Judge Slams Hunter Biden’s Motion as ‘Frivolous’ in Gun Case

Victorian Premier’s New Ministerial Role ‘Demonizes Men’, ‘Is an Absolute Joke’

Election Terror: Mexican Mayoral Candidate Assassinated in Broad Daylight (VIDEO)

The following article, The Public Lynching of Trump and Coming Civil War, was first published on Conservative Firing Line. The New York trial of Donald J. Trump is a public lynching. Lady Justice never entered the courtroom. She was not even in the building. And the worst awaits us all. Trump has been placed in an American version of the Tower of London to languish while the Crown’s clowns besmirch his character, and soon … Continue reading The Public Lynching of Trump and Coming Civil War ...

Last week, this column made note of something of interest going on in Ohio, namely, the fact that President Joe Biden’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee scheduled their nominating convention to end Aug. 22, two weeks after the existing ballot deadline in the Buckeye State. That ballot deadline has been in place for more than a decade. Ohio was not the only state whose deadline was scheduled before the end of the Democrats’ convention as chosen by the party and Team Biden. Alabama’s deadline was also earlier than the set date, and the state, a month or so ago, accommodated Team Biden by moving its back. (READ THE PIECE: Ohio Legislature Refuses to Bail Out Biden’s Incompetence. Good for It.) Ohio has not. In this space, I noted that Ohio’s legislature is free to choose not to follow suit with Alabama: There is no obligation on the part of the Ohio legislature to bail out Team Biden for its incompetence here. Certainly, there’s no moral obligation for Ohio to do Biden a solid. Not after East Palestine. And given the efforts of partisan Democrats in Colorado, Maine, and, less successfully, in other states to pervert the 14th Amendment to deny Trump a place on the ballot there, there certainly isn’t a moral obligation for Republican legislators in a red state to change their laws to accommodate Democrats. And there’s no legal obligation. The Democrat Party is a private entity that does not make election laws, as much as it might clearly believe otherwise. What is Russo offering Stephens in return for a special session and a bill putting Biden’s incompetent campaign, together with a full boat of shady electoral practices and machine politics, on the right side of a brand-new ballot deadline? Anything? It would seem that the GOP, which controls Ohio, ought to be in a position to make a few demands in return for such a consideration. And, yet, if you cycle through the news stories covering this unfolding fiasco, you’ll struggle to find any mention of a deal. The deal is the important piece here. Sure, having Biden on the ballot in Ohio is — as a matter of electoral integrity — probably better than not (though there are many side arguments to be had on that question, to be certain). But as I noted, Biden is set to be off the ballot in Ohio not due to anything Ohio has done. This was the Democrats’ mistake. And that means they ought to have to give something up if they want Ohio’s legislature to change the statute and shoehorn Biden onto the ballot. That’s common sense. It’s fair play. It’s also, as I noted, nowhere to be found in the discussion of Ohio’s ballot controversy. That state’s governor, Mike DeWine, a squirrel of the first magnitude who cannot stop screwing over the people who put him in office, certainly isn’t attempting to broker a deal. He’s instead calling a special session of the Ohio Legislature, demanding that it change the ballot deadline to let Biden slide. What else is on the special-session table in Ohio? I don’t see much. That means this is a freebie from a Republican governor and, assumedly, a GOP-dominated state Legislature to a Democrat Party that is doing … what, exactly, to reach across the aisle? But DeWine is heroic for making those demands, according to the conservative-stalwart editors of the National Review: We agree with Governor DeWine — Ohio’s legislature should pass a bill ensuring the president of the United States’ name remains on the ballot this November. We emphasize that this is a matter of the utmost gravity. It is not — and cannot possibly ever be — about cheap and temporary partisan advantage. It is a question about the fundamental legitimacy of American elections. No, it’s about preserving the integrity of state statutes and enforcing the rule of law. This is the Democrats’ mistake. If they want it fixed, they should be bringing baskets of goodies to the legislative majority as compensation for being bailed out. Why is National Review so solicitous of Joe Biden? Is it still on the Never-Trump bandwagon as it so infamously was in 2016? Are the woke corporate paymasters of that publication forcing that agenda down the throats of the editors, or have they gone along willingly?: Ohio — once the most hotly contested swing state in presidential politics — is nobody’s idea of an electoral battleground these days. It is now considered to be so safely in Donald Trump’s column for 2024 that neither party seriously plans to contest its electoral votes in November. (Incumbent Democrat Sherrod Brown faces a strong challenge for reelection in the Senate but has consistently held the upper hand against Republican Bernie Moreno in polling.) It is most likely that the inaction is due to Republicans in the Ohio state legislature — both chambers of which they securely control — feeling like they owe zero favors to Joe Biden in an electoral climate where even being accused of doing one for him is potential fodder for a primary challenge somewhere down the road. Republicans don’t owe Biden favors, and that is the entire point. To do Biden a favor