THE NEWS
I flew to Turkey for an $810 full-body health scan that would have cost ‘zillions’ in the US
She got an ultra-thorough checkup without coughing up for a million-dollar checkup.
Micah Parsons, Cowboys teammate have war of words about his podcast
Micah Parsons’ off-the-field pursuits may not be resonating well with Cowboys teammates.
USA Today Poll: 41% of Democrats Want Joe Biden to Quit
Forty-one percent of Democrat voters want President Joe Biden to drop out of the 2024 race, a Monday USA Today/Suffolk University poll found, while only 51 percent want him to remain on the ticket.
The post USA Today Poll: 41% of Democrats Want Joe Biden to Quit appeared first on Breitbart.
Report: Biden Debate Blame Game Continues, Advisers Cite ‘Bunker’ Mentality for Dismal Showing
President Joe Biden’s self-inflicted humiliation during the presidential debate stems from a host of factors but the primary cause is a leader growing more strictly controlled – and isolated – as his term progresses, a report Tuesday sets out.
The post Report: Biden Debate Blame Game Continues, Advisers Cite ‘Bunker’ Mentality for Dismal Showing appeared first on Breitbart.
Biden’s 5 lies about the Supreme Court’s ruling on Trump’s immunity
[Editor’s note: This story originally was published by The Daily Signal.]
By Tony Kinnett
The Daily Signal
On Monday, President Biden delivered a surprise four-and-a-half minute address condemning the Supreme Court’s decision in Donald Trump v. The United States released that morning.
Special prosecutor Jack Smith has alleged that Trump conspired to overturn the 2020 presidential election by “spreading knowingly false claims of election fraud.” Trump’s legal team argued that the allegations made by Smith fell under “the outer perimeter” of Trump’s official duties as president, and he was therefore immune from prosecution (so the charges should be summarily dismissed).
The Supreme Court ruled that a former president is “presumptively” immune from prosecution for any “official” duties of the president of the United States, but he may be prosecuted for “unofficial” actions.
Biden began his address by stating that no one, not even the president, “is above the law,” but then falsely asserted that “with today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity—that fundamentally changed.”
1. ‘Virtually No Limits’
“For all…for all practical purposes, today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do,” Biden claimed.
This accusation is objectively false.
In the opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the president of the United States may not be prosecuted for duties he carries out under his constitutional authority, but may be prosecuted for all other actions.
While Biden claims that this decision is a “new principle” that sets a “dangerous precedent,” there is little evidence in the decision showing a deviation from tradition in the Supreme Court’s interpretation of a president’s vulnerability to prosecution. In fact, Roberts cites a range of historical decisions from Chief Justice Marshall rebuking President Thomas Jefferson over submission to subpoenas to parsing the separation of powers in United States v. Nixon.
In short, Roberts outlined a detailed opinion, grounded in the Constitution and legal precedent, that defines presidential immunity and its limits to only official duties assigned to the executive branch by the Constitution.
Roberts argues that “the outer perimeter” of a president’s duties as claimed by the defense were unclear—not deeming them “official” or “unofficial,” and so kicked the decisions regarding these details to the lower courts.
2. ‘Self-Imposed Limits’
Biden further claimed that “the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law, even including the Supreme Court of the United States. The only limits will be self-imposed by the president alone.” He later reiterated this claim, stating “the law would no longer” define “the limits of the presidency.”
This is objectively false. No passage in the 119-page document gives the president the authority to define “official” and “unofficial” actions to avoid prosecution and assign himself unlimited power.
3. Attacks on ‘Long-Established Legal Principles’
Biden continued by characterizing Monday’s decision as what he considers to be a trend of “attacks” on a “wide range of long-established legal principles in our nation, from gutting voting rights and civil rights, to taking away a woman’s right to choose, to today’s decision, that undermines the rule of law in this nation.”
The Supreme Court has not “gutted” voting rights or civil rights of any kind. Every citizen of the United States retains equal voting rights at the age of 18, the most a U.S. citizen has ever enjoyed in U.S. history. There is no poll tax to vote, nor a sex or ethnicity requirement. Every citizen maintains sovereign franchise at the ballot box—with noncitizens even allowed to vote in some local elections.
Furthermore, granting presidents immunity from prosecution for their official acts clearly falls within the Supreme Court’s precedents and does not constitute a reversal from “long-established legal principles.” As Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his opinion, the U.S. “has never before needed an answer” to the question of when a former president may “be prosecuted for official acts taken during his presidency.”
The aberration is the prosecution, not the decision that some official acts are immune from it.
4. Sending ‘a Violent Mob’
Biden accused Trump of sending “a violent mob to the U.S. Capitol to stop the peaceful transfer of power.”
Two tweets on Jan. 6, 2021, counter this claim, showing Trump calling for protesters to remain “peaceful” and to “support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement.”
Biden asserted that Americans deserved to see Trump “answer” in court for these actions “before Election Day.”
