The rock-and-roll community stepped in

Collateral kills in MW3 are by far some of the hardest types of kills to get in the game. They consist of nailing two people with one single shot. This means you’re going to have to be lucky enough to line the shot up and have enough firepower to get two kills with one bullet. How to achieve Collateral Kills in Modern Warfare 3 Timing‚ luck‚ firepower‚ and situation are everything for these kills. However‚ there are ways you can improve your chances. Pick the right map Using a map with long corridors is your best bet when it comes to Collateral Kills in MW3. What you want is for your enemies to be funnelled into a narrow space and stacked on top of each other. If you can find a map with this angle‚ it will help a lot. My suggestion would be inside the plane or in the corridor facing the plane on the terminal map. The all-new Vista map for Season 2 also has three long corridors. Finding a spot with some cover and mounting your sniper will give maximum stability and ...

Washington‚ D.C.‚ is becoming an embarrassment to the nation. A horrific story that made national headlines illustrates what the city is becoming. A would-be carjacker shot a former Trump administration official in the head Jan. 29 at the beginning of an insane‚ violent romp through the city. Mike Gill‚ who served as the chief of staff at the federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission‚ died Feb. 5. He was a married father of three. According to The Hill website‚ Artell Cunningham not only shot Gill before abandoning the car‚ he then tried to carjack another person an hour later. After Cunningham fled the aftermath of his first attempted carjacking‚ “police said he then approached another man and woman in their car in Northeast D.C. about 10 minutes later and demanded the keys‚ before shooting the man and fleeing the scene.” The man later died‚ The Hill reported. “That car was later discovered in Maryland’s Prince George’s County‚ where police said Cunningham attempted two other carjackings‚” according to The Hill. “At around 3 a.m. [Jan. 30]‚ he was seen driving one of the carjacked vehicles on the highway and shot at a police cruiser.” Cunningham was eventually found by police and reportedly “produced two handguns.” The police shot him‚ and he subsequently died at a hospital. This maniac was literally acting as though the Grand Theft Auto video game was real life. Insane stories like this have become commonplace in Washington. In fact‚ crime and dysfunction have become so pervasive that even the typically dismissive left-wing media have taken notice. Of course‚ they’ve tried to frame the problem as an outlier‚ not at all tied to the ideology of the people who now run most big cities in America. Violent crime is dramatically higher in this country following the riots of 2020‚ and that’s simply a fact. But the problem just happens to be particularly acute in the District of Columbia‚ a reality that former President Donald Trump rightly pointed out on Monday. He made a comment about his ongoing trial in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit regarding the 2020 election‚ then mentioned the state of the city. Trump called into question the District’s basic notions of justice. He said that not only can he not get a fair trial there‚ he also called for a “federal takeover of this filthy and crime-ridden embarrassment to our nation.” Good for Trump. He’s saying out loud what a lot of Americans are thinking. Forget “D.C. statehood.” It’s more worthwhile asking whether the District’s 50-year experiment in “home rule” is a total failure. Of all the dysfunctional big‚ blue cities‚ the nation’s capital appears to disintegrating the most rapidly. National Review did a quick rundown of the numbers: D.C. police have reported 49 carjackings and nine homicides so far in the new year. In 2023‚ overall crime increased 26 percent over 2022. That includes major increases in property crime (24 percent)‚ violent crime (39 percent)‚ and motor-vehicle theft (82 percent). The city also saw more homicides in 2023 than in any year since 1997. As I wrote in January‚ carjacking doubled in 2023 compared with the previous year‚ with a staggering 959 reported. There were “just” 152 carjackings in 2019. The escalation of violent crime has been so bad that even the District’s normally out-to-lunch City Council has been pushed to show it’s doing something about it. The D.C. Council voted on Tuesday to move forward on a crime bill that would stiffen penalties for some crimes. For instance‚ it would create a few “drug-free” zones and make stealing from stores then returning those items for a refund a felony. That’s good‚ I suppose. But it’s hard not to look at the list of proposals and wonder why those weren’t already laws on the books. Also‚ given the attitude of city leaders and the initial pushback on the legislation‚ there’s a good chance that the most effective proposals never get written into law or implemented. It’s impossible to have faith in city leaders who tried to lower the penalties for carjackings amid a historic carjacking crisis. The only thing that stopped them was an act of Congress. The District’s jailbreak mentality on crime was on display at a public hearing on Jan. 