Mediaboss Marketing

One of President Donald Trump's sons headed to New England to campaign on his behalf on Thursday. Eric Trump spoke to an enthusiastic crowd at the Trump campaign field office in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, before heading to the Camp Ellis Pier in Saco for an event entitled, "Fighting for Maine Lobster with Eric Trump." In Maine, Eric Trump, who was joined by former Maine Gov. Paul LePage, talked about how the Trump administration is now helping fishermen, some hurt by China's cutting imports of lobster in response to Trump trade tariffs. But Trump was quick to attack Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and the Democrats. "These are people who've never accomplished anything in their lives. You have Biden, who has been a politician for 47 years, the guy has never once signed a paycheck, he's never created a job," Trump said. The president's 36-year-old son criticized certain protesters and appealed to the crowd's support of Second Amendment rights. "It's not just the war on enforcement right now from the radical left, it's a war on Christianity, it's the war on religion, it's a war on family values," Trump said. "The same people that want to get rid of all law enforcement also want to take away your guns." Eric Trump was in Georgia earlier in the week before making the trek to New England. On Friday, he'll be appearing on his dad's behalf in Pennsylvania.

One of President Donald Trump's sons headed to New England to campaign on his behalf on Thursday.

Eric Trump spoke to an enthusiastic crowd at the Trump campaign field office in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, before heading to the Camp Ellis Pier in Saco for an event entitled, "Fighting for Maine Lobster with Eric Trump."

In Maine, Eric Trump, who was joined by former Maine Gov. Paul LePage, talked about how the Trump administration is now helping fishermen, some hurt by China's cutting imports of lobster in response to Trump trade tariffs. But Trump was quick to attack Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and the Democrats.

"These are people who've never accomplished anything in their lives. You have Biden, who has been a politician for 47 years, the guy has never once signed a paycheck, he's never created a job," Trump said.

The president's 36-year-old son criticized certain protesters and appealed to the crowd's support of Second Amendment rights.

"It's not just the war on enforcement right now from the radical left, it's a war on Christianity, it's the war on religion, it's a war on family values," Trump said. "The same people that want to get rid of all law enforcement also want to take away your guns."

Eric Trump was in Georgia earlier in the week before making the trek to New England. On Friday, he'll be appearing on his dad's behalf in Pennsylvania.

This content is imported from Twitter.You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

Visit link:
Eric Trump makes appearances in NH, Maine on father's behalf - WMUR Manchester

Johnson County Commissioner Mike Brown urged constituents to buy firearms and prepare for a coming war" in a Facebook post that described a chaotic end to law and order. Brown, a Republican, used the hashtags All Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter as he described violence, burning churches" and looting stores in the weekend post. I hear the war drum off in the distance from a not far away place foreshadowing in whispers the haunting cadence of the coming war," he wrote, urging people to buy a firearm and ammunition and take a class now to learn how to safely use it to defend yourself and your property, know what's happening around you at all times."The post is no longer public, but Brown said on Tuesday its the Left thats beating the war drum.And they know exactly what they're doing, Brown said.Brown said the post is a message to elected officials. He blames Democratic leaders, including Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas, for not stopping violence and supporting local protesters.Lucas, a Democrat, retweeted images of it Monday and described the message as racist and reckless. Brown said the post is not a call to violence on his part.You have a Second Amendment right that guarantees your First Amendment right, Brown said. Your Second Amendment right, you should exercise that just like you exercise your First Amendment right. It is most certainly not a call to violence.Johnson County Commission chairman Ed Eilert noted that Brown was up for election in November.The voters in his district do have a decision to make," he said in an interview Tuesday with The Associated Press. We want our community safe. We want law enforcement to operate in a safe environment. The feedback I read, and I hear, is people looked at that post and saw indications that there was a violent note to it. We understand free speech and Second Amendment rights, but it left the opportunity for many, many people to come away with the idea that it promoted violence.Brown's commentary comes after President Donald Trump said while laying out his case for re-election that a Joe Biden presidency would give free rein to violent anarchists, a contention that Biden has disputed.Brown wrote the post following the shooting of two sheriffs deputies in California.Brown said hes received lots of positive comments from people who read his full post. He thinks people criticizing have not read the whole thing.During his term, Brown has come under fire multiple times for his Facebook posts, including in March when he wrote that the COVID-19 pandemic is a political stunt and told constituents to get a grip. In recent months, Brown has sparred with other commissioners and public health officials over COVID-19 restrictions and the mask mandate.The Associated Press contributed to this story.

Johnson County Commissioner Mike Brown urged constituents to buy firearms and prepare for a coming war" in a Facebook post that described a chaotic end to law and order.

Brown, a Republican, used the hashtags All Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter as he described violence, burning churches" and looting stores in the weekend post.

