Reader’s Links for June 4th, 2024

Posted on by

Each day at just after midnight Eastern, a post like this one is created for contributors and readers of this site to upload news links and video links on the issues that concern this site. Most notably, Islam and its effects on Classical Civilization, and various forms of leftism from Soviet era communism, to postmodernism and all the flavours of galloping statism and totalitarianism such as Nazism and Fascism which are increasingly snuffing out the classical liberalism which created our near, miraculous civilization the West has been building since the time of Socrates.

This document was written around the time this site was created, for those who wish to understand what this site is about. And while our understanding of the world and events has grown since then, the basic ideas remain sound and true to the purpose.

So please post all links, thoughts and ideas that you feel will benefit the readers of this site to the comments under this post each day. And thank you all for your contributions.

This is the new Samizdat. We must use it while we can.

For those interested, please check out https://vladtepesblog.substack.com/ as an another avenue of expression.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

28 Replies to “Reader’s Links for June 4th, 2024”

    • I have friends from that Brooklyn-Hungarian community.
      Their sophisticated parents survived concentration camp, made a new life here…
      …as passionate Communists!

  3. Watergate-Style Journalism: The Biggest Threat to Our Democracy
    thegatewaypundit.com/2024/06/watergate-style-journalism-biggest-threat-our-democracy/
    Jun. 4, 2024 10:15 am
    Watergate Hotel

    Guest post by John D. O’Connor

    The Washington Post’s pompously pretentious masthead daily proclaims: “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” as if its stellar journalism will protect us all from those who cover up the truth. But as we have seen from the recent Trump verdict, the Post’s Watergate-style journalism is being used to promote falsehood and degrade those who would help our country.

    The trial just concluded of a former President featured the admission of irrelevant, highly prejudicial and deceptive hearsay, such as Michael Cohen’s sham guilty plea to election crimes, while highly pertinent expert testimony, rejecting any campaign violation, was prohibited. The slanted jury instructions virtually directed the jury to find guilt. Yet mainstream media gave little clue of any of the foregoing.

    What does Watergate journalism have to do with this? Fifty years after Nixon resigned in disgrace, the Washington Post is still dining out on causing a theretofore popular President’s downfall. As it did with Nixon, the paper has been telling the world for the past nine years that Trump should be the next to be impeached or voted down, because he is a threat to democracy, as evidenced by his claimed lies. With Trump’s recent conviction, the Post is putting these attacks on steroids, pretending he received a fair trial. He did not.

    Examination of its Watergate reporting proves that the paper has been for over five decades perpetrating lies, first falsely accusing the likes of Nixon, and now Trump, among others. These two, with their easily villainized personas, have proven easiest to convict in the court of public opinion. One seemed characteristically sneaky, complete with a five o’clock shadow, while the other bloviates and blusters, caricatured with an orange, gravity-defying combover. Anyone who watches television knows that these are two bad guys who should be exposed within forty-four minutes, an irrational, sophomoric impression promoted by this self-proclaimed intellectual powerhouse paper.

    What the paper is now trying to do to Trump, it successfully did to Nixon. A President overwhelmingly re-elected by a landslide of 49 states in 1972, was “proven” by the Post to have won in part by a massive criminal conspiracy, thus delegitimizing what seemed theretofore to have been a fair, democratically achieved victory. Of course, if Nixon were “convicted” in the court of public opinion by a journalistic fraud, wouldn’t this deception epitomize the true danger to democracy?

    In fact, that is precisely what happened to the cartoonishly skulking Nixon, brought down by two seemingly clean-cut, sleeves-rolled-up reporters, who in fact concealed highly pertinent exculpatory information from the public, facts of which even Nixon’s Oval Office team was unaware.

    To this day, the Washington Post still claims, dishonestly, that the Watergate burglary, ridiculously silly though it seemed, was a campaign operation by a President who was irrationally afraid to lose and could not play fair. However, the burglary, the Post had known, but will not admit, was not a campaign operation at all.

    While the paper repeatedly told the public that the CIA was falsely spotlighted by Nixon as somehow being involved, the Post knew, more so than the speculating President, that the CIA was indeed behind the burglary. The burglary’s moneyman, Gordon Liddy, years later claimed he had been duped and that the prior wiretapping and subsequent bungled burglary were about prostitution. In the face of the crazed but honest Liddy’s late-blooming accusation in the 1990s, the Post adamantly, but falsely, assured its readers that this caper had not been about prostitution.

    While in fact the Post’s gold-plated source “Deep Throat”, FBI Associate Director Mark Felt, had originally hypothesized that the burglary may have been part of a White House “dirty tricks” campaign, that hypothesis was ultimately disproved. But the paper continued to tout it as proven, even though Felt later told Woodward, in the tense May, 1973, garage meeting, that the CIA was threatening murder to keep its involvement concealed.

    Did the Post print this dramatically revealed fact? It printed not a word at the time, doing so only later, and at that elliptically, in the book and the movie, to provide sensationalism, while continuing to absolve the CIA, an absolution it knew to be false.

    The Post had far more knowledge of what really happened than did Nixon’s Oval Office, which remained befuddled about who ordered the burglary and why. The Post knows that falsely accused former Attorney General John Mitchell did not order the burglary but has not reported on the logical implication of the paper’s prior incorrect reporting.

    I wrote a recent book about this journalistic coverup, thinking, naively it turns out, that the Post would give the public its best defense of these charges, which it would have done if it had acted in good faith during the scandal. But it kept mum. Isn’t this an example of democracy dying “in darkness”?

    Now to Trump, who, like Nixon, pursued popular, successful policies. Putting aside the question of election irregularities, which Trump complains prevented a narrow 2020 victory, the far greater harm to Trump came from a series of knowingly false anti-Trump accusations which the Post, together with other outlets, reported, while covering up strong contrary evidence, well before the farcical trial just completed.