“The public has a right to know what happened on Jan. 6 before they’re asked to vote again this year,” Biden said. “Now, because of today’s decision, that is highly, highly unlikely.”
It is unclear whether a different decision would have prolonged or expedited a trial date for Trump, much less ensured a trial by Nov. 5.
Biden then called for Americans to “do what the courts should have been willing to do, but will not: the American people have to render their judgment about Donald Trump’s behavior.”
The Supreme Court did not dismiss the Trump v. The United States lawsuit, but clarified terms of immunity so a lower court could render its decision. No court has refused to render a legal decision regarding the legality of Trump’s behavior.
5. ‘I Will Respect the Limits’
“I know I will respect the limits of the presidential powers as I have for the last three-and-a-half years, but any president—including Donald Trump—will now be free to ignore the law,” he added. He closed by echoing Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissension, suggesting that the president is now a “king” and “above the law.”
Biden has not respected the limits of presidential power, however, and the Supreme Court has called him out on it, proving that the president is not a king.
When Biden sought to unilaterally “forgive” billions in student debt, the Supreme Court struck down his first attempt. He responded by issuing executive orders to dismiss even more debt.
Biden concluded the press conference by encouraging all Americans to “dissent” along with Sotomayor, and then walking away from the podium, refusing to take any press questions.
‘American Idol’ judge Luke Bryan shares which stars have been ‘in the talks’ to replace Katy Perry on hit show
IDF To Re-Invade Khan Younis, Issues New Evacuation Orders
IDF To Re-Invade Khan Younis, Issues New Evacuation Orders
The Israeli army issued a new order for Palestinians to evacuate from the eastern portion of the southern Gaza Strip city of Khan Younis on Monday, suggesting a new offensive against the enclave is being prepared, after fresh rocket attacks from militants.
The military is reportedly focused on destroying a major rocket factory in the city which is overseen by Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). The IDF is urgently warning residents in specified districts they must move into the Western part of the city, as well as to al-Mawasi camp on the coast, designated a “humanitarian zone”. Regional reports say at least 250,000 are directly impacted by the initial evacuation order.
The IDF had pulled out of Khan Younis in April, declaring military operations there complete, thus this would mark a re-invasion of the city akin to the limited operations still happening in the north upon the return of armed fighters to these areas. Monday saw some 20 rockets fired at IDF positions from Khan Younis, a first in many months.
Already many of the over one million Palestinians who had been sheltering in Rafah before it came under Israel’s recent offensive were displaced to Khan Younis. So this will mark yet another mass displacement of these refugees.
Commenting on this, UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) official Sam Rose, told Al Jazeera of the “harrowing, horrific, and incredibly difficult” situation. “It means yet another day, week, chapter of misery for these hundreds of thousands of people … most of them have been displaced several times. Some had just returned from Rafah where they were displaced a few weeks ago,” he said.
“They ought to go west, to al-Mawasi – the beachy, sandy area on the coast, but it’s already so overcrowded. There is no room to pitch a tent, there is no water, no infrastructure, no sanitary services. Many spend the night in vehicles or they sleep on their donkey charts,” Rose added.
“They go without knowing precisely where they will end up because this evacuation order told people to go urgently – they know that if they don’t go out within 24 hours the worst is to come,” the UNRWA official concluded in the statement.
By some estimates over 80% of Khan Younis’ buildings had been destroyed by the first Israeli assault, and hospital infrastructure is barely existent, as medical personnel must evacuate patients again.
There are meanwhile new reports that IDF leadership is lobbying the government for a ceasefire even if it means leaving Hamas intact. This is part of an increasingly public spat among war planners and top decision-makers. “Israel’s top generals want to begin a cease-fire in Gaza even if it keeps Hamas in power for the time being, widening a rift between the military and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has opposed a truce that would allow Hamas to survive the war,” the NY Times reports Monday.
Displaced Palestinians in Khan Younis head to the beach to cool themselves and escape the scorching heat, in light of the power outage and the Israeli siege on the Gaza Strip. pic.twitter.com/7XZZcU5ACj
— Kuffiya (@Kuffiyateam) June 26, 2024
“The generals think that a truce would be the best way of freeing the roughly 120 Israelis still held, both dead and alive, in Gaza, according to interviews with six current and former security officials,” the report added.
IDF spokesman Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari said last month, “This business of destroying Hamas, making Hamas disappear – it’s simply throwing sand in the eyes of the public.” He had explained: “Hamas is an idea, Hamas is a party. It’s rooted in the hearts of the people – whoever thinks we can eliminate Hamas is wrong.”
Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/02/2024 – 09:50
Someone’s NERVOUS –> Liz Cheney SNAPS at Trump for Posting Meme That Hits TOO CLOSE to Home for Her
Grad student suffers severe burns after using hair removal cream on his genitals to spice up his sex life
“I washed it straight off but I was in pain for days after – Sudocrem, ice packs and frozen peas were my best friends,” Hill said.