Elon Musk has stated that he will be moving both the SpaceX and X headquarters to Texas out of California following a new law by the California governor.

In the case of the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, it is not conspiratorial to look at evidence and fully investigate. That includes looking into possible accomplices. There is the added fact that many on the left have made it clear that they want Donald Trump dead. They don’t care for his supporters, either. When […] The post You Can’t Say It Was An Inside Job appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

Late night hosts reflected on the “violence” and “horrifying scenes” Americans witnessed at the assassination attempt of former President Donald Trump at a Saturday rally in Pennsylvania. NBC host Seth Meyers opened his show on Monday talking about what happened on Saturday, when a shooter opened fire on Trump and wounded the former president, killing one of his supporters, and injuring two other supporters, Deadline reported. “But I wanted to start our show tonight by reflecting for a bit on the horrifying scenes we witnessed in Pennsylvania on Saturday and on this fraught moment in American history,” Meyers said. “I want to echo what so many have already said, political violence must be rejected in all its forms.” “It is both morally wrong and a poison to democracy,” he added. “We must all condemn it and repudiate it and do everything in our power to stop it.” Late-night hosts Seth Meyers and Stephen Colbert opened their shows Monday night with somber monologues following the attempted assassination Saturday of Donald Trump, while Jimmy Fallon avoided the topic https://t.co/4PB59XXlG0 — Deadline Hollywood (@DEADLINE) July 16, 2024 “Often after a tragedy like this, there are calls to forego politics,” Meyers continued. “But to me, politics — the nonviolent exchange of ideas, and the peaceful resolution of disputes — feels more important than ever. An inclusive politics of compassion, empathy and community, that’s what we must recommit to now.” CBS’s Stephen Colbert spoke to his audience about how the United States came close “to a great tragedy on Saturday when at a political rally down in Pennsylvania, a 20-year-old gunman shot and nearly killed a former president and the man who today became the 2024 Republican nominee.” “My immediate reaction when I saw this on Saturday were horror at what was unfolding, relief that Donald Trump had lived and, frankly, grief for my beautiful country — and then fresh horror, as we learned that attendees had also been shot, one of whom died at the rally,” Colbert said. “I could just as easily start the show moaning on the floor, because how many times do we need to learn the lesson that violence has no role in our politics, that the entire objective of a democracy is to fight out our differences with — as the saying goes — a ballot, not a bullet,” he added. “Our job as American citizens is to reject violence and violent rhetoric in this time of crisis. … [n]ot only is violence evil, it is useless,” Colbert continued. “As I quoted [science fiction writer Isaac Asimov] when Representative Steve Scalise was shot, ‘Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.’ Violence, or even calls for violence, invalidate any ideas.” Over on ABC, Jimmy Kimmel was out and Anthony Anderson was filling in as host of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” show. “All weekend, I kept thinking, ‘I wonder what Jimmy Kimmel’s gonna say about this on Monday. And then I was like, ‘Oh s**t! I am Jimmy Kimmel on Monday,” Anderson told the audience. “In all seriousness, I do wanna say that our thoughts are with the families of the victims, and that hopefully, this will be a moment that we can all take a step back from the hatred and vitriol in our politics and maybe chill the f**k out,” he added. NBC host Jimmy Fallon did not address the shooting and largely stayed away from politics, only mentioning Trump’s pick for Vice President, Senator JD Vance (R-OH), the outlet noted.