I hear the war drum off in the distance from a not far away place foreshadowing in whispers the haunting cadence of the coming war," he wrote, urging people to buy a firearm and ammunition and take a class now to learn how to safely use it to defend yourself and your property, know what's happening around you at all times."

The post is no longer public, but Brown said on Tuesday its the Left thats beating the war drum.

And they know exactly what they're doing, Brown said.

Brown said the post is a message to elected officials. He blames Democratic leaders, including Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas, for not stopping violence and supporting local protesters.

Lucas, a Democrat, retweeted images of it Monday and described the message as racist and reckless.

This content is imported from Twitter.You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

Brown said the post is not a call to violence on his part.

You have a Second Amendment right that guarantees your First Amendment right, Brown said. Your Second Amendment right, you should exercise that just like you exercise your First Amendment right.

It is most certainly not a call to violence.

Johnson County Commission chairman Ed Eilert noted that Brown was up for election in November.

The voters in his district do have a decision to make," he said in an interview Tuesday with The Associated Press. We want our community safe. We want law enforcement to operate in a safe environment. The feedback I read, and I hear, is people looked at that post and saw indications that there was a violent note to it.

We understand free speech and Second Amendment rights, but it left the opportunity for many, many people to come away with the idea that it promoted violence.

Brown's commentary comes after President Donald Trump said while laying out his case for re-election that a Joe Biden presidency would give free rein to violent anarchists, a contention that Biden has disputed.

Brown wrote the post following the shooting of two sheriffs deputies in California.

Brown said hes received lots of positive comments from people who read his full post. He thinks people criticizing have not read the whole thing.

During his term, Brown has come under fire multiple times for his Facebook posts, including in March when he wrote that the COVID-19 pandemic is a political stunt and told constituents to get a grip.

In recent months, Brown has sparred with other commissioners and public health officials over COVID-19 restrictions and the mask mandate.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

See the original post here:
Questions raised after JoCo Commissioner's post urges followers to arm themselves for 'coming war' - KMBC Kansas City

A little-noticed casualty of Democrats impeachment push against President Donald Trump last year was gun control, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., says.

In an interview for my book Abuse of Power: Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump, Massie noted that the president was ready to pull the trigger on a federal law allowing orders to disallow possession of a gun because of extreme risk, commonly known as a red flag law.

Ive told my colleagues, the one good thing to come out of impeachment is that it knocked gun control in the head, Massie said.

The impeachment was nearly certain to fail in the Senate. But, Massie said, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was up against progressives strong demand for impeaching Trump, and she faced the choice of getting a major policy achievement for her side or jeopardizing her speakership.

Red flag laws allow nonstate actorssuch as family members,teachers, or employersto request that a hearing be held on whether someone close to them should have the right to possess firearms temporarily revoked because he or she is an extreme risk of danger to self or others.

Currently, 17 states and the District of Columbia have some such law, but no federal law of this type exists.

What follows is an adapted excerpt from my book Abuse of Power.

***

In early August 2019, two mass shootings in Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, Texas, occurred within 13 hours of one another during one weekend, murdering 31 people and wounding dozens.

President Trump expressed actual enthusiasm for red flag laws, which are extreme-risk protection orders that allow authorities to confiscate guns in specific cases, such as when a known deranged person owns a firearm.

The National Rifle Association wasnt thrilled, issuing a statement saying there needs to be real evidence of dangerand we cannot sacrifice anyones constitutional rights without due process.

The Second Amendment rights group added: It is not enough anymore to simply say that we need more background checks. Considering both suspects in El Paso and Dayton passed them, that is rhetoric for billionaire activists and campaign ralliesnot a call for constructive progress.

The NRA has a good track record of winning arguments, but Trump said he thought the organization either would come along with him on red flag laws or stay neutral.

I think my base relies very much on common sense, and they rely on me in terms of telling them whats happening, Trump told reporters outside the White House before boarding Marine One on Aug. 9, 2019. I think meaningful background checks are really positive. Politically, I dont know. Good, bad, or indifferent, I dont want crazy people having guns.

Referring to NRA Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre, Trump sounded a tad presumptuous, asserting, In the end, Wayne and the NRA will either be there or may be a little bit more neutral. That would be OK, too.

Clearly, a Democrat House would pass a measure that allowed for gun confiscation. But Trump added that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., was totally on board.

Talking to the press, Trump seemed to think this was a unique opportunity where a Republican president would sign a gun control measure.

I think with a lot of the success weve had; I think Ive got a greater influence over the Senate and over the House. I think we can get something really good done, Trump said. I think we can have some really meaningful background checks. We dont want people who are mentally ill, people who are sick, we dont want them having guns.

Trump might have been correct that the NRA and Republican leadership eventually would be on board. Perhaps the NRA was willing to have a throwdown with the president, but it risked alienating many of its members to do so, and worse, could risk damaging Trump and making an anti-Second Amendment Democrat president more likely.