30. D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb was hounded about the explosion of crime. His response to angry residents was that the city needed to be more focused on “prevention” and providing “young people and their families with resources.” Schwalb then added‚ referring to the crime spike: “We cannot prosecute and arrest our way out of it.” During a panel‚ DC residents voiced their frustrations and demanded accountability from city leaders in addressing the violent crime epidemic that's plaguing our nation’s capital.DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb’s response: “We cannot prosecute and arrest our way out of it.” pic.twitter.com/hEUT8GG7Al— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) January 31‚ 2024 Sometimes I wish local newscasts would add a laugh track for absurd times like these. Yes‚ Mr. Attorney General‚ maybe you should consider the novel “prosecute criminals” approach. It’s a crazy idea‚ I know‚ but why not give it a shot? The rise in carjackings isn’t happening because people are poor and hungry. It’s happening because criminals—mostly teens—want to take the cars for joyrides‚ and gangs are encouraging them. This isn’t about poor people being desperate to feed themselves; it’s about a climate of criminality that’s been allowed to fester in the nation’s capital. The source of this nonsense is ideology. The District’s leaders have signaled that political enemies of the regime are to be punished to the maximum extent of the law. Meanwhile‚ they reward their friends and allow criminals to use the city as a vast‚ lawless playground. The District doesn’t have justice‚ so there will be no peace. Given that the Founders created the city for the purpose of creating a safe and secure place for the representatives of the American people to work and deliberate‚ it can’t simply be allowed to fall into ruins. Perhaps this crime bill is the beginning of a big change from city leadership. But I’ll bet that future federal interventions are more than likely going to prove necessary. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Trump Is Right: DC Has Become a ‘Crime-Ridden Embarrassment’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes contends that his state’s “bifurcated ballot system” requiring proof of citizenship to vote in state elections‚ but not federal ones‚ has worked effectively. An oath of legal eligibility taken by voters for federal elections for Congress and president is entirely sufficient‚ Fontes says.  “We have the strictest regime in the country when it comes to noncitizens not being able to vote‚” Fontes‚ a Democrat elected in 2022‚ told The Daily Signal. “We have a system where documented proof of citizenship has to be submitted [for state and local elections]‚ and it’s a very cumbersome system. That’s what the law requires and we’ll continue to follow it. It’s far more thorough than we see just about anywhere.” Arizona‚ which Donald Trump carried in the 2016 presidential election and Joe Biden carried in 2020‚ is a closely watched battleground state in 2024.  Last month‚ Arizona’s election system garnered increased scrutiny when billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk posted on his social media platform X‚ formerly Twitter: “Arizona clearly states that no proof of citizenship is required for federal elections.” Arizona clearly states that no proof of citizenship is required for federal elections https://t.co/qZWamvFPHP— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 9‚ 2024 Although that’s technically correct‚ no other state requires proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections‚ either. Arizona‚ however‚ requires that proof before someone may vote in state and local elections. That’s because in 2013‚ the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in the case of Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz. Inc. that the National Voter Registration Act‚ also known as the motor voter law‚ determined that every state must accept the same standardized voter registration forms for federal elections. However‚ the ruling‚ written by then-Justice Antonin Scalia‚ determined that Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship to vote could apply to state and local elections‚ but not federal ones.  As a result‚ Arizona uses two different ballots for state and federal elections. An Arizona resident with documented proof of citizenship may vote using both ballots. An Arizona voter without proof of citizenship may still vote for president and Congress in a federal election.  A total of 32‚487 Arizona voters participate only in federal elections‚ according to a report in December from the news outlet Votebeat‚ which covers election administration. In the 2020 presidential election in Arizona‚ more than 5‚600 federal-only voters voted‚ Just the News reported.  Fontes‚ who took questions from The Daily Signal after speaking Tuesday at a National Association of Election Officials event in Washington‚ argues that keeping separate ballots isn’t a problem. “We’ve got it all figured out‚” Fontes said. “It’s one list [of voters] and we classify the voters with whether or not they’ve got their stuff [proof of citizenship]. We’ve been doing it for a while.” Arizona’s secretary of state said there is no reason not to trust voters.  “It’s interesting to me that folks don’t think that an oath is enough. I find that curiously doubtful and I find that disturbing‚” Fontes told The Daily Signal. “If we are not going to take our fellow citizens at their word‚ if we are not going to trust at all—a little skepticism is OK‚ but this is the basis of our civil society. This is the basis of our courts and military service and everything else. We trust because that’s what we are required to do as a civilization. To inject all this mistrust constantly‚ this drumbeat of doubt‚ with zero evidence to back up the doubt‚ that’s what I have a problem with.” But Fontes is allowing a loophole to become worse in Arizona’s voting system‚ countered Ken Cuccinelli‚ chairman of the Election Transparency Initiative‚ a watchdog group.  “Leave it to the most radical‚ far-Left administration in the history of Arizona state government to exacerbate a loophole allowing noncitizens to vote in the state’s March GOP presidential primary‚” Cuccinelli‚ a former Virginia attorney general who was acting deputy homeland security secretary in the Trump administration‚ told The Daily Signal in a written statement.  “When it comes to illegal aliens who have flooded across our open border at unprecedented levels in recent years‚ so-called ‘honor systems’ don’t work—just like the system whereby those who have entered our country illegally are released from custody and allowed to resettle on a promise to appear at a court date months or years down the line‚” Cuccinelli said.  Specifically‚ Arizona’s proof of citizenship requirement‚ posted on the secretary of state’s website‚ says: “A person must be a U.S. citizen in order to register and vote.”  But the provision goes on to say: “A person is not required to submit proof of citizenship with the voter registration form‚ but failure to do so means the person will only be eligible to vote in federal elections (known as being a ‘federal only’ voter). A ‘federal only’ voter will become eligible to vote a ‘full ballot’ in all federal‚ state‚ county and local elections if he or she later provides valid proof of citizenship to the appropriate County Recorder’s office.” Arizona had a roadmap to bring the case before the Supreme Court again to reverse the 2013 decision‚ said J. Christian Adams‚ president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation‚ an election integrity group. Multiple governors and secretaries of state never attempted to get the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s approval to require proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections.  “Arizona did what they thought they should do after the Supreme Court case‚ to bifurcate the registration system‚” Adams told The Daily Signal. “What they didn’t do—which Justice Scalia invited them to do—was try to have the EAC [Election Assistance Commission] approve state-level instructions for citizenship. Scalia said if they deny you‚ then bring the case back and we will overturn their denial. But Arizona never followed through and did that.”  Adams also said that the problem of noncitizen voting in the United States doesn’t arise because of illegal immigrants but because of legal noncitizens with green cards and visas who either get swept up in voter registration drives or by errors at motor vehicle offices in states across the country‚ Adams added.  “Historically‚ illegal aliens don’t want to walk into a voting office and register‚” Adams told The Daily Signal. “It’s people who are here legally who get sucked into the system.” “People who are here illegally are scared of the system‚” he said. “They don’t want to get into it‚ so they hide. They hide in basements and railroad cars. They don’t go to a voter registration office. It’s people who are already here that are the problem.” Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post ‘Got It All Figured Out’: Arizona’s Election Chief Defends Split Rules on Proving Citizenship to Vote appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Impartial referees are just as important in the big election in November as in the big game this Sunday‚ a lawmaker argued Wednesday during a congressional hearing on private funding for administering elections.  “The millions of private dollars being funneled to local offices raises serious questions about the conditions placed on their use‚” House Administration Chairman Bryan Steil‚ R-Wis.‚ said. “Imagine this Sunday night at the Super Bowl if the refs were paid for by a tech billionaire from San Francisco.”  “How do you think Taylor Swift and Kansas City Chief fans would feel about that?” Steil asked. “I don’t think they would be OK with that. This wouldn’t instill confidence in the game.” Explaining his metaphor‚ Steil said: “The same goes for our elections administration. Undue private influence distorts Americans’ confidence in our elections. Zuckerbucks distorts confidence in our elections.”  In 2020‚ Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife gave more than $400 million to the liberal nonprofit Center for Tech and Civic Life‚ which distributed grants to local election offices to run their elections. Critics contend the grants were lopsided‚ intended to turn out the Democrat vote.  