Donald Trump Jr., son of former president Donald Trump, recounted the moment he learned of the failed assassination attempt against his father, the minutes of confusion, and finally speaking with the former president afterward. Trump Jr. spoke with Daily Wire host Michael Knowles on the sidelines of the Republican National Convention in an interview released on Tuesday. Trump Jr. began by telling Knowles that he had originally meant to attend the Pennsylvania rally at which his father was shot, but changed plans after finding out that the announcement of the vice presidential pick, originally scheduled to happen at the rally, was postponed. Instead, Trump Jr. was fishing with his daughter when he first received a call informing him that his father had been shot. “I took my daughter out on the boat with a couple of her friends, and I got a call, you know, at 6:15 or whatever it was. ‘You’re dad’s been shot,’” Trump Jr. said. He added that at the time, he was told nothing else and left to wonder about his father’s condition. “Obviously, I immediately get on the phone. I try to call – I guess, at that point they’re not sure what the attack is, so they lock down all the cell phones and they jam – whatever it may be – and I couldn’t get through to anyone. And, so, [it was] literally 90 minutes before I even make contact,” Trump Jr. said. When Trump Jr. was eventually able to reach his father, the former president was at the hospital receiving treatment after the assassin’s bullet gored his ear. “Finally, you know, I got ahold of my father and [he was] surprisingly calm in the hospital,” Trump Jr. said. “By then, I’d already seen the video and, sort of him coming up, you know, defiant in the face of actual fire. It was sort of amazing.” “I just sort of said, you know, ‘You’re the biggest badass I know,’” Trump Jr. said, adding that it was “the most proud I’d ever been of him.” CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP Knowles and Trump Jr. then talked about how narrowly the former president avoided death. Trump had slightly changed the position of his head to look off-stage a second before the shot ripped by his ear. “I come from a competitive shooting background. I mean, you know, a 140 yard shot – that’s like a six inch putt, right?” Trump Jr. said. “That’s almost impossible to miss. And so to be able to move that way and at that exact instant, you know, literally the speed of a bullet. It’s just insane.” The best explanation for his father’s survival is “divine intervention,” Trump Jr. said. “I’m not, you know, not a hyper spiritual guy. But, man, that makes you wonder,” he said. The former president’s son shared a moment of levity that took place while he was on the phone with his father along with many other members of the Trump family. Trump Jr., “usually the inappropriate guy” by his own admission, broke the tension. “I was like, ‘So, you know, how’s the hair?’” Trump Jr. asked his father. “The hair’s fine, but it’s a little bloody,” Trump responded.

Senator J.D. Vance (R-OH) may pose “the greatest threat” to Vice President Kamala Harris in a debate setting, according to Harris’ own former communications director. Ashley Etienne made the comments during a June appearance on CNN, prior to former President Donald Trump’s official announcement naming the 39-year-old Ohio senator as his running mate. WATCH: Kamala Harris’s former Comms director, Ashley Etienne, says she thinks JD Vance “would pose the greatest threat” to Harris in a VP debate Comes as Trump and his team are considering how each prospective running mate would fare on a debate stage with the VP pic.twitter.com/pSxJEFOHAw — Alayna Treene (@alaynatreene) June 17, 2024 “I think J.D. Vance would pose the greatest threat to Kamala Harris,” Etienne told host Laura Coates. “I mean, he’s an incredible debater. I think he has this quality that makes him seem palpable to that 1 to 2 percent that actually might vote or that’s undecided, that will actually pay attention to the debates because most people don’t pay attention to the debates.” “I think he’s just got a quality about him where he’s super smart and sharp and quick-witted. I just think they’d like it, I think it’s going to be a challenge to see the two of them face-to-face. I mean, maybe it’s just me, but I think he’s gonna be the greatest threat,” she continued. Republican strategist Noelle Nikpour made a similar comment during an MSNBC appearance a week later, saying, “If I were Kamala Harris, I probably would not want to go up against J.D. Vance.” “J.D. Vance really is an expert on policy, he’s Ivy League educated, he knows policy backwards and forwards. I probably would not, if I were Kamala Harris, out of all the picks that they’ve listed, probably would not want to go up against J.D. Vance … He’s very smart.” A guest on MSNBC weighs in on which Republican she thinks would pose the greatest threat to Kamala Harris in the VP Debate: “If I were Kamala Harris, I would probably not want to go up against JD Vance.” pic.twitter.com/rd8hnXyJLr — Henry Rodgers (@henryrodgersdc) June 25, 2024 The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin took the opposite position, claiming that Harris was likely waiting impatiently for the match-up: “Kamala Harris waiting for the debate is like a kid eyeing a candy store.” CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP But critics were not so sure, and quickly offered their thoughts. “Tulsi Gabbard smoked her ass so hard in the debate Kamala dropped out a few weeks later and never made it to Iowa — her debate performances were so bad they have reached mythology in political history. I swear to God — how the hell do you stay employed in media?!?” Meghan McCain responded. Tulsi Gabbard smoked her ass so hard in the debate Kamala dropped out a few weeks later and never made it to Iowa – her debate performances were so bad they have reached mythology in political history. I swear to God – how the hell do you stay employed in media?!? https://t.co/BSmKaUqJ75 — Meghan McCain (@MeghanMcCain) July 15, 2024 “Like a kid with no money eyeing a closed candy store,” Karol Markowicz clarified. Like a kid with no money eyeing a closed candy store. https://t.co/4Vliumb0Zg — Karol Markowicz (@karol) July 16, 2024 “The left pretending to be constantly excited for and in awe of Kamala Harris is genuinely embarrassing,” another posted. The left pretending to be constantly excited for and in awe of Kamala Harris is genuinely embarrassing. https://t.co/d7xmt8xb2t — DemocraticDespotism (@DemocraticDesp1) July 15, 2024 And Megyn Kelly, whose voice can be heard on The Daily Wire’s “Mr. Birchum,” just had one question: “Who’s going to tell her?” Who’s going to tell her? https://t.co/oB9kKNCTjc — Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) July 15, 2024

