The Teachers Unions are Killing Education in America. Why Every Parent Should be Outraged
July 6, 2024
School Choice, Charter Schools, Home Schooling anything but “government run” schools. Our public school systems are failing. The bigger the city, the worse it is. There is a solution. And it takes less money, not more.
I will show you the proof that competition in education works.
The president was also asked if he had spoken to members of Congress about his decision to stay in the presidential race.
He responded that he had spoken to at least 20.
“What are they telling you?” a reporter queried.
“They’re telling me to stay in the race,” Biden answered.
He dismissed reports that Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia is bringing together a group of his colleagues, calling on him to not seek a second term.
“Mark Warner is the only one considering that,” he said.
Biden pointed to a meeting with Democratic governors he had at the White House Wednesday night during which they reconfirmed their commitment to his candidacy.
Asked if he was confident that he could serve another four years, the president responded, “I’m positive.”
In a Thursday Truth Social post, Trump wrote, “I have the answer to the Crooked Joe Biden Incompetence Puzzle — Let’s do another Debate, but this time, no holds barred – An all on discussion, with just the two of us on stage, talking about the future of our Country.”
I have the answer to the Crooked Joe Biden Incompetence Puzzle — Let’s do another Debate, but this time, no holds barred – An all on discussion, with just the two of us on stage, talking about the future of our Country. The ratings were massive for the First Debate, record…
— Donald J. Trump Posts From His Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) July 4, 2024
“It would also, under great pressure, prove his ‘competence,’ or lack thereof. Likewise it would be yet another test for me. What a great evening it would be, just the two of us, one on one, in a good, old fashioned Debate, the way they used to be.”
At his rally in Madison, Biden stated, “Let me say this as clearly as I can: I’m staying in the race! I will beat Donald Trump. I will beat him again in 2020.”
“I’m staying in the race. I’ll beat Donald Trump,” President Biden reassured voters at a campaign event in Wisconsin. “I’m not letting one 90-minute debate wipe out three and a half years of work.” https://t.co/tD94Qnuy1upic.twitter.com/Z7it1LyiyZ
Disgraceful Behavior: Rude Elderly Biden Supporter Appears to Berate Young Black Woman Then Joe Biden Ignores Her
July 6, 2024
In a scene all too familiar to those who have witnessed the Democrats’ so-called “tolerance” firsthand, an incident occurred at a Biden campaign event Friday night in Madison, Wisconsin.
After delivering a speech to his supporters, Biden proceeded to shake hands and take selfies with several audience members.
Among the crowd was a young black woman, excited and proudly holding a Biden-Harris sign.
However, her moment of joy was rudely interrupted by an elderly Biden supporter who seemed visibly irritated.
She appeared to berate the young woman and demanded that she lower her sign.
To make matters worse, Biden himself added to the young woman’s disappointment.
Biden ignored the young woman entirely, walking past her without so much as a glance.
Democrats preach unity and respect but fail to practice what they preach.
WATCH:
Look at how poorly the rude little old lady treats this young woman on Biden’s rope line.
Lots of people are posting the clip of Joe ignoring the woman, but her mistreatment by the hag on her left needs to be seen as well.
I’m embarrassed for this black girl. She thought Biden was going to give her a hug but he just skipped past her and moved on to the white woman. pic.twitter.com/CFc2TV5Bkw
Gunfire Erupts in Downtown St. Louis Following July 4th Fireworks Display — 7 People Shot Including 13-Year-Old — SHOOTING CAUGHT ON VIDEO
July 6, 2024
A mass gunfight broke out in downtown St. Louis following fireworks late Thursday night. Seven people were injured including a 13-year-old.
There was a mass shooting in downtown St. Louis on Thursday night following the annual fireworks display.
Seven people were shot including a 13-year-old.
The mass shooting was captured on video.
MASS SHOOTING: serious firepower seen here in this morning’s St. Louis bloodbath, resulting in seven victims: a 13-year-old, three 18-year-olds, a 20-year-old and two 23-year-olds. pic.twitter.com/cjiiXmvfFy
Dozens of gunshots were fired off as people ran and ducked down on the sidewalks in downtown St. Louis.
Here’s more video.
This is what people experienced leaving the fireworks downtown on the 4th of July. Wonder how City Officials will try to spin this. Children and families were in the area when this was happening. Jeez. #CrimePlanpic.twitter.com/mSsF51gy0V
Seven people were shot following the Fourth of July fireworks show in Downtown St. Louis Thursday night.
“We needed to get out of here because there’s just way too many people. I’m so glad that we did that,” Marlen Sanchez, who attended the display, said.
Police say around midnight, gunfire broke out. Four people were shot on 8th and Pine, and three others were shot on Chestnut Street, including a 13-year-old.
“A scary situation. I just can’t believe it,” Sanchez said.
First Alert 4 spoke with one of the 911 callers who said, “I watched the switch from calm to war zone.”
“The failure to communicate about this mass shooting is really appalling,” says Ward 8, Alderwoman Cara Spencer.
Spencer represents the ward where the multiple-victim shooting occurred and blames Mayor Tishaura Jones for the state of downtown.