After Zuckerberg announced he no longer would fund election administration‚ the Center for Tech and Civic Life established a five-year‚ $80 million project called the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence‚ a coalition of election groups.  The groups’ backers included  Big Tech funders  as well as the liberal dark-money group Arabella Advisors. In election circles‚ “Zuckerbucks” continued to be used as a broad term for private dollars that fund government election offices.  “The American system of self-governance is under attack‚” journalist and author Mollie Hemingway‚ who has reported on the impact of private grants in the 2020 election‚ told the House Administration Committee. “Instead of having election administration that is rigorously nonpartisan and impartial under the law‚” Hemingway said‚ “we have allowed the private takeover of government election offices by partisan oligarchs and their army of activists‚ who use those offices to tilt the election toward favored candidates.”  She later added:  In the last presidential election‚ nonprofit groups with very strong ties to the Democrat Party and funded by one of the world’s most wealthy and powerful men‚ Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg‚ took over government election offices‚ most notably in Democrat areas of swing states. Since then‚ the efforts by partisans to further infiltrate government election offices to ensure favorable outcomes have only increased. In 2020‚ 75% of the “Zuckerbucks” grants to election offices in Arizona went to areas that Joe Biden went on to carry‚ according to the Capital Research Center‚ an investigative think tank that monitors nonprofits.  In Pennsylvania‚ 83% of the Zuckerberg grants went to areas that would be won by Biden. In Michigan‚ it was 86%. In Wisconsin‚ it was 90%. In Georgia‚ it was 94%. And in Nevada‚ 100% of the Zuckerberg-funded grants went to areas that Biden ended up winning. The average amount per capita spent in a jurisdiction carried by Donald Trump was 55 cents while the average in jurisdictions carried by Biden was $3.75—about seven times more‚ according to the Capital Research Center.   The new effort‚ the Alliance for Election Excellence‚ includes organizations that clearly are aligned with and financed by the Left‚ Scott Walter‚ president of the Capital Research Center‚ told the House panel.  “Two of them‚ the Center for Secure and Modern Elections and the Institute for Responsive Government‚ are not even independent nonprofits but are pop-up groups set up by Arabella Advisors’ vast ‘dark money’ network previously mentioned‚” Walter said.  Walter presented a hypothetical‚ reversed situation that would benefit Republican candidates.   “Imagine if alumni of a 501(c)(4) run by‚ say‚ Republican Karl Rove‚ were running a (c)(3) charity that had received hundreds of millions from right-leaning billionaire Charles Koch‚ and they were trying to fund local election offices and convince the offices to implement ‘improvement plans‚’” Walter said. “There would not be enough electrons in the cosmos to power the outrage at the websites of The New York Times and CNN‚ and rightly so.” Rep. Joseph Morelle‚ D-N.Y.‚ the committee’s ranking member‚ said the hearing was the result of Trump’s “temper tantrum” over the loss of the 2020 presidential election. Morelle said opposing private funding for elections is a hypocritical position for Republicans‚ who recently called for private control of the Federal Aviation Administration and Amtrak. “The majority’s alleged concern about charitable foundation financing in the realm of election administration is disingenuous at best‚” the New York Democrat said. “Of course‚ we all know the reason my colleagues across the aisle oppose this partnership: because President Trump lost the 2020 presidential election fair and square‚ and the majority cannot and will not accept that fact. That’s the reason we’re here.” The Center for Tech and Civic Life didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment from The Daily Signal for this report.  The House Administration Committee previously advanced an omnibus election reform bill‚ the American Confidence in Elections Act‚ which includes a proposal by Rep. Claudia Tenney‚ R-N.Y.‚ to ban private funding of election administration. Tenney co-chairs the House Election Integrity Caucus.  So far‚ 27 states have banned the use of private dollars to operate election offices. Still‚ the nonprofit Alliance for Election Excellence will continue funding election administration‚ Steil said. That effort includes the states of Nevada‚ Michigan‚ and Wisconsin.  “What do those three states have in common? I’ll give you a hint. They are presidential swing states that haven’t banned Zuckerbucks‚” Steil said. “Why don’t you see a state like Pennsylvania? Their Democratic governor signed a ban on Zuckerbucks. So‚ even some Democrats realize that this is a problem.”  “In Congress‚ I have a solution on how to prevent undue private influence in elections administration‚” the Wisconsin Republican added. It’s why this committee passed the Americans Confidence in Elections Act.” Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Why Taylor Swift‚ Super Bowl‚ and Mark Zuckerberg Get a Shoutout in This Election Reform Hearing appeared first on The Daily Signal.