    The Post and other media acolytes knew, for example, that the anti-Trump “Russian collusion” claims were most likely false, and in fact participated through one of its reporters in the entrapment of one Trump official, General Michael Flynn, the only aide who could have easily punctured this jejune “Russiagate” narrative.

    Did the Post know that Christopher Steele was in fact a regular retainer of Putin friend, Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska? And that Steele’s employer Glenn Simpson represented oligarch Denis Katsyv’s and Putin’s interests in trying to undo the Putin-despised Magnitsky Act? It knew or easily could have known these facts but covered them up. Or that Hillary Clinton and Jake Sullivan had created this story out of whole cloth?

    It also concealed that the newly-elected Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky had been supported by the country’s most corrupt oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky, represented by Hunter Biden, meaning that further foreign aid should be premised on a new anti-corruption certification, as per State Department requirements. By concealing these pertinent facts, the paper dishonestly covered up a valid basis for Trump’s demands to investigate Biden corruption. Today, we are finally realizing that much of our foreign aid to the war-torn country has been stolen. Had the paper been honest, Ukraine might have a much better chance of victory over Russia. But impeaching the hated Trump was higher on the Post’s partisan agenda.

    Of course, the Post and its bedfellows knew that Hunter Biden’s laptop was not “Russian disinformation” but covered up the story, causing Trump’s narrow loss. It knew shortly after the COVID pandemic hit that there were two successive “CGG” sequences in the virus, proving it had been developed in a lab, but adamantly advocated against the lab leak theory. Why? Because that would likely have helped Trump and hurt Anthony Fauci, thereby damaging Biden. Instead, the paper suggested that Trump was trying to falsely blame the pandemic on China and Dr. Fauci’s covert contract to fund the lab through the Obama Administration.

    Trending: Minnesota Mayor Thanks Joe Biden For Canceling His Student Loans and it Backfires Big Time

    While the Post was engaged in covering up the truth about COVID, it made sure to sensationally keep a list of 30,573 lies Trump had allegedly told. One Post claim about Trump, comprising hundreds of separate alleged falsehoods, was that the President lied when he claimed he was building a “wall” along the Mexican border. This, the Post absurdly claimed through its intrepid lie-tracking department, was in fact a “bollard-styled fence,” not a wall! I’m not making this up. Now, in the face of a grossly unfair trial, the Post gives the false impression that Trump actually committed a felony, as opposed to being the victim of a kangaroo court.

    In light of the above, who is it that is trying to see to it that our “democracy dies in darkness?” The answer is that it is not politicians who put their best foot forward, as every politician does. It is a media who, like the ancient Pharisees, stand in front of the temple to thank God that they are not sinful like other men. So, if in fact our democracy is dying in darkness, and there is strong evidence of that, exactly who are the parties attempting to kill it?

    John D. O’Connor is a former federal prosecutor and the San Francisco attorney who represented W. Mark Felt during his revelation as Deep Throat in 2005. O’Connor is the author of the books Postgate: How the Washington Post Betrayed Deep Throat, Covered Up Watergate and Began Today’s Partisan Advocacy Journalism and The Mysteries of Watergate: What Really Happened.

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/06/watergate-style-journalism-biggest-threat-our-democracy/

  4. This is real! After the Afghan jihadist massacre on camera in the German city of Mannheim, the authorities held a memorial service there for the policemen, whose throat was slit, and in the framework of progressiveness and “inclusion” they invited Muslims to lead in prayer at the ceremony.
    Amir Tsarfati – June 4, 2024
    https://t.me/beholdisraelchannel/33300

  5. Louisiana Passes Bill Ordering Surgical Castration of Convicted Pedophiles
    by Ben Kew Jun. 4, 2024 8:45 am233 Comments

    The state of Louisiana will not be a good place to be a convicted pedophile.

    On Monday, Republican lawmakers passed a bill that will allow judges to order the surgical castration of pedophiles found guilty of various sex crimes including rape, incest and molestation against any child younger than 13.

    Several other states – including Florida and Texas – already allow the chemical castration of pedophiles in certain circumstances. However, Louisiana would be the first state to impose surgical castration instead.

    “This is a consequence,” Republican state Sen. Valarie Hodges said during debates over the bill. “It’s a step over and beyond just going to jail and getting out.”

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/06/louisiana-passes-bill-ordering-surgical-castration-convicted-pedophiles/

  6. Which Movie Will It Be?
    “It’s almost as if the principals (prosecutors and judge) were performing for their political audience — with a wink, a nod and a stage whisper (“watch this!”) as they ignore yet another fundamental element of American due process.” — Jack DeVine on “X”

    Clusterfuck Nation

    For your reading pleasure Mondays and Fridays

    Support this blog by visiting Jim’s Patreon Page or Substack

    Thanks for your support

    The ninnies of Bidenworld seem to not understand that by subjecting Mr. Trump to a kangaroo court they’ve made him the kind of outlaw that Americans revere above every other archetypal hero. He’s the new American Robin Hood, the people’s outlaw — with “Joe Biden” relegated as the wicked Sir Guy of Gisbourne, master of foul play and servant of the evil regent Prince John (Barack Obama). The galvanizing moment in this melodrama was not the verdict in Judge Juan Merchan’s kangaroo corral of a court, but the next day in the White House when “Joe Biden” was asked to comment on it as he shuffled away from the podium, halted, turned, and smirked silently at the cameras, a gesture that is sure to live in infamy.

    The fun should really kick off when the judge gets to sentence Trump-the-Outlaw July 11, a few days before the Republican convention. Life in some New York state pen? A year on Rikers Island? House arrest? Who knows. But you can bet that just like Robin-of-Locksley, Donald-of-Mar-a-Lago will manage to slip out of his captors’ clutches and cleverly vanquish them. In a sane world, of course, the US Supreme Court would be entreated to adjudicate this gross insult to due process as spelled out in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    But you might have noticed that this is not a sane world, at least not these days, and not a few supposedly sober analysts, such as Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, claim that a SCOTUS review is a long-shot — which only confirms the reigning insanity since it’s hard to imagine a more compelling moment for the SCOTUS to carry out its fundamental duty: to elucidate the meaning of our Constitution and resolve disputes arising therefrom.

