Biden Press Sec. KJP Won’t Rule Out Joe Commuting Hunter’s Sentence
After weeks of firmly stating the Biden administration would not pardon or commute the First Son Hunter’s recent felony sentence, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre left open the possibility Joe could resort to commutation following sentencing.
A video going viral on X shows several moments where KJP previously stated, “No,” when asked if Joe would either pardon or commute Hunter’s sentence.
Now, on Wednesday, the administration spokesperson danced around a reporter’s question about Biden commuting Hunter’s sentence, saying, “I don’t have anything to say beyond what the president’s statement was yesterday.”
Again asked if Joe Biden would consider commutation, KJP claimed he “already” answered clearly and “very forthright.”
Words have meaning, and Democrats are professionals at mental gymnastics.
— ZNO ?? (@therealZNO) June 12, 2024
A pardon forgives and often forgets the crime, erasing its legal effects.
A commutation just lessens the severity of the sentencing but leaves the conviction intact.
The Biden Admin has ruled out… pic.twitter.com/7621dKwSV9
Fox News covered the update Wednesday, with ex-White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany writing, “The White House Press Secretary was asked about whether President Biden has ruled out a commutation for Hunter Biden. Biden has previously ruled out a pardon, but how about a commutation?”
The White House Press Secretary was asked about whether President Biden has ruled out a commutation for Hunter Biden.
— Kayleigh McEnany (@kayleighmcenany) June 12, 2024
Biden has previously ruled out a pardon, but how about a commutation? Here is what she said. @OutnumberedFNC ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/xRAQiuzgcE
It appears as if the administration is leaving the door open for Hunter to get away with the slap-on-the-wrist crime his daddy’s DOJ came up with to distract the nation from his true crimes involving shady overseas business deals.
There Are Only Downsides to Prolonging the War in Ukraine
Last week, President Joe Biden and a number of top American and European officials met in Normandy to attend a ceremony marking the eightieth anniversary of the D-day invasion. In a pair of speeches, Biden recounted the operation that he said marked the beginning of the “great crusade to liberate Europe from tyranny” before drawing a direct connection to where things stand with the war in Ukraine.
Biden called Russian president Vladamir Putin a tyrant who invaded Ukraine simply because he is “bent on domination.” Biden then renewed one of his favorite tropes, asserting that if Ukraine falls, its people will be subjugated, its neighbors will be in immediate danger, and all of Europe will be threatened by Putin’s aggressive ambitions.
But the West’s chosen depiction of Putin as a tyrant bent on conquering the entire European continent suffered its latest setback last month when it came out that the Russian president is interested in halting the fighting and negotiating a deal that recognizes the current battlefield lines.
Putin is showing this interest even though the Russian military is in a strong position that seems likely to get even stronger. Last year’s long-anticipated Ukrainian counteroffensive was meant to drive Russian forces out of Ukraine. But since its launch last summer, Ukraine has lost more territory than it has gained. Recently, the Russians even launched a brand new incursion into territory around the northeastern city of Kharkiv—territory that had already been recaptured by the Ukrainians in late 2022.
Russia’s minefields, artillery, and punishing glide bombs have not only kept Ukrainian forces from advancing but left them struggling to hold their positions along the current front line. Meanwhile, Russia has significantly boosted war-related production far beyond anything we’re seeing from the West, which, while bad for the Russian economy in the long run, ensures the intensity of Russia’s bombing and shelling will not cease anytime soon.
At the same time, the Ukrainian government is facing a serious shortage of soldiers that no amount of foreign aid or equipment transfers can do anything to alleviate. Earlier this year, the Ukrainian parliament passed a law that sought to boost conscription rates by making it easier for the government to find and identify draft-eligible men. But the problem persists, leading Ukrainian officials to tap into the country’s prison population, cut consular services to military-aged Ukrainian men living abroad, and forbid men who are dual citizens from leaving Ukraine. As the country’s supply of young men runs low, the average age of a Ukrainian soldier has climbed to forty-three years old.
What makes Ukraine’s situation even more tragic is how easily it could have been avoided. One month after Russia invaded in early 2022, both sides reached an agreement where Russia would pull back to preinvasion boundaries and, in return, Ukraine would agree to not seek NATO membership.
The deal could have put an end to the fighting and handed Kyiv control of all the land Russia had just seized. But, according to senior negotiators on both sides and high-level mediators from the various countries facilitating the talks, officials from the United Kingdom and the United States convinced the Ukrainians to walk away from the deal and fight.