It would take a sweeping legal ruling for the Supreme Court to effectively kick former President Donald Trump off the ballot in Colorado and elsewhere‚ say legal scholars who’ve analyzed the arguments set for Thursday in the case.  “In order for Trump to lose‚ he has to lose bigly. Or is it big league? He has to lose on everything‚” said Josh Blackman‚ a professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston. Blackman was part of a panel discussion Wednesday at The Heritage Foundation‚ parent organization of The Daily Signal‚ along with other lawyers analyzing the case of Trump v. Anderson.  Addressing some points made by other speakers‚ Blackman said the nation’s highest court would have to overcome major obstacles to uphold the Colorado Supreme Court’s Dec. 19 decision to bar Trump from the state’s primary ballot because of his role in the Capitol riot of Jan. 6‚ 2021.   “The court has to find‚ No. 1‚ that Colorado can enforce Section 3 [of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution]. No. 2‚ that the president is an ‘officer of the United States‚’” Blackman said. “No. 3‚ there was an insurrection. No. 4‚ that Trump engaged in insurrection. No. 5‚ there is no First Amendment defense to whatever Trump did on Jan. 6. No. 6‚ the phrase ‘officer of the United States’ refers to the presidency.”  Colorado’s high court determined that Trump is disqualified from the state’s primary ballot because of the Capitol riot under the 14th Amendment‚ Section 3‚ which prohibits anyone who engaged in an insurrection from holding a civil office in the U.S. government. “If Trump is correct on any one of those junctures‚ any one of those steps‚ then he is on the ballot‚” Blackman said. “It would take an absolute and complete collapse of Trump’s legal team to lose everything. It’s possible. But he would have to lose every single human point.” Here are answers to four big questions ahead of the oral arguments Thursday in the Trump ballot case.  1. To Whom Does Section 3 Apply? The language of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment reads: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress‚ or elector of President and Vice-President‚ or hold any office‚ civil or military‚ under the United States‚ or under any state‚ who‚ having previously taken an oath‚ as a member of Congress‚ or as an officer of the United States‚ or as a member of any State legislature‚ or as an executive or judicial officer of any State‚ to support the Constitution of the United States‚ shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same‚ or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.  Blackman is the co-author of a friend of the court brief filed at the U.S. Supreme Court. It contends that “civil officer‚” referred to in Section 3‚ applies only to an appointed official or to someone who previously took an oath—not to the president or vice president. To back up that point‚ he referenced the Constitution’s appointments clause‚ commissions clause‚ impeachment clause‚ and oaths clause.  Further‚ Blackman noted in speaking of the Civil War-era provision‚ even Confederate President Jefferson Davis‚ as well as numerous Confederate politicians and military officials‚ previously had taken an oath to the U.S. Constitution in appointed or elected positions.  Trump is unique in history as someone whose only oath to the Constitution came as he was sworn in as president on Jan. 20‚ 2017.  “This is the ultimate off-ramp for the Supreme Court‚” Blackman told the Heritage audience. Section 3 might not even apply to the ballot‚ said Patrick Strawbridge‚ who filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of the Republican National Committee.  “Relevant language with respect to former President Trump’s case prohibits any person from holding any office or military post in the United States‚” Strawbridge said. “It doesn’t prevent someone from being nominated. It doesn’t prohibit someone from appearing on a ballot. … It doesn’t even prohibit someone from actually being elected.” “It just prohibits someone from holding office‚” he said. “Even setting aside all of the other arguments about whether Section 3 applies‚ there really is no textual basis to assume that a state official can determine the person will not appear on the ballot. The prohibition is on holding office.”  2. What’s Supreme Court Precedent? Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita‚ a Republican who also co-authored a brief for the high court‚ argued that neither the courts nor state officials can decide how to apply Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.  