    Now, it looks like what we’re seeing after a few days for the shock to wear off, is a mighty righteous rage arising among the faction designated as “Red” — that is, the anti-Woke, anti-Globalist, anti-neoMarxist, anti-Deep State blob, anti-Lawfare, anti-Democratic Party chunk of the adult US population. It amounts to a recognition that we are already in some kind of civil war, and that the tactics of “Joe Biden’s” party must and will be opposed by all means. The SCOTUS is the last resort of legal means for redress in this matter, and they would punt this duty at great peril to the country.

    To clarify just what this matter is: “Joe Biden’s” White House and Department of Justice conspired with New York County (Manhattan) authorities to maliciously construct and execute a court case made of patently false charges against their principal political adversary, and with a cavalier disrespect to both state and federal law.

    As such, the “Stormy Daniels Payoff Case,” as it’s known, is just the latest ploy in a long train of lawless gambits starting with RussiaGate in 2016 (the “Steele Dossier” and all) that have left hundreds of high appointed officials in the federal bureaucracy (plus many retired from it) liable to severe criminal charges ranging as far as sedition and treason. RussiaGate may have started its life as a typical campaign prank by doofuses in the Hillary Clinton organization, but it turned seriously sinister when it was adopted by the FBI and the CIA to execute a plan to harass and defenestrate the elected president, Mr. Trump.

    With each subsequent prank, to distract from and cover-up their crimes, the same group of officials has committed more crimes, to the point that the federal government now behaves like a gigantic mafia, dedicated to nothing but crime of one kind or another. The Democratic Party has become this mob’s protective order; the old mainstream media its mouthpiece; and the people of this country increasingly its victims. Naturally, these criminals are now desperate to avoid having to account for their crimes, which is exactly and explicitly what Mr. Trump promises to make them do.

    So, there it is: a criminal regime versus the people defended by their outlaw hero. Does the SCOTUS want to aid and abet this gang of criminals — led by the way, and just so you know, by Barack Obama and his Kalorama coterie, John Brennan, Mary McCord and her Lawfare coterie, Hillary and Bill Clinton and their henchmen, and scores of additional DC lawyers, fixers, and judges — or, will the SCOTUS avert an epic crisis of legitimacy by stepping in to quash the ridiculously fake New York case just concluded?

    If they demur in some cowardly blur of excuses, then it’s onto the next truly nation-ending stage of this game. The “Joe Biden” regime would like nothing more than an outbreak of civil violence they can blame on “right-wing extremists.” In fact, they could and probably will gin that up themselves, just as they transformed the Jan-6-21 mass protest against widespread ballot fraud into a “MAGA insurrection.” You are also certainly aware of the sinister millions, mainly young men from faraway lands, who “Joe Biden” imported across the border the past three years. And you might imagine how they could be put to use against American citizens, along with the Democratic Party shock troops known as BLM and Antifa. Summer’s here and the time is right for fighting in the streets. And, of course, even if the SCOTUS puts an end to this latest bit of Lawfare fuckery, the “Joe Biden” crew can always opt to just up and kill its opponent. Nothing is beneath them now. But when that happens, we’ll be in a very different kind of movie.

    https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/which-movie-will-it-be/

  7. Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2024/06/new-study-concealed-carry-laws-dont-increase-crime/#ixzz8cCPvLsMD
    Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
    Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

    New Study Debunks Myths: Concealed Carry Laws Don’t Increase Crime, Say Experts
    Ammoland Inc. Posted on June 4, 2024 by Tred Law

    Opinion
    Comp-Tac eV2 Max Holster and eV2 Mag pouch Concealed Carry
    File Photo

    The debate over concealed carry weapon (CCW) laws is as heated as ever. With out-of-control crime and a flood of illegal alien criminals, citizen concealed carry is needed now more than ever, as recent self-defense events illustrate. Well-funded Gun control advocates tirelessly argue that these laws lead to more crime, but a new research paper “How Does Concealed Carrying of Weapons Affect Violent Crime?” by John R. Lott and Carlisle E. Moody is making waves by challenging these claims head-on. Here’s what you need to know about their findings, especially if you support gun rights.

    The Claims: More Concealed Carry Holders, More Crime?

    Anti-gun activists often say that right-to-carry laws, which allow citizens to carry concealed firearms, lead to two main problems:

    More Stolen Guns: They argue that more people carrying permitted guns means more chances for those guns to be stolen and end up in the hands of criminals.
    Interference with Police: They claim that armed citizens make it harder for police to do their jobs, reducing their effectiveness and potentially increasing crime.

    The Research: Setting the Record Straight
    ADVERTISEMENT
    SCROLL DOWN TO CONTINUE READING

    Lott and Moody set out to test these claims using solid data. Their research doesn’t just lump all CCW laws together. Instead, they look at specific factors, like the percentage of the adult population with a permit and the number of stolen guns in each state. Here’s what they found:

    Stolen Guns: Using data Lott and Moody obtained with help from Congressman Thomas Massie, the study shows that CCW permit holders are NOT a significant source of stolen guns. The research found that the coefficients on CCW permits per capita were approximately ZERO, meaning there was no significant relationship between the number of permits and the number of stolen guns. This slam closed the argument that more CCW permits equal more guns for criminals.
    Police Effectiveness: The study also found NO evidence that CCW permit holders reduce police effectiveness. The clearance rates (arrest rates) for violent crimes, such as murder, rape, robbery, and assault, showed no significant difference related to the number of CCW permits. In fact, many law enforcement officers believe that armed citizens can help reduce crime. This directly counters the claim that more people carrying guns make it harder for the police to do their jobs.

