Well. as we expected‚ it didn’t take long for the Muslim-pandering governments of Western Europe‚ and increasingly the Biden regime‚ to reverse their support for Israel following the October 7th Hamas massacre‚ and start demanding that the tiny Jewish state commit national suicide.

Muslims protest ahead of a White House delegation coming to Dearborn‚ Michigan to beg the Muslims there not to withdraw their support for the Biden regime over Israel’s justified war against Hamas. h/t Citizens for Confronting CAIR on T

Former Prime Minister of Israel‚ Naftali Bennett‚ responds: 

In what may be one of the most consequential election cases ever heard by the U.S. Supreme Court‚ the nine justices listened Thursday to 80 minutes of lawyers’ oral arguments over the attempt by political activists to knock Donald Trump off the primary ballot in Colorado (and other states). Although all of the justices asked tough questions of both sides in the case‚ Trump v. Anderson‚ the lawyer for the activists seemed to have the hardest time satisfying their concerns.  The essence of the case is the decision by four justices of the Colorado Supreme Court‚ over the dissents of three colleagues‚ that because Trump engaged in an “insurrection” on Jan. 6‚ 2021‚ he is disqualified from being president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and thus may be removed from the ballot. If the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the Colorado high court’s decision‚ it would disenfranchise millions of voters in Colorado and other states that follow Colorado’s misbegotten action‚ a concern raised by more than one justice during Thursday’s arguments. Those voters would have their right to choose who they think should be president taken away from them by a small group of state court judges and partisan election officials. One could see the difference almost immediately in the opening statements of the two sides. Jonathan Mitchell‚ the former solicitor general of Texas who was arguing on behalf of Trump‚ presented a constitutional argument on why Colorado and other states don’t have the authority to enforce Section 3 against a federal candidate. Mitchell also argued that the provision in the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to Trump because the former president doesn’t fill the precondition of being a former “officer of the United States” since he was elected‚ not appointed‚ to a federal office.  Mitchell spent a large part of his allotted time answering questions about the constitutional basis for that precondition‚ along with questions about whether Section 3 can be enforced when no federal legislation provides for that enforcement. Jason Murray‚ representing the challengers who are trying to remove Trump from the Colorado ballot‚ opened with a polemic argument that Trump led a “violent attack” on the U.S. Capitol‚ the first time the building had been attacked since the War of 1812. Comparing the mostly peaceful protest and criminal trespassing carried out Jan. 6‚ 2021‚ by a relatively small number of individuals (which should not have happened) to the burning of the Capitol by invading British soldiers was so over the top that I had to check my notes to make sure I had heard Murray make that claim. In his opening‚ Murray continued in this vein by claiming that Trump was trying to create a special exemption from Section 3 just for himself. He denied that the Section 3 applicability and enforcement issues could have any effect on all federal officials and candidates and the power of state officials to disenfranchise millions of voters.  At one point‚ Murray referred to Chief Justice John Roberts’ raising of problems that could arise from giving state authorities such removal power as “frivolous.” Roberts responded strongly that those potential problems were not frivolous.  Murray’s self-righteous attitude about his clients’ claims during his opening and the questioning by the nine justices certainly did not‚ in my view‚ help him in advancing his clients’ cause. Mitchell‚ arguing for Trump‚ also got some hard questions from the justices. But unlike Murray‚ who seemed unable to admit to any weaknesses in his argument‚ Mitchell occasionally would admit when there was ambiguity in the legislative history or prior precedents‚ making some concessions that seemed unwarranted to me.  Several justices questioned Murray about the problem of uniformity and what would happen if different state courts and state officials came to totally different conclusions on whether a candidate had engaged in an insurrection‚ applying different standards of review.  Murray kept denying that would cause any problems. Justice Samuel Alito particularly pressed him on that issue‚ at one point becoming so frustrated by Murray’s nonresponses to how such problems could be managed that he said‚ “I am not getting a lot of help [from Murray].” What was clear from Murray’s arguments for the anti-Trump activists is that he sees no problem whatsoever in opening the Pandora’s box of giving state officials the power to remove federal candidates from the ballot‚ despite the conflicting decisions that likely would result from numerous states.  