Rokita referred to an 1869 precedent in which Chief Justice Salmon Chase ruled in a case involving Cesar Griffin‚ convicted in a shooting case in Virginia. Griffin appealed to have the conviction voided because the judge in the case was a former Confederate official.  “Justice Salmon Chase took that very view a few months after the 14th Amendment was adopted. In the 1869 case of Griffin‚ several criminal defendants in Virginia challenged their sentences on the theory that the sentencing judge had once been a Confederate official and couldn’t hold office under Section 3‚” Rokita said.  “But Justice Chase rejected that theory. … He said only Congress is able to provide for the proceedings necessary to ascertain which person Section 3 covers. There is evidence that Congress agreed with Justice Chase’s view. Key drafters of the amendment‚ such as [Rep.] Thaddeus Stevens‚ explained Section 3 will not execute itself.” Stevens‚ a House Republican from Pennsylvania‚ was best known for leading the impeachment effort in 1868 against President Andrew Johnson. 3. Is Section 3 Still Relevant? If the section of the 14th Amendment does cover Trump‚ it’s not clear that it is still relevant‚ since Congress twice voted to remove the barrier to office.  Section 3 is unique in specifying that Congress “may by a vote of two-thirds of each House‚ remove such disability” for holding office‚ noted Hans von Spakovsky‚ manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at The Heritage Foundation.  Congress voted by majorities of two-thirds to do so in both 1872 and 1898. “It specifically gave Congress the power to void Section 3 and basically remove it from the amendment. There is nothing like that anywhere else in the Constitution‚” von Spakovsky said. “It makes sense that they put this in‚ because this section was put into the 14th Amendment by Republicans who controlled Congress‚ because they were angry that all these Confederate military officers and government officials were getting reelected to Congress.”  Acknowledging that the Trump ballot case provokes political divisions‚ von Spakovsky noted: “The most important thing for anyone in this situation to do is to divorce themselves from whether they like or don’t like Donald Trump.” 4. What Happens Jan. 6‚ 2025‚ If Supreme Court Punts? There are grounds for the Supreme Court‚ led by Chief Justice John Roberts‚ to punt on the issue of Trump’s eligibility for the Colorado ballot‚ Blackman said.  Drawing on Chase’s Griffin precedent in 1869‚ the high court could determine that it’s a matter for Congress to decide. This effectively could allow Trump to remain on the ballot in Colorado and elsewhere‚ but leave a murky situation about whether the former president could be inaugurated if he wins the election.  “If the court accepts the Salmon Chase argument and says‚ ‘OK‚ states‚ you can’t do this‚ only Congress can do it‚’ well‚ guess what happens on Jan. 6 of 2025?” Blackman asked rhetorically. “What happens if there are Democratic majorities in both houses‚ and they go to the Capitol and start counting votes.” He then presented an almost dystopian scenario:  They go to Alabama‚ alphabetically. Someone objects that the vote isn’t ‘regularly given‚’ language in the Electoral Count Act‚ because Donald Trump is disqualified.  They break up into respective houses. If a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate reject the vote‚ then the vote is not counted. Do you really believe if the Supreme Court punts on this issue‚ that the Democrats in Congress will say‚ ‘We are going to accept this sitting down?’ If Trump actually wins‚ they could disqualify him on Jan. 6. … My fear is that if the court‚ a majority‚ takes this off-ramp and says Congress can do it‚ then you are going to let Congress do it. The problem is‚ this lingers on to Inauguration Day.  Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.  The post Would Trump Have to ‘Lose Bigly’ at SCOTUS to Be Kicked Off Ballot?  appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Tucker Carlson's Claims About Western Journalists Are Wrong Says...Putin's Spokesman

You Love to See It: Fetterman Still Hitting the Pro-Hamas Chorus