would only be justified if they were given a favor in their own right. For example, Biden’s overly politicized Department of Justice could call off its scandalous lawfare prosecutions of Donald Trump in Washington, D.C., and South Florida — prosecutions that are aimed almost explicitly at knocking Trump off this fall’s ballot. When inaction knocks Biden off the ballot — due to his own mistake — and active abuse of power attempts to knock Trump off the ballot, the equitable deal should be Republican action in exchange for Democrat cessation. Are National Review’s editors so craven that they won’t even make the ask on the part of Ohio’s legislators? Or did it never occur to them that extracting something from Democrats is possible and desirable?: As Alabama’s legislators well understood, this is no favor but rather a basic (and uncontroversial) act of civic responsibility. Joe Biden’s name must be allowed to remain on the Ohio ballot, for to remove it on a four-day technicality (in the renomination of an incumbent) would open Pandora’s box. First and foremost, it would deny Ohio voters a meaningful vote for president of the United States between the two major parties, one it is impossible to argue with any seriousness that voters of the state do not deserve. To allow pointed inaction to permit the president’s name to “default” off the Ohio ballot is to commit a bluntly cynical transgression of civic norms. It is not even good politics; Sherrod Brown would likely benefit from running on voter anger at such transparent self-interest at their expense. Biden’s name isn’t on the ballot in Ohio. It can’t “remain” on it. The 2024 election is a different one than 2020’s, and Biden must be nominated by the Democrats to be on the ballot. The Democrats chose to nominate him too late to meet Ohio’s ballot deadline. It isn’t the legislature’s job to nominate Joe Biden in a timely manner; it’s the Democrats’ job. And they failed to do it. Why are Republicans duty-bound to correct the failures of Democrats? And since when does constantly bailing them out of their failures encourage them to stop failing? How do you think Democrats become less and less sane and more and more radical? It’s obviously because they neither fear nor respect the consequences of their own stupidity. And it’s people like the geniuses at NR white knighting for them that protects the Democrats and the Left from those consequences, rather than seizing the opportunities, and positive disruption, that could be had from letting the chips fall: Even more appallingly, were Ohio Republicans to deny Biden a spot on November’s ballot out of pointless spite, they would be undermining every single argument they — and Donald Trump — have been making for the past several years about how government is weaponized against Republicans. Now they’ve devolved into abject stupidity. This is very poorly disguised Never Trumpism, and it should be called out as such: This is not about doing Democrats or Joe Biden a favor. Ohio’s legislators owe it to the voters of their state and the people of the nation to come together and pass a simple fix to this state election law and give Ohio voters the chance to reject Joe Biden fair and square. And Ohio voters should neither forgive nor forget if legislators contrive specious reasons to deny the people of their state an actual voice in the November election. So now they’re calling for the heads of Republican legislators in Ohio who won’t knuckle under and bail out the Biden campaign? This is shameful. It’s a new low for a publication that claims to be “conservative” and yet refuses to sanction any actual effort to give conservatives political advantage. Again, the point here isn’t that Ohio’s legislators shouldn’t change the ballot deadline. It’s that there ought to be considerations extracted in exchange for doing so. If you want to be known as the gold standard of conservative thought, you have a responsibility to think about those considerations, do you not? It doesn’t appear that anybody at NR even bothered with that concept. And that fact is very damning indeed. The post Just Call <i>National Review</i> the <i>Stupid Party Review</i> From Now On appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Justin Trudeau was once the darling of Canadian liberals and hailed by American Democrats as the example par excellence of a progressive leader. During the Trump presidency, Democrats extolled Trudeau as the leader up north whose support for progressive values and multiculturalism — as well as his intensive economic policies — made him a saint in comparison to Donald Trump. RELATED: Trudeau’s Orwellian Dream: Deploying ‘the Trump Treatment’ to Destroy Canada It’s been eight years since Trudeau was sworn in as prime minister of Canada, and the good feelings toward him have all but vanished. In a Postmedia-Leger poll released Thursday, 66 percent of Canadians surveyed said they are “dissatisfied with Trudeau’s government,” while only 27 percent said they are “satisfied.” Further, a full 47 percent said they believe Trudeau is failing to resign from his position as Liberal leader for selfish reasons. Worse, only 16 percent said Trudeau “makes the best prime minister” of any of the party leaders. The dissatisfaction is rooted in the numerous crises that have emerged following Trudeau’s aggressively progressive policymaking, including a housing crisis that has rendered affordable housing virtually nonexistent in many Canadian cities and rapidly inflating essential goods prices. The cost-of-living crisis is so acute that the Toronto Star calculated in March that over the past three years, the cost of rent and groceries has increased nearly 40 percent in Canada. This is a number with which wages are not even close to catching