In response to a question‚ Murray denied that the decision of one state such as Colorado would have any effect on the voters of any other state. This is another astonishing claim. As one justice pointed out‚ if the outcome of a presidential election came down to the results in one state‚ as happened in 2000‚ such a decision by a lone election official‚ perhaps a partisan secretary of state‚ to remove one of two major presidential candidates from the ballot obviously would disenfranchise voters across the rest of the country. Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked Murray to respond to concerns raised by one of the dissenting Colorado Supreme Court justices over the lack of due process for Trump in a truncated civil election proceeding‚ as compared to the due process rights to which he would be entitled in a criminal prosecution.  Murray dismissed those concerns. He also dismissed any concerns over removing the ability of millions of voters to make their own choice of who should be elected. He claimed that enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment actually “safeguards our democracy‚” which seems a glaring contradiction. Although each side had 40 minutes to argue its case‚ Murray argued for only 30 minutes because the high court gave Colorado’s secretary of state 10 minutes to participate. Representing that office‚ Shannon W. Stevenson‚ solicitor general of Colorado‚ argued for the secretary of state’s complete authority to make such decisions on disqualifying a candidate. It is always hard to predict from the questioning how the Supreme Court will rule‚ but Colorado seemed to have a tougher time justifying its view of the law.  Although the Supreme Court never announces ahead of time when it will release an opinion‚ no doubt the justices know that we are already in the middle of the primary and election season and that ballots are being printed and sent to voters. I expect that we will get a decision—one with lasting effects far beyond 2024—very quickly from the high court. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Supreme Court Asks Plenty of Questions in Hearing Colorado Case Disqualifying Trump From Ballot appeared first on The Daily Signal.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—Sen. Ted Cruz is accusing D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser‚ Metropolitan Police Chief Pamela Smith‚ and Chief Medical Examiner Francisco Diaz of demonstrating a “candid willingness to obstruct justice” in their refusal to investigate the deaths of five aborted‚ preemie-sized babies. In a letter first obtained by The Daily Signal‚ the Texas Republican strongly warned D.C. officials that should authorities fail to preserve the bodies and conduct “timely autopsies‚” the Senate Judiciary Committee will have “no choice” but to expand the issue into a full hearing featuring the Department of Justice and the Office of the D.C. Medical Examiner “as witnesses before the American public.” To dispose of the babies’ bodies “before justice can be achieved” would be to “deny these five innocent victims justice and assume the cause and nature of these children’s deaths without conducting any investigation‚ without performing any autopsies‚ and without even affording these children a proper‚ respectful burial‚” Cruz warned the D.C. officials. Cruz was referring to the five babies allegedly aborted at Washington Surgi-Clinic by abortionist Cesare Santangelo. The D.C. medical examiner has had these babies’ remains in its possession for almost two years now. Pro-lifers suspect the babies may have been illegally aborted in violation of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act or the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act. The Daily Signal reported late Monday that Thomas More Society lawyer Martin Cannon “got a call from the Medical Examiner’s Office indicating that the DOJ has advised them that there is no reason to keep those babies anymore.” Cannon is representing pro-life activist Lauren Handy‚ who faces charges of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. Handy says the babies are important evidence in defending her from the DOJ’s charges. The medical examiner’s office denied to The Daily Signal that it has been in contact with the DOJ‚ but has refused to address requests for further comment. The DOJ declined to comment at all. Cannon insists that his story is true. Cruz stressed that the babies’ bodies warrant an investigation into their deaths due to the “unusually mature” nature of the fetal remains‚ particularly regarding whether they were “born alive and left to die.” He reminded the D.C. authorities‚ as he did in April 2022‚ that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 makes it illegal for an abortionist to partially deliver a living child for the purpose of ending the baby’s life. “As I previously explained to your offices‚ it is a grave injustice both that these children may verywell have been aborted in violation of federal law‚ and that the D.C. government—that Congressoversees—remains unwilling to investigate the circumstances‚” he said. 2024.02.08-Cruz-Letter-to-Bowser-Diaz-and-SmithDownload The senator added: “Despite the grotesque evidence of potentially illegal abortion procedures‚ the District of Columbia and Department of Justice authorities have consistently stonewalled inquiries into the deaths of the five aborted babies‚ with the D.C. police claiming the case remains ‘open’ and ‘under investigation’ as recently as August 2023‚ despite no meaningful progress or updates in over sixteen months.” Cruz cited The Daily Signal’s reporting as he pointed out that Bowser has evaded‚ redirected‚ and refused to answer questions on the matter‚ while the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner has not disclosed whether it has performed autopsies on the babies. “Simultaneously‚” he added‚ “while efforts to seek justice for these innocent lives have been thwarted at almost every conceivable turn‚ Mayor Bowser has aggressively characterized the charges facing peaceful pro-life activists like Lauren Handy‚ accusing her of ‘tampering with fetal remains‚’ ‘blockad[ing]’ the entrance to a D.C. abortion clinic in October 2020‚ and committing ‘serious violations of federal law.’” The Texas lawmaker has joined numerous efforts over the past several years to pressure both state and federal officials to investigate the case. His Thursday letter references a 2022 effort he joined‚ led by Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah‚ calling on the DOJ and the FBI to preserve the babies’ bodies “as evidence for future investigations.” D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser attends a bipartisan gathering of mayors at the U.S. Conference of Mayors’ winter meeting in the East Room of the White House on Jan. 19. (Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images) In his Thursday letter‚ Cruz emphasizes: “I write separately today to speak specifically to some of the oversight actions that justify this second and final preservation demand. Specifically‚ and while I understand that the DOJ is pressuring the D.C. Medical Examiner to dispose of the bodies‚ I am demanding in the strongest possible terms that you do not do so.” “Furthermore‚” he added‚ “I ask that Mayor Bowser and Police Chief Smith direct the Chief Medical Examiner Diaz to conduct an autopsy of each of these five children’s bodies.” The senator reminded D.C. officials that there is an election coming‚ predicting it is “highly likely” that in November control of the Senate will shift to the GOP. “At that time‚ when I am Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution‚ I will schedule hearings on likely violations‚ like those at issue with these five children‚ such as the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act‚” he warned. “These hearings will also no doubt scrutinize the behavior of those who obstructed Senate investigatory efforts by willfully destroying evidence despite not one‚ but two‚ demands to preserve evidence.” Bowser and the Metropolitan Police Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Daily Signal. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post EXCLUSIVE: Cruz Warns DC Will Pay If Authorities ‘Obstruct Justice’ by Disposing of Aborted Babies’ Remains appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Sen. Ted Cruz introduced a bill Thursday intended to prevent the Department of Homeland Security from closing critical international land ports of entry at the southern border.   “[President] Joe Biden is harming American farmers‚ ranchers‚ manufacturers‚ truckers and consumers by prioritizing welcoming illegal aliens over facilitating lawful commerce‚” Cruz‚ R-Texas‚ told The Daily Signal in a statement. “Joe Biden’s policy of transferring [Customs and Border Protection] agents from facilitating commercial border crossings to instead welcoming in illegal aliens has caused millions of dollars of economic damage‚” Cruz said. “My bill ensures that lawful commerce will continue to invest in the Texas economy by prohibiting the Biden administration for closing ports of entry on the Southern border except in limited circumstances‚ such as physically assisting Border Patrol in detentions.” The bill aims to protect U.S. commerce and trade coming across the border by prohibiting DHS from transferring staff from a port of entry along the border to assist with the processing of illegal aliens.   