Trump could have pressed the common sense angle that it was only taking guns from crazy people.

Some activist and Republican members of Congress would have opposed the measure. But McConnell and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., likely would not challenge the president on something he was committed to, and would whip enough of their caucus to vote with almost all Democrats to pass the measure.

A substantial number of progressives in Congress likely would have become born-again Second Amendment advocates, fearful that Trump was trampling on civil liberties and eager to oppose him on anything.

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., werent going to walk away from a watershed gun control measure.

Trump and Pelosi would have declared victory in a bipartisan win. But for the left, it would have been a crowning achievement.

The capacityat the federal levelto confiscate guns from anyone might have allowed Democrats to get their foot in the door.

All this, of course, would have to be adjudicated in court, but thats never a certaintyparticularly if Chief Justice John Roberts is reluctant to strike down congressionally enacted laws. In this case, such reluctance would be more pronounced in striking down a bipartisan law.

So a red flag law was locked and loaded once the August recess was over and lawmakers returned in September 2019.

Then impeachment fever erupted over Trumps phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

The biggest policy impact is gun control. Trump was going to do a red flag law, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., noted in an interview for this book.

Its something Massie said he and many of his other conservative colleagues would have fought.

But the Kentucky Republican doubts they would have been successful.

Trump was under tremendous pressure to do gun control and work out a deal with Democrats, Massie said. The speaker had the choice of getting a major policy achievement for her side or jeopardizing her speakership. She chose her speakership.

Ive told my colleagues [that] the one good thing to come out of impeachment is that it knocked gun control in the head.

See original here:
How Trump Impeachment 'Knocked Gun Control in the Head' - Daily Signal

ATLANTA (AP) Joe Biden is resisting calls from President Donald Trump and even some fellow Democrats to release his list of potential Supreme Court picks seven months after he pledged to name the first Black female justice.

Some on the left suggest that outlining potential picks would help Biden build enthusiasm in the final weeks of the campaign, particularly after he already selected California Sen. Kamala Harris as his running mate, making her the first Black woman on a major presidential ticket. Trump, meanwhile, is eager to comb through a list to find possible nominees who would bolster his false depiction of Biden as an extreme liberal.

Trump helped insert the Supreme Court squarely into presidential politics in 2016 by taking the unprecedented step of releasing a list of potential nominees before he was elected, a move that helped rally the conservatives who ultimately carried him to victory.

But some of Bidens allies say a list wont provide the same payoff for him and could hurt him by distracting voters from Trumps handling of the coronavirus and give the president fuel to suggest Bidens choices are too far left.

Why play into Trumps hands? asked Karen Finney, a prominent Black Democratic strategist.

Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, a Biden protg and confidant, pointed to the former vice presidents 36 years in the Senate and his brand as a liberal pragmatist as assurance enough for voters.

He doesnt need to issue some lists in order for Democrats to be comfortable that they know his values and his priorities, Coons said, arguing that voters of all stripes know Biden would elevate highly qualified, mainstream jurists.

Still, the issue represents a familiar tightrope for Biden. Hes a center-left establishment figure aiming for a broad ideological coalition to defeat Trump in an era when the loudest voices come from the political poles. On issues from health care to the climate crisis, progressives hammer Biden as too incremental while conservatives cast him as too liberal. A Supreme Court nomination is certain to amplify those dynamics.

Trump offered a preview last week, challenging Biden to match his list of choices while sketching a caricature of radical justices he insisted would gut Second Amendment rights, remove under God from the Pledge of Allegiance and declare the death penalty unconstitutional. Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, a former Senate Judiciary chair, followed up Wednesday by urging Biden not to hide his intentions for the court.

On the left, the group Demand Justice wants to match the rights intensity on judicial politics, while a second group, She Will Rise, is raising awareness about the possibility of a Black woman joining the high court.

Demand Justice has assembled a list of 17 Black women it says would make ideal justices. The list includes law professors, leading civil rights attorneys and jurists from lower federal courts and state supreme courts. But there are no names as prominent as the headliners on Trumps list: Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton.

Demand Justice has launched a $2 million ad campaign targeting voters in Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin around the Supreme Court and Bidens promise of a Black female nominee. But executive director Brian Fallon argued that Biden could do more.

Whatever good is achieved by making a general commitment like that would only be expanded and furthered if he put out some names of people hes considering, said Fallon, an adviser on Hillary Clintons 2016 presidential campaign.

Pew Research found in August that 66% of Biden supporters identified Supreme Court nominations as a very important issue, more than the 61% of Trump supporters who said the same. Thats a reversal from 2016, when Pew found Trumps supporters were 8 percentage points more likely than Clintons to consider the court a key issue.

