚ and he was about to slam it down on the counter‚” Edwards continued‚ noting that officers told him if he hadn’t have stepped in the older man’s injuries would’ve been more serious. “But at the end of the day that’s what you do.” Farmington Hills Police chief Jeff King did not hold back his thoughts and said if it wasn’t for Edwards “intervention‚ we could very easily be talking about someone’s death.” “He absolutely saved that man’s life‚” King told The Associated Press. “I’ve been a police officer going on 29 years. When these assaults are ongoing‚ really bad things can happen.” The 25-year-old suspect initially took off on foot before he was arrested and taken into custody‚ WDIV noted. He has since been charged with attempted murder. Oakland County prosecutor Karen McDonald called the attack “vicious” and “senseless.” She also commended the witness‚ without naming Edwards‚ for intervening and said “we will seek justice for this victim.” As far as the elderly man‚ he was transported to the hospital and remains in critical but stable condition‚ ESPN noted. Edwards was a star receiver during his time with the Wolverines. In 2005‚ he entered the NFL draft where he was picked up by the Cleveland Browns. He remained with them for the next five seasons before he was traded to the New York Jets in 2009. The Wolverine stand-out also played in the NFL for the San Francisco 49ers and the Seattle Seahawks.

In the wake of Monday’s unanimous Supreme Court ruling‚ Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) promised to “revive legislation” that would prevent anyone guilty of participating in an “insurrection” from running for president. The ruling came after three states — Colorado‚ Maine‚ and Illinois — declared former President Donald Trump ineligible to appear on primary ballots‚ citing Section 3 (the insurrection clause) of the 14th Amendment. “States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices‚ especially the Presidency‚” the unanimous decision read in part — but since it left the door open for Congress to use legislation to enforce Section 3‚ Raskin declared his intent to do exactly that. WATCH: Democrat Rep. Jamie Raskin immediately goes on CNN to announce he and Eric Swalwell are working to "revive legislation" to force President Trump off the ballot pic.twitter.com/QcYhBQn0JK — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) March 4‚ 2024 “We’ve been saying all along that section three of the 14th Amendment presents a clear and unequivocal statement that anyone who has sworn an oath of office — and‚ by the way‚ not just a president but members of Congress and others who hold federal office — who engage in insurrection or rebellion‚ having sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic can never serve again in federal or state office‚” Raskin told CNN’s Dana Bash‚ adding‚ “Donald Trump is disqualified.” “I am working with a number of my colleagues‚ including Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Eric Swalwell to revive legislation that we had to set up a process by which we could determine that someone who committed insurrection is disqualified by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment‚” he added. “And the House of Representatives already impeached Donald Trump for participating in insurrection by inciting it‚” Raskin said‚ despite the fact that the Senate had already failed to convict Trump on that charge once and no other court had tried him. “So the House has already pronounced upon that‚ and there was also a 57 to 43 vote in the Senate. The question is whether Speaker Mike Johnson would allow us to bring this to the floor of the House‚” he said.

Gunfire erupted at a remote section of the U.S border over the weekend‚ leading to one person being killed. The incident happened Sunday morning in San Diego County in what officials said was a criminal enterprise trying to rob a group of illegal aliens‚ The Los Angeles Times reported. A member of the Border Patrol’s elite Border Patrol Tactical team‚ or BORTAC‚ killed one of the violent illegal aliens on U.S. soil while the rest fled back to Mexico. The area is a hotbed for criminal activity involving bandits who cross the border to rob illegal aliens before running back across the border into Mexico. Brandon Judd‚ president of the National Border Patrol Council‚ described the incident as a “gun battle” during an interview on Monday and said that the bandits‚ which he described as “rip crews‚” had become more brazen in their attacks which is why special operators were in the area. “They’re doing it right in front of our cameras‚” Judd said. “We’ve had several incidents where rip crews have been robbing and stealing from migrants right in front of the camera.” U.S. Border Patrol Chief Jason Owens shared images on X last week  showing groups of bandits robbing illegal aliens at the U.S. border. “USBP surveillance technology near Chula Vista‚ CA captured these images of armed bandits robbing several groups as they attempted to enter the country illegally‚” he wrote. “Yet another example of the dangers these criminals &; smugglers pose to the public‚ the migrants and our agents.” 2/25: USBP surveillance technology near Chula Vista‚ CA captured these images of armed bandits robbing several groups as they attempted to enter the country illegally. Yet another example of the dangers these criminals &; smugglers pose to the public‚ the migrants‚ and our agents. pic.twitter.com/uVX2n1kYaM — Chief Jason Owens (@USBPChief) February 26‚ 2024

Firefighters in Hawaii made a noble rescue after a hiker’s dog fell from the side of the Waimano Trail in Pearl City‚ Honolulu‚ in early March. According to Star Advertiser‚ the hiker called 9-1-1 after they lost their dog in the rugged terrain during the late morning. The owner estimated that their pet had fallen about 20 feet and landed on “a steep mountain slope.” Within 14 minutes‚ the Honolulu Fire Department responded with six units and 17 first responders. A helicopter immediately secured a landing zone near a local high school and then flew over the area to help look for the dog while the rest of the personnel searched on foot. The rescuers flying overhead were able to use the 9-1-1 call geolocation to narrow down where the pet had fallen. And in less than an hour‚ they found him. Instagram The first responders treated the four-legged victim as they would any other. Rescuers lowered to the ground‚ fitted a harness over the dog‚ and lifted him onto the trail. Fortunately‚ he was not hurt. Once the dog and his owner were reunited‚ they made it out of the trail on their own. After the harrowing rescue‚ the HFD issued a reminder to keep dogs on short leashes while enjoying trails. Not only for safety purposes but also out of respect for other hikers and pets. “If there are off-leash areas where you are hiking‚ only let your dog run free if you have verbal control of your dog‚ you can see your dog at all times‚ and you’ve worked on a reliable recall‚” the department noted. You can find the source of this story’s featured image here! The post Firefighters Fly To The Rescue‚ Airlift Dog Who Fell From Trail In Hawaii appeared first on InspireMore.