In less than 24 hours‚ congressional Republicans suffered a string of embarrassing mishaps: failing to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas‚ the implosion of an aid bill to Israel‚ and failed coordination on border policy. But instead of just reporting on what happened and the state of play on Capitol Hill‚ CNN’s Dana Bash decided to kick off Wednesday’s Inside Politics with a victory dance in the end zone. “Today on Inside Politics: epic failure‚ dysfunction‚ humiliation‚ and inability to govern. And that's the most charitable way to describe the congressional Republicans right now‚ a stunning series of mind-boggling defeats and self-owns‚” she boasted at the top of the show.     Bash was looking forward to the next shoe to drop: “And minutes from now‚ Senate Republicans will almost certainly torpedo the most conservative border bill before them in decades.” The assertion that the border bill was “the most conservative…in decades” was a false one that she repeated as part of the liberal media’s narrative to claim Republicans were rejecting a solution to the border crisis for political gain: We start right here in our nation's capital where Senate Republicans are about to kill the border deal. The very kind of tough-on-immigration policy that they themselves demanded. The reason? It's simple. It's what Donald Trump wants. He'd rather rant on the campaign trail about the unprecedented surge of migrants than let his party rewrite antiquated laws in the hopes of starting to solve the border crisis. Of course‚ there was no serious thought given to why this border bill was suddenly needed by the White House and Democrats when they’ve spent months claiming the border was closed and that there was no crisis. And the gloating didn’t stop there. “If it were only today's vote‚ it would be tough enough‚ but it's not. The collapse of this immigration deal is only piling on to a terrible‚ horrible‚ no good‚ very bad day for congressional Republicans‚” she mocked‚ making a reference to the kid’s book by the same name from author Judith Viorst; complete with an on-screen graphic. “There was the hyped vote to impeach the Homeland Security secretary. It failed. And it's later a standalone package for Israel also failed‚” she added. She also took some swipes at Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) for being inexperienced despite them being the same age. “Speaker Johnson is new to the job and maybe didn't learn one of the cardinal rules of the House: don't put anything on the floor unless you definitely have the votes‚” she sniped. Bash was supposedly one of CNN’s top journalists who had the credibility to host their major political and election events like town halls and debates. But given this behavior‚ one could easily mistake Bash a political operative celebrating the failures of their opposing side. Oh‚ that’s right. She was. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN’s Inside Politics February 7‚ 2024 12:00:47 p.m. Eastern DANA BASH‚ CNN HOST: Today on Inside Politics: epic failure‚ dysfunction‚ humiliation‚ and inability to govern. And that's the most charitable way to describe the congressional Republicans right now‚ a stunning series of mind-boggling defeats and self-owns. And minutes from now‚ Senate Republicans will almost certainly torpedo the most conservative border bill before them in decades. Plus‚ a win for quote‚ “none of these candidates.” Nikki Haley loses Nevada's non-binding primary even though she was the only candidate on the ballot. Her campaign insists its full steam ahead. And the Trump campaigns own existential moment. All eyes are on the U.S. Supreme Court preparing to hear arguments on whether Donald Trump can be disqualified under the Constitution’s insurrection ban. A sign of just how serious the former President takes this. He's staying out of Washington‚ uncharacteristically trying to avoid a political spectacle. I'm Dana Bash. Let's go behind the headlines at inside politics. We start right here in our nation's capital where Senate Republicans are about to kill the border deal. The very kind of tough-on-immigration policy that they themselves demanded. The reason? It's simple. It's what Donald Trump wants. He'd rather rant on the campaign trail about the unprecedented surge of migrants‚ than let his party rewrite antiquated laws in the hopes of starting to solve the border crisis. If it were only today's vote‚ it would be tough enough‚ but it's not. The collapse of this immigration deal is only piling on to a terrible‚ horrible‚ no good‚ very bad day for congressional Republicans. There was the hyped vote to impeach the Homeland Security secretary. It failed. And it's later a standalone package for Israel also failed. Speaker Johnson is new to the job and maybe didn't learn one of the cardinal rules of the House: don't put anything on the floor unless you definitely have the votes. (…)

This White Chocolate Raspberry Cake is super easy and delicious. It’s the perfect cake for any gathering! We love it for Easter or Valentine’s Day! If you love the way this cake is made you will also love this Blackberry Coffee Cake. It’s one of our most popular so we recreated this one using different...