Republican Sens. Pete Ricketts of Nebraska‚ Rick Scott of Florida‚ Mike Lee of Utah‚ and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee are co-sponsoring the bill‚ the aim of which is stated to be:   To prohibit the transfer of Department of Homeland Security staff from an international land port of entry along [the] southwest border unless such transfer would not impact the processing of trade through such port of entry‚ such staff would be immediately replaced‚ or such staff are needed to actively engage in physical detentions to secure such border‚ and for other purposes.  Additionally‚ the bill requires the DHS to notify the House‚ Senate‚ and the public 24 hours before closing ports‚ and to explain which of the three exceptions are being used to justify the closure.   Keeping-International-Land-Ports-of-Entry-Open-ActDownload The Biden administration has previously pulled DHS staff from ports of entry to help Border Patrol agents process the thousands of illegal aliens crossing the southern border daily.    Since Biden took office‚ more than 8.5 million illegal aliens have been encountered along America’s borders. In December alone‚ encounters along the southern border reached an all-time high of 302‚000‚ nearly 10‚000 a day.  “The Biden administration’s deliberate refusal to enforce the border isn’t just incompetence—it’s a blatant disregard for Americans’ safety‚” Lee said in a statement Thursday.   The Biden administration’s “attempts to obscure the magnitude of this border invasion are only adding insult to injury and causing significant economic damage‚” the Utah lawmaker said‚ also noting that “before Christmas last year‚ President Biden closed off rail operations into the United States at various points of entry—hurting businesses and Americans‚ in order to process more illegal aliens through the border.”   After five days of being closed‚ the Biden administration reopened the rail crossings in Eagle Pass and El Paso‚ Texas‚ on Dec. 22. The crossings were reopened after Cruz sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas demanding answers as to why DHS had closed the rail crossings.   William C. Vantuono‚ the editor-in-chief of Railway Age‚ said the railway closings were a “chokehold that cost the North American economy by some estimates as much as a quarter-billion dollars a day.”   Cruz’s bill would prevent DHS from repeat closures in the future and‚ as Lee explains‚ “is a necessary countermeasure to hold this administration accountable for their disastrous policies and prevent them from inflicting even more damage on our country.”  The Texas Trucking Association‚ American Trucking Associations‚ Association of American Railroads‚ the National Feed and Grain Association‚ and the North American Export Grain Association have endorsed the bill. Ricketts applauded Cruz’s bill in a statement Thursday‚ saying‚ “We cannot allow American consumers‚ businesses and producers to continue paying the price for President Biden’s refusal to secure our border.”  “I’m grateful to join Sen. Cruz in this effort to protect our critical trade routes‚” the Nebraska senator said‚ “and provide critical oversight of any Biden administration staffing decisions that may impact American commerce.”  Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.  The post EXCLUSIVE: Cruz Introduces Bill to Prevent Biden Admin From Closing Ports to Send Personnel to Process Illegal Aliens appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Special counsel Robert Hur released a report Thursday recommending against charging President Joe Biden for retaining classified documents from his years as vice president and senator‚ in part because the jury would find Biden sympathetic as an “elderly man with a poor memory” and because his “diminished faculties” make it less likely he intentionally violated the law. In January 2023‚ Attorney General Merrick Garland tapped Hur‚ the U.S. attorney in Maryland appointed by then-President Donald Trump‚ to investigate Biden’s improper retention of classified documents after he left the Senate in 2009 and the vice presidency in 2017. The records Biden kept included classified documents regarding military and foreign policy in Afghanistan‚ along with national security records that implicated “sensitive intelligence sources and methods‚” Hur’s report finds. The special counsel’s report finds a “shortage of evidence” proving that Biden intentionally violated the law and concludes “there are other innocent explanations for the documents that we cannot refute.” Yet the report also finds that Biden “willfully retained and disclosed classified materials.” An attorney for Biden claimed the classified documents were “unexpectedly discovered” Nov. 2‚ 2022‚ at the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement in Washington‚ D.C.