    Supporting Data

    Revocation Rates: In the 19 states with comprehensive data, the average revocation rate of CCW permits for any reason is one-tenth of 1%. This indicates that permit holders are highly law-abiding.
    Driving Violations: Data from Michigan shows that non-permit holders are 2.4 times more likely to drive drunk, 34.1 times more likely to drive under the influence of a controlled substance, and 10.6 times more likely to drive recklessly compared to permit holders.
    Police Opinion: A 2013 survey by PoliceOne found that 76% of law enforcement officers believe legally armed citizens are very or extremely important in reducing crime. Additionally, 91.3% support civilians carrying firearms if they haven’t been convicted of a felony or deemed psychologically incapable.

    Why This Matters

    For gun rights supporters, this research is a big deal. It provides strong evidence that right-to-carry laws don’t lead to the negative outcomes that anti-gun activists claim. Instead, it supports the idea that law-abiding citizens carrying firearms can coexist with effective policing without increasing crime rates.

    John Lott summed it up well: “Carl Moody and I have put together a new research paper that examines the two major reasons that gun control advocates use to claim right-to-carry laws can increase crime. We use data on the percent of the adult population with a permit, separate Constitutional Carry laws, and have data on the number of guns stolen. We must thank Congressman Thomas Massie for getting us the data on the number of guns stolen by state. I hope that you will download and read the paper. The more downloads it receives, the more you will force the researchers on the other side to respond to our research.”

    The Takeaway

    This research is a breath of fresh air for gun rights advocates. It debunks common myths about the dangers of right-to-carry laws and highlights the responsible nature of CCW permit holders. If you’re passionate about the Second Amendment, this paper is a must-read. Download it (the more downloads it receives, the more you will force the researchers on the other side to respond to the reach), share it, and help spread the truth about concealed carry laws.

    Stay informed, stay safe, and continue to stand up for your rights.

    How does concealed carrying of weapons affect violent crime?

    the study PDF is at site

  8. How Trump’s Conviction Illustrates Big Problem With Gun Laws
    By Tom Knighton | 4:29 PM | June 03, 2024
    Richard Drew

    Former President Donald Trump is now a convicted felon.

    That’s wonderful news to a lot of people, mostly because they loathe the man to such an intense degree that rationality often takes a backseat.
    Advertisement

    And that’s putting it mildly.

    Many people are enjoying pointing out that Trump can no longer lawfully own firearms. Not everyone who points it out is celebrating that fact, mind you, but many are. It doesn’t require him to change his policies on the Second Amendment or anything, but he can’t lawfully be in possession of them.

    And that’s actually a bit of a problem.

    It’s not an issue because Trump is Trump or anything of the sort, but because of something deeper than that, as Reason’s Jacob Sullum gets into.

    Trump, who had a concealed carry permit, owned at least two handguns prior to his conviction: a Heckler & Koch HK45 pistol and a .38-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver. As the New York Post notes, Trump will now have to surrender those guns and any others he has acquired or transfer them to someone (such as one of his sons) who is legally allowed to own firearms. The fact that Trump, a self-described “very strong person on the Second Amendment,” has lost the right to keep and bear arms may add to the delight of opponents who welcomed his conviction. But however you feel about Trump, this detail is a reminder that federal law arbitrarily strips people of their Second Amendment rights for reasons that have nothing to do with public safety.

    Leaving aside the shaky legal reasoning that allowed New York prosecutors to convert a hush payment into 34 felonies, falsification of business records, even to aid or conceal “another crime,” is not the sort of offense that marks someone as apt to injure or kill people with a gun. 18 USC 922(g)(1), which prohibits receipt or possession of a firearm by anyone who has been convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year of incarceration, is “wildly overinclusive,” UCLA law professor Adam Winkler notes, because it encompasses many people with no history of violence.

    “Many felonies are not violent in the least, raising no particular suspicion that the convict is a threat to public safety,” Winkler writes. “Perjury, securities law violations, embezzlement, obstruction of justice, and a host of other felonies do not indicate a propensity for dangerousness. It is hard to imagine how banning Martha Stewart or Enron’s Andrew Fastow from possessing a gun furthers public safety.”

    The same goes for Trump. Even if you buy the dubious “election fraud” narrative that a New York jury evidently accepted, disguising a hush-money reimbursement as payment for legal services puts Trump in the same boat as white-collar offenders such as Stewart and Fastow. Notwithstanding Trump’s joke that he “could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody” without losing any votes, that is not the sort of crime that even his most vociferous opponents think he is likely to commit.

    Advertisement

    Exactly.

    See, the issue is that Trump is a high-profile case of someone who, like Stewart, was convicted of a crime that has absolutely no violent component. Even if you accept the official narrative about Trump’s actions unequivocally, the truth of the matter is that the crime doesn’t represent a threat to public safety.

    Even if you buy that he’s guilty of some kind of election fraud, people who commit that kind of crime rarely resort to knocking over their neighborhood liquor store later on.

    We tend to think of felons as a monolithic category, where pretty much everyone with the label is a bad person who cannot be trusted in a civil society, but there’s a world of difference between an armed robber and, say, a tax evader.

    Hell, were it not for the threat of a felony conviction, I’d classify tax evasion as a civic duty rather than a crime.

    In this case, the person being disarmed is Donald Trump, which anti-gunners are likely to celebrate. However, one can’t help but think about the fact that many of those same people often take issue with how our criminal justice system works. They’re willing to put dangerous people back on the streets, often after making it clear they will violate every gun law on the books, but they don’t see any reason to look at Trump and recognize how he’s not a threat to public safety.