There were key differences in 2016. Most important was a vacancy: Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative icon, had died and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to consider President Barack Obamas nominee, Merrick Garland, who would have tilted the courts majority to the left. There is no vacancy now, despite considerable attention on the health of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the liberal wings 87-year-old leader.

Further, Trump in 2016 faced distrust among many conservatives, including white evangelicals, because of his support as a private citizen for Democratic politicians and public statements in favor of abortion rights and same-sex marriage. Trump turned that to his advantage by accepting help from the Federalist Society and other conservative legal advocates to compile a public list of would-be justices. Hes since nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch, who appeared on a preelection list in 2016, and Brett Kavanaugh, who appeared on a post-election list.

Without that list, he wouldnt have won, Coons said.

There is some irony in Supreme Court politics being such a potentially prominent variable in Bidens presidential hopes.

The conservative political movement on the judiciary blossomed after Biden, as Senate Judiciary chair, helped scuttle the nomination of conservative firebrand Robert Bork submitted by President Ronald Reagan in 1987. Biden angered some women four years later during the confirmation hearings of another conservative, Clarence Thomas, because of senators treatment of Anita Hill, who accused Thomas of sexual harassment. Biden voted against Thomas, but he was confirmed.

Even a 5-4 Supreme Court majority deciding the 2000 presidential election in favor of Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore did little to shift campaign dynamics concerning the court. All five justices in the majority were nominated by Republican presidents.

Kitchen-table issues, health care and economics have always resonated more with our voters, said Donna Brazile, a former Democratic Party chair and Gores campaign manager.

Fallon acknowledged, much to my chagrin, that it would be a first for Democrats to leverage the court as a key presidential issue more effectively than Republicans.

Finney said part of the challenge is the Democrats are mostly protecting existing precedent, while conservatives have spent decades trying to reclaim lost turf, from the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide to decades of rulings on civil rights and the expansion of federal power. In short, its harder to get voters on the left to understand potential threats to rights they already take for granted.

Republicans have been better at using fear as a motivator, Finney said. A board member of NARAL, an abortion-rights group, Finney added: Ive had people say to me, Do we really need NARAL anymore? Arent our abortion rights safe? No!

Another example: A divided Supreme Court in 2013 gutted key provisions of the Voting Rights Act, but Democrats didnt make that an issue in 2016 even with the vacancy from Scalias death.

If theres a shift in 2020, Finney predicted it wont come from Biden or his promise of a historic nomination. Trumps list is a motivating factor by itself, she said. There is no Democrat who wants to see Ted Cruz on the Supreme Court.

___

Associated Press writer Alexandra Jaffe in Washington contributed to this report.

Read the original post:
Biden under pressure to unveil list of potential court picks - The Associated Press

Second Amendment Activist Protest Activism Take Action

United States -(AmmoLand.com)-Why might Second Amendment supporters want to push a fight over a piece of legislation that may have no chance of passing? Sometimes, it can be a way to gauge what elected officials think of our rights. That is the case with any concurrent resolution in this Congress, given the current landscape in the legislative branch.

Democrats generally hostile to our Second Amendment rights control the House of Representatives. Republicans, who have supported our Second Amendment rights, control the Senate. This means that much legislation is caught in the middle of a standoff neither side can push through what it wants.

So, why are we looking at S Con Res 40? The thing is, this concurrent resolution, introduced by Senator Kelly Loeffler, can be used to clarify where your elected officials stand, particularly on the ability of Americans to exercise the bear arms portion of their Second Amendment rights.

While many states have enacted shall issue or constitutional carry laws, some still cling to the very discriminatory may issue standard notably New York, New Jersey, and California. To date, these laws have been standing against court challenges, and these states are not likely to change those laws legislatively any time soon.

Loefflers concurrent resolution would put Congress squarely against undue restrictions on the carrying of firearms. The actual text is very strong, citing Federalist 46 and the text of the Second Amendment. If passed, this resolution would place Congress foursquare against the highly restrictive carry laws in place in the few discretionary issue states which in many cases have been non-issue in the application of those laws.

But concurrent resolutions do not become law. If anything, they are a sense of where the entire Congress stands, just as House and Senate resolutions are where that portion of the Congress stands. But the value of a concurrent resolution doesnt just lie in getting politicians to take a stand one way or another, although, in this case, it would be interesting to see just how they explain how the application of carry laws in New Jersey and California (among other places) wouldnt fall under that standard.

In this case, the concurrent resolution would also be a means by which to help bolster other rounds of legal challenges to the discretionary issue laws. By placing Congress on record against them, especially in terms of undue restrictions, this resolution can make the next round of legal challenges more likely to succeed, even if that improvement is slight.

Second Amendment supporters should contact their Representative and Senators and politely urge them to back S Con Res 40. It is well past time to get Congress to voice its objections to discretionary carry laws.

About Harold Hutchison

Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.

Read the original here:
Below the Radar: S Con Res 40 - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News