Since then, Ukraine’s leverage over Russia has only diminished. Many Ukrainians have been killed or maimed as the war has devolved into a brutal trench-style artillery war. Meanwhile, Russia laid permanent claim to the land it had earlier agreed to hand back to Ukraine.
Even with its extensive conscription laws, Ukraine does not have enough soldiers to break through Russia’s now heavily fortified lines, much less to drive Russian forces out of all the territory claimed by Kyiv. The Ukrainians have, so far, been able to prevent the Russians from advancing and seizing all the territory that Moscow now claims. But with their dwindling numbers, Ukrainian forces won’t be able to hold these lines forever.
So, accepting Russia’s offer to move this conflict from the battlefield to the negotiation table is almost certainly the best chance Ukraine will get to hold onto the eastern territory they still control.
But rather than take this opportunity, the Ukrainian government and its backers in Europe and the United States have instead decided to escalate the conflict with risky, strategically pointless provocations.
President Biden and a number of other European heads of state recently gave Ukraine a green light to use NATO weapons to conduct strikes within Russia. Around the same time, Ukraine struck two Russian strategic nuclear early-warning radars and attempted to strike a third one deeper in Russian territory.
And, as if hampering Russia’s ability to confirm that they are not under a nuclear attack after allowing Ukraine to shoot US missiles into Russia wasn’t enough, the US then test-fired two nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles—launching them four thousand miles from California to the Marshall Islands.
The escalations have not been one-sided. Russia conducted drills simulating the use of strategic nuclear weapons in Belarus and has sent warships and a submarine to the Caribbean. The Russians have also stepped up shelling and airstrikes in Ukraine in response to the strikes on their territory.
None of this is necessary. The strikes on Russian territory have not translated to Ukrainian gains on the battlefield. And the Russian early-warning radar Ukraine hit wasn’t even aimed at Ukrainian airspace. All these escalations do is prolong the Ukrainian people’s suffering while nudging the world closer to a catastrophic nuclear accident. Instead of fantasizing about waging some World War II–level offensive on Putin’s Russia, Biden and his friends in NATO should come back to reality and, before it’s too late, agree to work this conflict out with words for a change.
Hunter Biden Found Guilty As Democrats Prepare To Flush His Poopy Pants Father Before DNC
How Bad Economic Policies Drive Out Good Entrepreneurs
Gresham’s law states that bad money drives out good money. Gresham’s law goes something like this: overvalued money that has less actual value circulates in a market economy, and the undervalued money with the same face value but whose metal has more value is hoarded and thus goes away. People move the good money out of an economy for future use in better markets, while the bad money is circulated and takes over as a common economic good.
What does Gresham’s law have to do with entrepreneurship, what we call the gig economy, and bad economic policy? Well, there have been recent changes in the classification of gig entrepreneurial contractors. Contractors are slowly losing their entrepreneurial independence in the freedom of what we call the gig economy. These changes and mandates are signs of an anti-gig, anti-free-market sentiment. So, if Gresham says that bad money drives out the good money, the same can be said of good entrepreneurs—they are driven out of gig economies by bad policies.
Unfortunately, recently, there has been an attempt to enact regulation on the gig economy that will drain its life force, making entrepreneurs and contractors full-time employees of the firms they service; this is absolutely unfavorable for real people seeking to be independent entrepreneurs. More importantly, these policies are chipping away at markets that are free to enter. The gig economy is the final free market. When free markets are hampered, entrepreneurs disappear. What drives them away? Bad economic policies.
In the past, gig work was a backstream platform for musicians who could not break into the mainstream, and the gig economy was a marketplace free of mainstream constraints, where they could break through and find an audience. Contractors and entrepreneurs engage in gigs to make money, supplement full-time earnings, try a new profession, or support a hobby. For example, many country and blues musicians started a name for themselves in the gig market and later became superstars on the music scene.
However, the gig market is not just for musicians; now, in its current form, it encompasses many other fields and industries. When you travel, do you take an Uber or stay in an Airbnb? When you order fast food, do you order food via an app with door delivery? For instance, the start of Airbnb in the gig economy has now become a service that has revolutionized how we travel and choose lodging. Also, in its early years on the gig circuit, Airbnb was an excellent disrupter and challenger to the conventional hotel and travel industry. We cannot use these services without giving thanks to the gig economy.
Unfortunately, some believe the gig economy is synonymous with a “sharing” economy. To say that a sharing economy and the gig economy are the same is false. Sharing implies no loss to the entrepreneur. Also, it does not help sound economic policymaking to marvel at the possibility of when consumers will one day stop spending and start sharing. The problem with the sharing economy is that it does not connote private property or ownership, which can lead one to error if left out of the equation.