    Neither are millions of other non-violent felons who often don’t even get prison time.

    https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2024/06/03/how-trumps-conviction-illustrates-a-big-problem-with-gun-laws-n1225110

  9. Cold Feet: Biden Says Trump Doesn’t Deserve to Be President “Whether or Not I’m Running”
    thegatewaypundit.com/2024/06/cold-feet-biden-says-trump-doesnt-deserve-be/
    Jun. 4, 2024 12:20 pm

    It has been long rumored the Democratic party is looking to replace Joe Biden as their Democratic presidential nominee but a recent report from MNSBC senior Political analyst Eugene Daniels has added more flames to those rumors.

    In a post on X, MSNBC analyst Eugene Daniels wrote, “Biden on Trump at a fundraiser tonight: “This guy does not deserve to be president whether or not I’m running.”

    Biden made the comments during his fundraising event in Greenwich, Connecticut.

    LOOK:

    Biden on Trump at a fundraiser tonight:
    “This guy does not deserve to be president whether or not I’m running.”

    — Eugene Daniels (@EugeneDaniels2) June 4, 2024

    Biden told the crowd of donors, “But as disturbing as that is, more damaging is the all-out assault Donald Trump is making on the American system of justice.”

    Per The Washington Examiner:

    President Joe Biden did not tiptoe around former President Donald Trump’s felony conviction at a Monday fundraiser, his first since a New York jury handed down the verdict in Trump’s hush money case.

    “Folks, the campaign entered unchartered territory last week,” Biden told donors in Greenwich, Connecticut, four days after Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up his alleged affair with porn star Stormy Daniels. “For the first time in American history, a former president that is a convicted felon is now seeking the office of the presidency.”

    “But as disturbing as that is, more damaging is the all-out assault Donald Trump is making on the American system of justice,” he added. “Now, he will be given an opportunity to appeal.”

    “This guy does not deserve to be president whether or not I’m running,” he said.

    As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, Michelle Obama and California Governor Gavin Newsom’s names have been brought up as potential replacements for Biden as the Democratic presidential nominee.

    Michelle Obama and Gov. Newsom both denied that they would run for president

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/06/cold-feet-biden-says-trump-doesnt-deserve-be/

  10. The Fake Conviction
    By Newt Gingrich
    June 03, 2024
    The Fake Conviction
    U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Thomas Scaggs, Wikimedia Commons

    Americans are now being forced to think through the first fake conviction in the history of presidential politics.

    As an historian, I am really bothered when I hear lawyers on television describe these proceedings as though they were somehow related to the rule of law and the normal legal process.

    It is clear that what happened to President Donald J. Trump in Judge Juan Merchan’s court was not a legitimate conviction. Nearly every element of the prosecution was false. Therefore, the outcome is false.

    To say President Trump is now a convicted felon – as the left and its propaganda media allies are practically singing – is to legitimize the most corrupt judicial event in American presidential history.

    The burden of proof is not on President Trump. He remains an innocent citizen framed by an astonishingly corrupt district attorney, judge, and Biden Justice Department.

    Don’t take my word for it alone. Consider what a host of experts have to say.

    Alan Dershowitz, professor emeritus at Harvard, sat through much of the trial and condemned it with strong language in his newsletter:

    “I have observed and participated in trials throughout the world. I have seen justice and injustice in China, Russia, Ukraine, England, France, Italy, Israel, as well as in nearly 40 of our 50 states.

    But in my 60 years as a lawyer and law professor, I have never seen a spectacle such as the one I observed sitting in the front row of the courthouse yesterday.

    “The judge in Donald Trump’s trial was an absolute tyrant, though he appeared to the jury to be a benevolent despot. He seemed automatically to be ruling against the defendant at every turn.”

    George Washington Law professor and legal analyst Jonathan Turley said, “Before jurors left, however, Judge Juan Merchan framed their deliberations in a way that seemed less like a jury deliberation than a canned hunt.”

    Attorney Mike Davis on the Just the News “No Noise” TV show said: “I would say the first one is there is no crime here. They waited until after this multi-week trial to even tell the criminal defendant what the legal allegations he was supposed to defend himself in that prior trial. He had no opportunity to defend himself.”

    An innocent citizen being “hunted,” in Turley’s language, cannot be honestly convicted. That is why I argue this is a fake conviction.

    Again, I’m not the only one who thinks this.

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who is hardly a fan of President Trump, said, “These charges never should have been brought in the first place. I expect the conviction to be overturned on appeal.”

    House Speaker Mike Johnson called it “a shameful day in American history,” and continued, “Alvin Bragg targeted a political opponent, made up unprecedented charges, and denied him his Constitutional right to a fair trial.”

    House Republican Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik summarized the corruption and dishonesty brilliantly:

    “The facts are clear: this was a zombie case illegally brought forward by a corrupt prosecutor doing Joe Biden’s political bidding in a desperate attempt to save Joe Biden’s failing campaign.

    She pointed out that the case hinged on the word of Michael Cohen, who has a history of perjury and an axe to grind with Trump. She pointed out that Judge Merchan’s own family members benefited financially from the case, that he levied unconstitutional gag orders on Trump, and repeatedly sided with the prosecution throughout the case.

    Mark Steyn captured why we must insist that the conviction is fake and reject any effort to suggest that Trump is guilty. As Steyn wrote: “pretending that there is anything ‘great’ about this that should command our ‘respect,’ is making evil and corruption respectable and bi-partisan.”

    Ironically, in a Senate hearing involving smears and sexually salacious accusations chaired by then-Sen. Joe Biden 33 years ago, we were taught how to stand up to outrageous, corrupt, and disgusting behavior by then-Supreme Court Justice nominee Clarence Thomas.

    After being repeatedly slandered by senators on Biden’s committee, on Oct. 11, 1991, Thomas said:

    “This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. And from my standpoint as a black American, as far as I’m concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate, rather than hung from a tree.”

    A generation later, President Trump, is learning what Justice Thomas learned in 1991: Challenge the establishment, and it will go all out to destroy you.