‚ and that he immediately notified the National Archives and Records Administration. Biden lawyers later discovered a “small number” of additional classified documents in a storage space in the garage of Biden’s private home in Wilmington‚ Delaware. These admissions from Biden’s attorneys came after the FBI opened an investigation into Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents in March 2022. Eight months later‚ Garland appointed former DOJ official Jack Smith to investigate Trump’s retention of classified documents. A grand jury ultimately indicted Trump for his alleged offenses in June 2023. Hur’s report notes Biden’s willing cooperation with his investigation‚ saying that cooperation “will likely convince some jurors that he made an innocent mistake‚ rather than acting willfully—that is‚ with intent to break the law—as the statute requires.” Hur’s report also takes Biden’s mental state into account on numerous occasions‚ finding that his “poor memory” and “diminished faculties” make his defenses plausible and would likely endear him to a jury. “We have also considered that‚ at trial‚ Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury‚ as he did during our interview of him‚ as a sympathetic‚ well-meaning‚ elderly man with a poor memory‚” the report notes. “Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him‚ he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him—by then a former president well into his eighties—of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.” “We also believe some of the same evidence that supports reasonable doubt for the classified Afghanistan documents also supports reasonable doubt for the notebooks‚ including Mr. Biden’s cooperation with the investigation‚ his diminished faculties in advancing age‚ and his sympathetic demeanor‚” the special counsel’s report adds. “These factors likely make it difficult for jurors to conclude he had criminal intent.” The report mentions numerous occasions on which Biden shared sensitive classified information with a ghostwriter‚ Mark Zwonitzer. “For these jurors‚ Mr. Biden’s apparent lapses and failures in February and April 2017 will likely appear consistent with the diminished faculties and faulty memory he showed in Zwonitzer’s interview recordings and in our interview of him‚” the report finds. “Therefore‚ we conclude that the evidence does not establish that Mr. Biden willfully disclosed national defense information to Zwonitzer.” Hur’s report draws a distinction between Biden’s cooperation and Trump’s alleged obstinacy. Referencing Trump’s June 2023 indictment‚ the report states: “According to the indictment‚ he not only refused to return the documents for many months‚ but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it.” Biden released a statement on the report later Thursday‚ and the president included similar remarks in a speech to House Democrats. “I was pleased to see they reached the conclusion I believed all along they would reach—that there would be no charges brought in this case and the matter is now closed‚” the president said in the statement released by the White House. “This was an exhaustive investigation going back more than 40 years‚ even into the 1970s when I was a young senator‚” Biden added. “I cooperated completely‚ threw up no roadblocks‚ and sought no delays. In fact‚ I was so determined to give the special counsel what they needed that I went forward with five hours of in-person interviews over two days on October 8th and 9th of last year‚ even though Israel had just been attacked on October 7th and I was in the middle of handling an international crisis.” “I just believed that’s what I owed the American people so they could know no charges would be brought and the matter [is] closed‚” he said. On his social media site‚ Trump decried what he called yet more evidence of “A TWO-TIERED SYSTEM OF JUSTICE AND SELECTIVE PROSECUTION!” “Biden took the documents in his ‘mental primetime‚'” the former president posted on Truth Social. “He shouldn’t be allowed to get away with this‚ and he wasn’t protected by the Presidential Records Act.” “I was cooperative with the investigators‚” Trump added. “Crooked Joe Biden didn’t – just the opposite‚ following the usual‚ corrupt Democrat playbook. He ‘willfully retained’ documents. This is scam justice – deranged Jack Smith and his thugs should immediately drop the totally discredited documents hoax against me.” A recent NBC News poll found that 76% of respondents said they have “major” (62%) or “moderate” (14%) concerns about Biden’s having the “necessary mental and physical health for a second term.” The White House did not immediately respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment on the special counsel’s claims about the president’s “diminished faculties.” Hur-Report-Part-1Download Hur-report-part-2Download Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.   The post Special Counsel Recommends Against Charging Biden Due to His ‘Diminished Faculties’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Reality Behind Biden's 'Aggressive' Travel Schedule