up. Real wages declined 1 percent in 2021 and 2.5 percent in 2022 before increasing slightly in 2023. That’s just the beginning of it. There’s also Trudeau’s carbon tax scheme, which has further spiraled Canada’s cost-of-living crisis. The tax, which was introduced in 2019, aims to reduce carbon emissions by placing a high tax on fuel sources, including coal, oil, and gasoline. Households then last receive “rebates” to account for the increased cost. Currently, the tax is set at $80 per ton of carbon. The law is failing to have its intended impact: Last fall, an independent estimate found that carbon emissions actually increased in Canada year over year in 2022. Of course, there is also the issue that the giant tax undertaking of the federal tax on carbon can be counteracted by nature. In 2019, Canada’s carbon emissions amounted to 730 megatons of carbon, but, in 2023, Canadian wildfires produced 480 megatons of carbon. (Moreover, it’s unclear how staving off global warming is beneficial to Canada, which constantly has to deal with extremely cold temperatures.) The opposition leader, Pierre Poilievre, has hammered Trudeau over the carbon tax, criticizing the ever-present hardship it presents to Canadians. The drug-overdose crisis is another issue over which Poilievre has gone after Trudeau. Famously, it was Poilievre’s calling Trudeau “a wacko” over his decriminalization of hard drugs that led to Poilievre’s being ejected from the House of Commons. More than 30,000 Canadians died between 2016 and 2023 as a result of the drug epidemic. Despite all these crises, Trudeau has continued to push policy in a direction so absurdly progressive that it is dictatorial. In February, his Liberal Party proposed an “online harms bill” that would call for life imprisonment for promoting genocide — and presumably other “hate speech” will receive similarly harsh punishment. The bill makes it illegal “to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet.” In other words, the Liberal Party is seeking to punish those who speak in ways with which the party disagrees — with prison sentences. The bill refers to crimes that will be prosecuted under this basis as “hate propaganda offences.” There was also Trudeau’s unprecedented use of the Emergencies Act during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests to freeze protesters’ personal bank accounts. The move was later ruled unconstitutional. This all sums up to disaster for Trudeau and the Liberal Party. Polls indicate that, were the election to be held today, Poilievre’s Conservative Party would win the popular vote by 18 percentage points. The libertarian-minded Poilievre, who was made party leader in the political environment that followed the truckers’ convoy in Ottawa, has a pugnaciousness that appeals in Canada’s era of discontent. Trudeau must call an election by October 2025, and most predict that the election will take place next year. There has been talk of replacing Trudeau given the party’s tattered state — with even some Liberal members of Parliament calling for such a change. But it seems that Trudeau is not backing down. He continues to reiterate that he will maintain his position as party leader and face off against Poilievre. And, with the national election set to take place within the next 17 months, the time for him to pull out and allow the Liberal Party to put on a race for party leader is slipping away. “He could leave in early summer,” John Manley, a former Liberal member of Parliament, told Politico this week. “After that, it becomes just too tight for the party to put together a race that they would want to have a lot of profile on.” However, the margins appear so insurmountable for the Liberal Party that a Conservative victory is virtually guaranteed, no matter who the Liberal Party’s leader is. Justin Trudeau went too far, and Canadians will not make the mistake of electing him prime minister again. America is just waiting to see if the backlash to progressivism up north carries down to us. READ MORE from Ellie Gardey Holmes:  Boy Scouts Destroyed Itself By Accepting Girls United Methodist Church Didn’t Just Accept Gay Marriage — It Went Full Woke RFK Jr.’s Philandering, Late Wife’s Suicide Stay Out of Campaign The post Justin Trudeau Is in Deep, Deep Trouble appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

SACFRAMENTO — Oklahoma Gov. J. Kevin Stitt is taking expected political heat for his courageous decision last week to veto Senate Bill 102, which would have boosted pensions for the state’s police officers to the “3 percent at 50” retirement formula that’s similar to what most California public-safety officials receive. Police unions and their allies claim Stitt doesn’t “back the blue” and successfully convinced lawmakers to take the unusual step of overriding the veto. The Senate passed an override earlier in the week, and the House followed suit late Wednesday. READ MORE from Steven Greenhut: Newsom Picks Pontificating Over Governing Stitt received brickbats, even from fellow Republicans who should know better than to run up debt and create pressure for new taxes. Attorney General Gentner Drummond issued this beside-the-point statement: “I will always stand with the men and women who risk their lives to protect our families. I hope legislators move swiftly to override the Governor’s veto so our peace officers can know they still have reliable allies in the state Capitol.” Despite the override, Stitt really deserves a “profiles in courage” award for putting Oklahoma’s future finances first. He could have taken the easy course and significantly increased pensions at a time when the state’s fiscal house is in good order and the ensuing problems wouldn’t be felt for some time. Backers of the legislation make all