What happens when bad policies drive out value-creating entrepreneurs? Advocates of free markets have been shouting from the rooftops that bad policies that restrict entrepreneurs from discovering new processes, products, and services that can build supply and enable technology to serve real people can only happen in an unhampered economy. The policy to scrap the gig economy and make everyone in it an employee of a firm will end up hurting the people the gig economy can help.
We know that good entrepreneurs flourish when they are free to use their intellect and personal resources. Moreover, it is not just the entrepreneurs who see the gig economy no longer working in their favor; so are businesses that partner with contractors and entrepreneurs. Fast Company states, “Major business groups have strongly opposed the new rule, arguing that it could lead to burdensome costs and job cuts.” These bad policies come at an inopportune time, considering rising prices and rises in the cost of the production of goods; real people need a side hustle to keep up with inflation.
As we can see, bad entrepreneurs will move in and benefit from bad policies, and good entrepreneurs will move out of the gig world. The entrepreneurs who create more value will disappear from the gig economy and go elsewhere. In real terms, stay-at-home parents, small community-based businesses, investors, technology start-ups, first-time entrepreneurs, and retirees seeking to participate in the economy who prefer not to be strapped down with full employment will disappear.
Despite what some say, we must remember that the gig economy does not operate effectively under less-free conditions. Without the legal freedom to contract and use personal property as such, the very essence of the person’s individuality is destroyed. This drives out entrepreneurs who would otherwise seek to use their intellect and property to do good for other people.
The economic costs of driving out the good entrepreneurs in the gig economy will spike prices for products, services, and production costs; decrease consumer value and satisfaction; and invariably produce offerings of lesser quality. Because of the anti-free market sentiment as well as stifling regulation and mandates, consumers unwillingly acquiesce to bad entrepreneurs in bad markets and everything that comes along with it. The consumers get accustomed to lackluster offerings, and the good entrepreneurs are driven away.
Driving good entrepreneurs out with bad economic policies creates a concentrated benefit for the few but creates costs for the many. So naturally you ask, well, who are the bad entrepreneurs? Bad entrepreneurs are those people who decide to no longer be entrepreneurs, who do not receive a profit or loss based on market conditions, and who do not have empathy or care for the consumer. These entrepreneurs will seek government favors and use the government to create monopoly conditions for themselves while saddling extra costs on potential competitors, thus driving out the good entrepreneurs.
Hunter Biden Found Guilty As Democrats Prepare To Flush His Poopy Pants Father Before DNC
Former Pfizer VP Dr. Mike Yeadon: ‘COVID Jabs Were Designed—Intentionally—to Harm, Maim & Kill, And Reduce Human Fertility’
The Covid jabs are intended to “harm, maim and kill people,” warned ex-Pfizer Vice President Dr. Michael Yeadon.
The former Pfizer chief science officer called attention to the real agenda behind the experimental injections during a rally against the jabs.
Dr. Mike Yeadon, a former vice president at Pfizer: “[The COVID vaccines] were designed—intentionally—to harm, maim and kill, and to reduce human fertility.”pic.twitter.com/cZvnkgX1dT
— PBD Podcast (@PBDsPodcast) June 12, 2024
“If you’ve followed me, you’ll know I’ve over 30 years in research in the pharmaceutical industry and biotech,” Dr. Yeadon said speaking at a vaccine awareness event.
“That gives me the credentials to stand as it were in the shoes of the designers of these vaccines and answer the question: ‘What were you thinking when you made these design decisions?’”
Dr. Yeadon went on to sound the alarm over the vaccine scheme, saying he’s “sure” of it, “not slightly, but sure.”
“These materials were designed. intentionally to harm, maim and kill, and to reduce human fertility. That is my verdict.”
Dr. Yeadon added, “If you add together the lies, the economic destruction, the murder and the intentional harm from the injectables, I’m afraid the only conclusion I come to is [that] somebody up there wants to reduce the population.”
The speech was delivered last year in London on Oct. 20, where 15 MPs including Andrew Bridgen also called out the excess deaths in the UK, attributing them to the jabs.
Dr. Yeadon has for years been warning about the dangers of the poorly vetted mRNA vaccines being forced onto the public by government authorities, explaining he’s worried about a global depopulation agenda.
The ex-Pfizer scientist’s testimony contributes to the growing calls to ban the toxic jabs.
Elderly Homeowner Arrested for Fatally Shooting Burglary Suspect in California
An elderly man was jailed in California this week after he shot at home invasion suspects, killing one, according to reports.