We now have a vice presidential nominee from Donald J. Trump: Senator J.D. Vance from Ohio. It’s an audacious, confident pick from the former president of the United States. He’s making that pick because he believes he’s winning. It is that simple.  There’s a reason that Trump believes he’s winning. The swing state polling from YouGov finds that Trump is currently up nine in Arizona, five in Wisconsin, six in Georgia, three in Pennsylvania, two in Michigan, five in Nevada, and four in North Carolina. That is an extraordinary set of polls for Trump. And Michigan is the only one of those polls that seems to possibly even be within spitting distance.  This is not a strategic pick. This is not the sort of pick that is designed to win Virginia, which is what Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) likely would have done. It’s not a pick that’s designed to do outreach to Hispanics, as choosing Marco Rubio (R-FL) would have done. It is a pick that may be designed to shore up the blue wall in favor of red in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, but more importantly, I think for Donald Trump, it’s designed to enshrine his policy legacy as a shift away from traditional conservatism. In Trump’s statement announcing the pick, he concluded. “J.D. has had a very successful business career in Technology and Finance, and now, during the Campaign will be strongly focused on the people he fought so brilliantly for, the American Workers and Farmers in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Minnesota, and far beyond.”  That last sentence is the one that matters the most. Trump was name-checking Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin — three states he is hoping to win with this pick. But the truth is he actually doesn’t need Vance to win those states. In fact, the last time Trump ran in 2020, Vance was running for the Senate in Ohio. Trump actually outran Vance. Vance underperformed Trump. So the pick is not really about those states. WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show Vance is quite smart and articulate; he’s an excellent writer. That, along with the fact he has become a Trump loyalist and an absolute bulldog when it comes to any debate, is presumably why Trump picked him. J.D. Vance is likely to clock Kamala Harris into next week in any debate. There’s a contrast with Vance. The central thesis of his bestselling “Hillbilly Elegy” was that tons of people in the middle of the country had been left behind. He wrote in “Hillbilly Elegy”:  If you believe that hard work pays off then you work hard. If you think it’s hard to get ahead, even when you try it, why try at all? Similarly, when people do fail, this mindset allows them to look outward. I once ran into an old acquaintance in a Middletown bar who told me that he had recently quit his job because he was sick of waking up early. I later saw him complaining on Facebook about the Obama economy and how it affected his life. I don’t doubt the Obama economy has affected many, but this man is assuredly not among them. His status in life is directly attributable to the choices he’s made and his life will improve only through better decisions. But for him to make better choices, he needs to live in an environment that forces him to ask some questions about himself. There’s a cultural movement in the white working class to blame problems on society or the government, and that movement gains adherents by the day. Yet that contrasts with his industrial policy. He’s very much on the interventionist economic side of the Republican aisle. He favors government interventionism in terms of subsidies and regulations, very much like President Trump supposedly did back in 2016 — although Trump didn’t actually end up implementing a lot of that. I would assume that if Vance were president, he would implement those kinds of policies. This is one of the areas he differs widely from traditional economic, free market conservatism. On trade, for example, he has been very much in favor of tariffs. He suggested a much more aggressive approach to protecting domestic manufacturers if Trump wins a second term. Trump was aggressive on tariff policy with regard to China, largely for national security reasons. But Vance is much more aggressive in terms of actual domestic protection for manufacturers. He told me in an interview I did with him in 2021, “But we also have this very discrete idea that while the government shouldn’t be controlling the American economy, we should have as a policy consensus, a view about what we want the economy to be, what we want the market to