sorts of the usual promises. They note that Oklahoma’s pension plans are almost fully funded (96 percent) and that increases in benefits will pay for themselves through investment returns. They claim that increasing pensions is necessary to improve employee retention at a time when it’s harder to recruit new officers. Yet surveys suggest that pension benefits are not a top concern for young recruits. Overly generous pensions add to the retention problem by encouraging public employees to retire early. Why keep working when you receive nearly your full salary in your 50s? Based on my experience covering California’s pension crisis since the 1990s, I conclude that the other arguments for the bill are bunk also. In fact, the Oklahoma fracas is eerily reminiscent of the debate that Californians had in 1999, when the Legislature overwhelmingly and on a bipartisan basis passed Senate Bill 400, which adopted the “3 percent at 50” formula for California Highway Patrol officers. Not surprisingly, the legislation was widely backed by unions across the state because local police agencies mostly bumped up their police and fire pension formulas to keep pace with the new CHP formulas, which were as much as a 50 percent increase over the past ones. As the formulas work, retired officers receive a guaranteed 3 percent of their final years’ pay times the number of years worked. So going from 2 percent at (age) 50 to 3 percent at 50 meant going from retiring with 60 percent of pay to doing so with 90 percent. After California implemented the law, non-public-safety unions demanded a requisite pension hike — and SB 400 ended up triggering a one-way ratchet of pension increases throughout state and municipal governments. So something done to “back the blue” triggered a massive boost in benefits for government employees across the board. That ratchet has become unstoppable. As usual, I recommend that readers visit the site Transparent California to see the literally unbelievable pay and pension packages public-safety officials now earn in our high-tax, deficit-soaked state. Per California’s legislative analysis, supporters argued that “[t]he increase in liability for these new benefits can be funded by the excess retirement assets that have been generated through investment income and changes in actuarial assumptions resulting in no immediate increase in costs to the employer.” The legislation was sponsored by the California Public Employee’s Retirement System (CalPERS), which touted a summary boasting it wouldn’t raise taxes a “dime.” The demand for the pension giveaway was driven by the financially optimistic situation of California’s pension systems at the time — and also by optimistic stock-market returns. The size of a defined-benefit system’s unfunded liability is based on predictions about returns on investment. Those investments were doing well, so unions and union-allied lawmakers figured there’d be no immediate downside to placating this powerful interest group. For a sense of the times, reporter Ed Mendel in 2019 noted that “[t]he annual payment to CalPERS for state worker pensions next fiscal year is expected to be $7 billion, a jump from $6.4 billion this year — and a quantum leap from $160 million when a pension increase, SB 400, was approved 20 years ago.” But back in 1999, “CalPERS was in its golden years…. Investment earnings had averaged 13.5 percent for a decade, soaring in the two prior years to 20 percent. Funding for a half dozen state and school plans ranged from 100 to 139 percent.” Apparently, California’s SB 400 supporters never figured on a stock-market downturn. Now CalPERS pensions are funded only at 72 percent. And while the pension hikes had only a relatively modest impact on the state budget (given the massive overall size of it), it created a crisis at the local level, where police and fire pay consume the bulk of municipal budgets. These increases didn’t directly increase taxes, but they set the stage for many local tax hikes and service cuts known as “crowd out.” Pension debt also helped push a couple of California cities into bankruptcy. The Oklahoma Center for Public Affairs notes that SB 102 “was another attempt to chip away at past reforms that have helped put Oklahoma public pension systems in a fiscally responsible position.” Policy research fellow Curtis Shelton explained that the bill would have increased pension liabilities by $271 million, with $90 million of that unfunded. Those are small numbers by California standards but a big problem in Oklahoma — and with the override, it’s going to get bigger. As Stitt said in a statement his office sent to me: I’m never going to put our state in a bad financial position. And that’s why I vetoed Senate Bill 102. The bill would have required members and municipalities to contribute more to the pension system, but those contributions wouldn’t have been enough to cover the increased benefits this bill mandated — the math just doesn’t add up — and we won’t put the state’s pensions at risk. We have to remain vigilant to protect future generations of Oklahomans — it’s not an easy decision, but the right one for our state. Unfortunately, the state’s lawmakers seemed more interested in placating an interest group than in doing the right thing. Oklahoma’s SB 102 didn’t go as far as California’s SB 400, but I only wish California had a governor then who was looking to the state’s long-term fiscal health. At least Stitt tried. Any lawmaker who supported the override is telegraphing a commitment to short-term interest-group politics rather than to Oklahoma’s fiscal future. Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org. The post Oklahoma Gov. Stitt’s Profile in Fiscal Courage appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.