    Every time you talk with someone who says President Trump is a convicted felon, point out it is a fake conviction. Challenge them to defend the dishonest, corrupt people who are putting the nation through this mess – starting with President Biden, the leader of the corrupt and dishonest.

    https://www.realclearwire.com/articles/2024/06/03/the_fake_conviction_1035565.html

  11. Post
    Conversation
    Mark R. Levin
    @marklevinshow
    A good friend, who is a seasoned Supreme Court litigator and all-around outstanding attorney, urges Republican state attorneys general to sue the state of New York for its lawfare against President Trump (I have written about and discussed that President Trump’s lawyers should consider seeking common law writs for reasons I won’t restate here), which would create a second and wholly independent basis for paving a path to the Supreme Court via original jurisdiction. Obviously, one cannot predict what the Supreme Court would do, but they provide the justices with the ability to decide whether to act, which they surely should. These are extraordinarily dangerous times for our republic, which requires smart and experienced appellate lawyers to seek legitimate avenues to the Supreme Court, however rare but nonetheless appropriate and serious, to help protect the Constitution and the Republic. Here is what my friend wrote:

    THE STATE OF NEW YORK SHOULD BE SUED IN THE SUPREME COURT
    New York prosecutors have sought and obtained civil and criminal judgments under unique New York laws against Donald Trump in New York courts before New York judges shortly before the Presidential election. Their purpose and the necessary effect of what they have done is to interfere in the forthcoming federal election by persuading voters in “swing states” not to cast ballots for “electors” who would choose Trump to be President. The legal validity of these New York judgments has been challenged, but cannot be determined before the election.

    “Electors” are the individuals whose commitment and vote under the Constitution’s Twelfth Amendment will determine whether Joe Biden or Donald Trump will be our President from January 2025 until January 2029. They will be selected in all States by the voters’ choice for Biden or Trump in the election to be held on November 5, and will formally cast their votes in the “Electoral College” that will assemble on January 6, 2025.

    The Supreme Court said in Burroughs v. United States, 290 U.S. 534, (1934) that even though presidential electors are not “officers or agents of the federal government,” they “exercise federal functions under, and discharge duties in virtue of authority conferred by, the Constitution of the United States.” A single State may not deliberately utilize its local laws, invoked by prosecutors, and implemented by judges who affiliate with one national party, to tilt the voting for electors in other States. Because of instant communication attributable to modern technology New York State can deliberately interfere with voting across the country. The Supreme Court in Burroughs quoted with approval the decision in Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, 657 (1884), that it is proper “to secure this election [of electors] from the influence of violence, of corruption, and of fraud.”

    What New York has achieved (and what it will accomplish unless the Supreme Court takes prompt remedial action) is to make this and future federal Presidential elections chaotic and unpredictable. It subjects them to aggressive attack on one candidate by a single partisan State choosing to weaponize its local laws and courts.

    New York’s effort to prejudice the Presidential election is comparable to Colorado’s determination, unanimously vacated by the Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. 100 (2024), to remove one Presidential candidate from its ballot. Colorado purported to invoke a federal constitutional provision, but it was also a one-State effort to interfere with the Presidential election.

    New York’s conduct is more egregious, will cause more lasting damage, and calls more crucially for a Supreme Court remedy than what Florida’s courts did, and the Court reversed, after the 2000 Presidential election was held, but the vote count in Florida was not completed. Because this year’s election process is ongoing, a more extreme perversion of a fair and uncorrupted choice by voters can be perpetrated by New York’s sentencing decision and by enforcement of the civil judgment. Both would be based entirely on New York’s local laws and will be announced by its partisan local judges to be exploited by instant publicity across the country.

    States like Texas, Florida, Tennessee, North Dakota, Utah, and others that are strongly Republican could sue New York in an Original Action in the Supreme Court under the provision of federal law that authorizes actions in the Supreme Court of controversies between States (28 U.S.C. 1251(a)). They could seek, as relief, that New York be ordered to vacate the New York judgments against Trump. This relief does not depend on any determination by the Supreme Court that either of the local New York judgments misapplies New York law (which is probable), but because the judgments were designed – and are being invoked – to corrupt the Presidential election in “swing states” like Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, among others. If the Court fails to intervene, New York will succeed in unraveling a national electoral process that was set in place with the birth of the Constitution and has peacefully endured through the nation’s most tumultuous and partisan periods.

    The Court should also lay down a prophylactic rule to protect future Presidential elections from similar interference. It should declare that a State may not, in the year of a Presidential election, initiate any civil or criminal action that is based entirely on that State’s local law in its State courts against a Presidential candidate. The civil and criminal cases against Trump in the New York courts (or in Georgia’s local court) could be pursued and tried (if the prosecutors were still interested) after the election.

    Such a rule would be critical in the 2028 election. Incumbent President Biden has not been sued or prosecuted in the local courts of deeply Republican States because he has presidential immunity. But if the 2028 election involved no incumbent, the Republican States could do what New York has done to Trump and what future Democratic prosecutors are likely to emulate in their States– prosecute and sue the opposing candidate shortly before election before a judge who will probably have similar political views and secure one or more judgments that can be publicized and may have substantial effect in “swing states.”
    9:36 AM · Jun 4, 2024
    ·
    189.1K
    Views

    https://x.com/marklevinshow/status/1798000861358019017

  14. Company That Bred Beagles For Dr. Fauci Faces $35 Million Fine For Animal Cruelty

  15. David M. Weinberg
    The Problem with Washington’s Offer to End the Conflict

    Washington is working overtime to sanitize a series of failed concepts and press them on Israel, such as a “revitalized Palestinian Authority,” “international security guarantees,” “accommodation with Iran,” and “regional integration.” The first is a fantasy, the second ridiculous, the third ruinous, the fourth premature.