be able to produce, and to put a little bit of a thumb on the scale to make that possible.” On a generalized level, I obviously disagree with that, as I told him. I’m a more free-market advocate than Vance is, but he’s an excellent and intelligent expositor of his position on these issues. On economics, he’s made common cause from time to time with Senator Elizabeth Warren, and he has cheered on Federal Trade Commissioner Chair Lina Khan. On economics, Vance is very heterodox. He has signaled his possible willingness to hike taxes in some cases. He has spoken out in favor of breaking up some of Big Tech. That is somewhat of an open debate inside the Republican Party right now. On foreign policy, I would say Vance is not so much an isolationist, but more of a realist. That takes a rather interesting turn when it comes to the two major hot conflicts in the world right now — one in Israel and one in Ukraine. He looks at those two conflicts and sees heavy American interest in Israel. He does not see heavy American interest in Ukraine; he is famously anti-Ukraine aid. He wrote a piece in April in which he cited three reasons why there shouldn’t be any more aid to Ukraine: One: Ukraine will not be able to do with the aid what they need to do Two: The lack of American military capacity and the notion we are going to be overdoing it; that essentially if we ship them more military aid, then we are emptying our own stockpiles Three: We should be spending money at home, not abroad I think the last idea is the most flimsy because that’s always true for any conflict. Any conflict could be used as an excuse for not having a foreign policy. I also think it ignores the actual American interests in, say, preventing Russia from taking over the world’s breadbasket and then putting itself on the borders of a multiplicity of NATO’s states. If you don’t want an arms race in Europe, then presumably, a level of aid sufficient to allow Ukraine to repel Russia from a full-scale win would be the thing you’re looking for. Vance said, “I got to be honest with you; I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another.” That is a very strong statement. But he also said something that sounds very much like what Trump or I would say, which is that you support Ukraine up to the point peace can be reached with an eye on the off-ramp. When it comes to Israel, however, he does see strong American interests. At the Quincy Institute, he spelled out what he thinks America’s interests are in maintaining enough aid for Israel to be able to destroy Hamas and then to broker a peace deal with the Saudis that would create a regional security bloc. He stated: I think we have a real opportunity to ensure that Israel is an ally in the true sense, that it’s going to pursue their interests. And sometimes those interests totally overlap with the United States, and that’s totally reasonable. But they are fundamentally self-sufficient. And I think the way that we get there in Israel is actually by combining the Abraham Accords approach with the defeat of Hamas. That gets us to a place where Israel and the Sunni nations can play a regional counterweight to Iran. Again, we don’t want a broader regional war. We don’t want to get involved in a broader regional war. The best way to do that is to ensure that Israel, with the Sunni nations, can actually police their own region of the world. And that allows us to spend less time and less resources on the Middle East and focus more on East Asia.  That is a very solid realist case: the point of American aid is to foment American interests. On immigration, he very much mirrors Trump. Just last week, he slammed Jerome Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve, on illegal immigration and its impact on the economy. He noted that if you aren’t increasing wages, then you can’t undercut the labor base. I don’t think that’s a particularly great argument against immigration. There is a very strong cultural argument: that you actually have to screen people so you don’t have a massive influx not engaged in American taxpaying, American culture, or the Declaration of Independence. But Vance’s perspective obviously matches up well with the perspective of President Trump. The question I’ve always asked about Trumpism is this: Is there a Trumpism or is there only Trump? Vance is the best exponent of Trumpism — if there is, in fact, a Trumpism.

'Devised misinformation campaigns to discredit science'

'I cannot think of any simpler way to get rid of this racial slur'

'Rent control exacerbates the problem it's trying to solve'

'I had never met anyone like her'