The harrowing incident unfolded at around 6 p.m. on Monday evening in Oakland.
Police were called to a residence in the city by a neighbor who reported hearing gunshots after a trio of suspects charged onto the property, one of whom was reportedly brandishing a crowbar.
Authorities later determined the suspects – two men and a woman – had arrived in a stolen Infiniti sedan.
Officers “found the homeowner pointing a stolen Colt Python revolver at the female suspect,” KTVU reports.
“That woman told police the homeowner had shot her friend. Oakland firefighters and paramedics tried to save the suspect, but he died at the scene.”
3 in stolen Infiniti went to home near 98th & Burr intent on burglary, and one of them was shot & killed by the homeowner, 77, who was armed w/stolen .357 Colt Python revolver, per @oaklandpoliceca, arresting resident on suspicion of murder https://t.co/ExPbQkmd2y pic.twitter.com/uGLh86dzEi
— Henry K. Lee (@henrykleeKTVU) June 12, 2024
The other male suspect was located nearby and found to be carrying a replica firearm.
He was arrested on suspicion of burglary but it is unclear if either suspect has been formally charged at the time of this writing.
Oakland Police also arrested the 77-year-old homeowner on suspicion of murder and he remained behind bars as of Tuesday, according to reports.
The Alameda County District Attorney’s Office is investigating the case and will decide if the senior citizen will face charges.
InfoWars has been documenting the surge of crime across the United States, including carjackings, ‘street takeovers,’ smash-and-grab loot mobs, home invasions, and physical attacks on innocent victims.
Censored Platinum Artist M.I.A. Joins Alex Jones Live On-Air For Epic Interview
Three States Start Summer with Sound Money Policies
Earlier this year, four states took steps toward strengthening sound money by lifting or reducing taxes faced by holders of physical gold and silver. Only a few months later, three other states have actually implemented new sound money policies, and by doing so, they have improved their citizens’ economic standing.
Nebraska is the first of a recent string of sound money victories at the state level. At the end of April, Nebraska adopted Bill LB 1317 with two sound money provisions. First, Nebraskans’ capital gains on precious metals will no longer be included in their income for purposes of the Nebraska state income tax. Second, the law deals a symbolic blow to central bankers by amending Section 77-106 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes to read the following:
“The term money includes all kinds of coin and all kinds of paper, issued by or under authority of the United States, circulating as money. Money does not include central bank digital currency.”
By excluding CBDCs from the state definition of money, Nebraska has erected a bulwark against further interference in money by the Fed and federal government.
Alabama quickly followed Nebraska in similarly reducing the taxes associated with holding bullion. SB 297, sponsored by Alabama Senator Tim Melson, was enacted on May 20th with its main provision being, “to exclude net capital gains derived from the exchange of precious metal bullion from state income taxes.”
Finally, on May 28th, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed SB 232 into law. Taking effect in August, the law makes explicit Louisiana’s commitment to allowing the use of bullion in trade within the state’s bounds. The law, which is commendable in that it is both simple and single-purposed, lays out and reaffirms two crucial elements of sound money:
“Any gold or silver coin, specie, or bullion issued by any state or the United States government as legal tender shall be recognized as legal tender in the state of Louisiana. … No person shall be required to offer or accept any recognized legal tender as described in Subsection A of this Section for the payment of debts, deposit, or any other purpose, nor shall any person incur any liability for refusing to offer or accept such legal tender, except as specifically provided for by contract.”
First, the law recognizes that gold and silver are money. The fact that such a statement needs to be made and affirmed in law reveals the startling lack of economic education today. Precious metals have long been used as a universal medium of exchange, and Louisiana does well to affirm their continued monetary use.
Second, the law recognizes, perhaps implicitly, that the best money arises out of voluntary exchange. Just as it’s wrong to deny the monetary nature of gold and silver, it’s wrong to require their use. In fact, the very reason gold and silver came to be considered money was because ordinary people found it advantageous to freely trade the metals rather than bartering with other goods. In today’s economy, which is ravaged by inflation, it’s not surprising that ordinary people may want to start holding and possibly even transacting in precious metals.
The legislatures and governors of Nebraska, Alabama, and Louisiana are doing what states ought to do when national policymakers march steadily toward monetary disaster. By making precious metals easier and cheaper to use and acquire, these laws equip their citizens to better handle inflation, the federal debt crisis, and the increasingly likely decline and fall of the dollar.
Hunter Biden Found Guilty As Democrats Prepare To Flush His Poopy Pants Father Before DNC