    Relying on Mahmoud Abbas’s terror-glorifying Palestinian Authority as a ruling alternative to Hamas would be insane. The PA is both incapable and unwilling to be the moderating force in Palestinian politics that everybody is yearning for…

    The main problem with these concepts is that they sideline the most important strategic goal of the moment, which is Israeli victory – the necessity of a crushing Israeli victory over Hamas. Without that, Israel’s deterrent power is forever shot to hell, and no stable peace can come…

    The writer is a senior fellow at the Misgav Institute for National Security and Israel office director of CANADA’s [*\o/*] Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

    https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-804442

  16. The Israel-Hamas Conflict Is a Zero-Sum Game

    President Joe Biden’s speech Friday, laying out a proposal for a hostage-ceasefire deal with Hamas, urged Hamas “to take the deal.” But it’s not so simple. Hamas will only take the deal if it thinks it can survive and rebuild and resume its efforts to destroy Israel. The proposal requires Hamas to consent to its own effective demise. Why, one must ask, would it agree to do that?

    Biden’s detailed exposition of the Israeli proposal did not include specific reference to Hamas’s demands for the release of all security prisoners recaptured since the 2011 Shalit prisoner exchange, or to Hamas’s insistence that it will choose which life-term murderous terrorists go free early in the deal in exchange for female hostage Israeli soldiers, or to Hamas’s rejection of Israel’s demand for a veto on major terrorists being released into the West Bank – a combination of Hamas demands that are plainly calculated to spark escalated terrorism against Israeli targets in and from the West Bank.

    The Israel-Hamas conflict is a zero-sum game: Israel wants to destroy Hamas; Hamas wants to survive and get back to destroying Israel. Neither side will agree to terms that definitively thwart its core goals.

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/bidens-fateful-carefully-timed-and-highly-complex-challenge-to-netanyahu-and-hamas/
    …….
    The whole article is solid.
    David Horovitz is a gifted celebrity journalist who has been on the left for entire career. Post- 10/7 he seems to have seen the light. [B”H]

    • He still hates Bibi and the religious Zionists who vote for him.
      That’s ok, that’s his experience and he lives there. But now he’s able to elucidate real issues of vast importance rather than fall back on ad hominem cliches.

  17. WORLD WAR III WATCH: NATO Drawing Up Plans to Deploy American Soldiers to the Front Line to Potentially Fight Russia in An All-Out War
    thegatewaypundit.com/2024/06/world-war-iii-watch-nato-drawing-up-plans/
    Jun. 4, 2024 4:20 pm
    Credit: Daily Mail

    The globalists in charge are interested in potentially expanding the already devastating Ukraine-Russia war beyond the borders of the respective two nations.

    The Daily Mail reported Tuesday that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is preparing plans to deploy American forces to the frontlines on the European continent to potentially fight a war with Russia.

    Such a dangerous move has the potential to put our men and women in direct harm’s way against a nation with the most nuclear weapons on Earth.

    From the Daily Mail Mail:

    NATO is drawing up plans to send American troops to the frontlines of Europe in the event of an all-out conflict with Russia, it has been revealed

    New ‘land corridors’ are being carved out to quickly funnel soldiers through central Europe without local bureaucratic impediments, allowing NATO forces to pounce in an instant should Putin’s devastating war in Ukraine move further west.

    The plans are said to include contingencies in case of Russian bombardment, letting troops sweep into the Balkans via corridors in Italy, Greece and Turkey, or towards Russia’s northern border via Scandinavia.

    The plans under development show that American soldiers would land at one of five ports across the European continent. Four would allow access to Ukraine’s western border, while a fifth would reach Russia’s border via Finland.

    Reports from last year have indicated that the alliance could provide “300,000 troops at high readiness” in the event of a war with Russia. Since the United States bears up to 70% of the total defense spending of all the countries in the NATO alliance, one can be sure they will provide a majority of these forces.

    The ultimate goal of this developing scheme is to ensure that NATO forces can push through Europe without any unnecessary delays caused by local bureaucratic red tape and checkpoints, according to the Mail.

    It is a safe bet French President Emmanuel Macron is on board with these plans. The Gateway Pundit previously reported that Macron refused to rule out sending European troops to fight Russian soldiers in Ukraine, a move Russian President Vladimir Putin’s foreign intelligence chief called “extremely dangerous and irresponsible.”

    Retired U.S. Army Colonel and former Secretary of Defense Advisor Douglas MacGregor summed this disturbing news best with the following question: What is NATO thinking?

    BREAKING: NATO now planning to get US troops to the front-line to fight RUSSIA..

    What are they thinking?

    NATO has disclosed its preparations to deploy American troops to the European frontlines in the event of a full-scale conflict with Russia.

    Innovative ‘land corridors’… pic.twitter.com/vmuMG1nCVH

    — Douglas Macgregor (@DougAMacgregor) June 4, 2024

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/06/world-war-iii-watch-nato-drawing-up-plans/

  18. WORLD WAR III WATCH: NATO Drawing Up Plans to Deploy American Soldiers to the Front Line to Potentially Fight Russia in An All-Out War
    thegatewaypundit.com/2024/06/world-war-iii-watch-nato-drawing-up-plans/
    Jun. 4, 2024 4:20 pm
    Credit: Daily Mail

    The globalists in charge are interested in potentially expanding the already devastating Ukraine-Russia war beyond the borders of the respective two nations.

    The Daily Mail reported Tuesday that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is preparing plans to deploy American forces to the frontlines on the European continent to potentially fight a war with Russia.

    Such a dangerous move has the potential to put our men and women in direct harm’s way against a nation with the most nuclear weapons on Earth.

    From the Daily Mail Mail:

    NATO is drawing up plans to send American troops to the frontlines of Europe in the event of an all-out conflict with Russia, it has been revealed

    New ‘land corridors’ are being carved out to quickly funnel soldiers through central Europe without local bureaucratic impediments, allowing NATO forces to pounce in an instant should Putin’s devastating war in Ukraine move further west.

    The plans are said to include contingencies in case of Russian bombardment, letting troops sweep into the Balkans via corridors in Italy, Greece and Turkey, or towards Russia’s northern border via Scandinavia.

    The plans under development show that American soldiers would land at one of five ports across the European continent. Four would allow access to Ukraine’s western border, while a fifth would reach Russia’s border via Finland.

    Reports from last year have indicated that the alliance could provide “300,000 troops at high readiness” in the event of a war with Russia. Since the United States bears up to 70% of the total defense spending of all the countries in the NATO alliance, one can be sure they will provide a majority of these forces.

    The ultimate goal of this developing scheme is to ensure that NATO forces can push through Europe without any unnecessary delays caused by local bureaucratic red tape and checkpoints, according to the Mail.

    It is a safe bet French President Emmanuel Macron is on board with these plans. The Gateway Pundit previously reported that Macron refused to rule out sending European troops to fight Russian soldiers in Ukraine, a move Russian President Vladimir Putin’s foreign intelligence chief called “extremely dangerous and irresponsible.”

    Retired U.S. Army Colonel and former Secretary of Defense Advisor Douglas MacGregor summed this disturbing news best with the following question: What is NATO thinking?

    BREAKING: NATO now planning to get US troops to the front-line to fight RUSSIA..

    What are they thinking?

    NATO has disclosed its preparations to deploy American troops to the European frontlines in the event of a full-scale conflict with Russia.

    Innovative ‘land corridors’… pic.twitter.com/vmuMG1nCVH

    — Douglas Macgregor (@DougAMacgregor) June 4, 2024

    ttps://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/06/world-war-iii-watch-nato-drawing-up-plans/

  19. HERE WE GO… Democrat War Pig Proposes Automatic Registration for Wartime Draft
    thegatewaypundit.com/2024/06/here-we-go-democrat-war-pig-proposes-automatic/
    Jun. 4, 2024 3:20 pm
    U.S. Soldiers from Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, U.S. Army Europe and members of Romania’s 21st Mountain Division assess an area of land for the site survey for a location for the soon-to-be-founded Forward Operating Base (FOB) Mescall, Afghanistan, March 25, 2009, near FOB Lagman, Afghanistan. (U.S. Army photo by Christopher S. Barnhart/Released)

    Democrat Representative Chrissy Houlahan is pushing a proposal that automatically registers men for the draft when they turn 18.

    Rep. Chrissy Houlahan is a Democrat representing Pennsylvania’s 6th Congressional District.

    Houlahan is a former Air Force officer.

    Joe Biden and Democrats are itching for a war with nuclear Russia.

    Last week Joe Biden gave Ukraine permission to carry out missile strikes inside Russia using US weapons.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin responded to the move warning of the possibility of “full-scale Third World War” following the announcement.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin openly acknowledging the ‘possibility’ of ‘a full-scale Third World War’ as he threatens ‘fatal consequences’ for western allies allowing Ukraine use of their weapons on Russian soil.#ThirdWorldWar https://t.co/HzgSSspVG1

    — alihassansahb (@alihassansahb) June 4, 2024

    Task and Purpose reported:

    American men ages 18 to 25 would be automatically signed up for the draft if a measure making its way through Congress becomes law.

    The proposal by Rep. Chrissy Houlahan would mean that men would be automatically registered for the draft when they turn 18. Under current federal law, all American male citizens and green card holders 18 to 25 years old must register with the Selective Service, but the requirement to do so falls on individuals. Those roles would be the basis of a military draft if Congress or the President decided to implement one, which Houlahan’s proposed measure does not address.

    Women would continue to be exempt from Selective Service registration under the proposal submitted as an amendment to the national defense policy bill for fiscal year 2025.

    During debate on her amendment last week, Houlahan argued that the measure would allow Congress to spend more money on “readiness and towards mobilization” instead of “education and advertising campaigns driven to register people.”

    According to the Selective Service’s annual report to Congress for 2022, the national registration rate that year for qualified men was 84%.

    The Selective Service says it will spend $33 million this year on programs “to improve registration compliance rates” — money that might not have to be spent if registration was automatic.

    “We really sort of saw this as a chance to both save government resources, save taxpayer dollars and to help young men avoid the special challenges later in life that can come from not having registered,” a congressional aide for Houlahan told Task & Purpose.

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/06/here-we-go-democrat-war-pig-proposes-automatic/

  20. Words of wisdom from Blackrock’s CEO, Larry Fink:

    “ l could argue in the developed countries, the big winners are countries that have shrinking populations. The social problems that one will have in substituting humans for machines is going to be far easier in those countries that have declining populations “.

  21. WaPo:
    News site editor’s ties to Iran, Russia show misinformation’s complexity

    Recently unearthed documents reveal that leaders of an online news site aimed at Americans have received money from both Russian and Iranian government media outlets, showing how widening geopolitical alliances are making it harder to identify and trace foreign influence operations.

    Hacked emails and other documents from the Iranian government-funded Press TV show payments of thousands of dollars to a writer who is now a Washington-based editor for Grayzone, whose founder regularly appears on Russian television and once accepted a trip to Moscow for a celebration of Russian state-controlled video network RT that featured Vladimir Putin.

    The files appear to show that the Iranian broadcaster paid a Washington-based reporter for occasional contributions to its programming in 2020 and 2021 while he was working as a correspondent for Russia’s Sputnik news outlet…

    Grayzone posts content on the web, X and YouTube and has been highly critical of Iran’s regional enemy Israel and its supporters in the United States. Reed did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Grayzone top editor Max Blumenthal did not answer emails seeking comment…

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/06/02/grayzone-russia-iran-support/
    https://archive.ph/OsSBQ
    ……………..
    Yeah, thanks for the heads-up on disinfo, WaPo.
    ~lol~
    Grayzone is indeed foul. The editor-in-chief, Max, is the son of the Clinton Family’s rabid dog, Sid Blumenthal. Aaron Maté is another kapo-dhimmi there. Very smart, persuasive, dangerous.