“We need an administration that says this is where the buck stops, and as mayor, the buck will stop with me,” Spencer said. “We don’t have the police presence we need downtown to keep it safe after hours. We are sitting here with 30% vacancy in our police department, and that’s unacceptable.”
Independent Judiciary and Executive Privilege: Essential Pillars of Democracy
July 6, 2024
The Supreme Court as composed June 30, 2022 to present. Credit: Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Democrats argue that Donald Trump’s candidacy poses a threat to democracy. However, he is the presumptive candidate of the Republican Party. By attempting to keep him off the ballot, silencing him, and deplatforming the opposition, they are the ones threatening democracy.
After the Supreme Court ruling on immunity, they are saying that an independently adjudicating Supreme Court poses a threat to democracy, but the opposite is true. The U.S. system is founded on the principle of an independent judiciary.
Furthermore, challenging presidential immunity is perilous. Without presidential immunity, each incoming administration would be able to bring charges against the previous president for policies they disapprove of. Taken together, these three would make the United State a banana republic.
The concept of judicial independence is embedded in the structure of the Constitution and its various provisions. Article III of the Constitution establishes the judiciary as an independent branch of government.
An independent judiciary is integral to the separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. An independent Supreme Court is able to adjudicate according to the Constitution, free from political pressure, threats, or retribution.
This is a vital part of the checks and balances system, as it prevents the passage of laws or executive orders that violate the rights protected by the Constitution.
Judicial independence is crucial for resolving election disputes fairly and in accordance with the law, which maintains public confidence in the electoral process and the legitimacy of elected representatives.
The 14th Amendment of the Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to apply to election practices and procedures. Cases like Bush v. Gore (2000) demonstrate how the Court adjudicates issues related to the fairness and equality of election processes.
Consequently, it is appropriate for citizens who feel an election violated the law or was conducted unfairly to bring their case to the Supreme Court.
Article III, Section 2 grants the judicial power of the United States to the Supreme Court and other federal courts. It allows these courts to hear cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties.
This ensures that all individuals are equal before the law and that legal disputes are resolved impartially, without favoritism or bias, reinforcing public trust in the legal system and the democratic process.
Consequently, it is reasonable for American citizens to challenge an election by bringing their case to the Supreme Court. Additionally, if an opposition candidate feels that proceedings in lower courts are politically motivated and unfair, they can escalate their complaints to the Supreme Court.
Democrats are behaving as if executive privilege is a new concept. However, executive privilege has always existed in the U.S. and in most high-functioning democracies.
While it is not explicitly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the principle has been inferred from the separation of powers doctrine. Article II, Section 1 vests the executive power in the President, implying the need for confidentiality in executive functions to perform duties effectively.
Article II, Section 3 requires the President to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’ suggesting the necessity for discretion and confidentiality in executive operations.
Executive privilege has a long and evolving history in the United States. The first use of executive privilege dates back to George Washington, who refused to provide the House of Representatives with documents related to the Jay Treaty negotiations with Great Britain, asserting the need for confidentiality in diplomatic matters.
During the Aaron Burr trial in 1807, President Thomas Jefferson claimed executive privilege to withhold documents, but ultimately provided the documents after a court order, while maintaining the right to confidentiality.
The term “executive privilege” was formally coined during the Eisenhower administration. The concept was further defined and tested during the Watergate scandal, leading to the landmark Supreme Court case United States v. Nixon (1974).
The Court ruling affirmed that executive privilege exists, but that it is not absolute and can be overridden in the context of a criminal investigation. In addition to Presidents Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama also invoked executive privilege during their administrations.
Executive privilege helps maintain the separation of powers by allowing the executive branch to operate independently from the legislative and judicial branches. This independence is crucial for the effective functioning of each branch, preventing any one branch from becoming too powerful.
Executive privilege is often discussed in terms of protecting the confidentiality of presidential communications, particularly those related to national security, diplomatic negotiations, and internal deliberations.
However, it also extends to certain actions taken by the President in their official capacity. In the recent Supreme Court ruling on Trump v. United States, the Court provided clarity on what constitutes “official acts” that are protected under executive privilege.
“Official acts” are defined as actions within the President’s conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. This includes decisions and actions directly related to the execution of the President’s duties under the Constitution. The Court emphasized that these acts are integral to the President’s role and thus merit protection to maintain the separation of powers.
The recent Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. United States (2024) is consistent with previous Supreme Court decisions. In Clinton v. Jones (1997), the Court ruled that the President does not have temporary immunity from civil litigation for actions taken before his presidency, but it also affirmed that sitting Presidents have immunity from certain judicial processes that might interfere with their official duties.
In Mississippi v. Johnson (1867), the Court ruled that the President could not be restrained by injunction from carrying out his official duties. Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (1977) affirmed that former Presidents have certain protections related to their actions in office. Finally, in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), the Court held that the President has absolute immunity from civil damages for actions taken within the scope of official duties.
By protecting the confidentiality of executive communications, executive privilege facilitates more effective decision-making. Advisors can provide candid advice, and officials can discuss various options and strategies thoroughly, leading to better-informed policies and actions.
Additionally, by protecting the President’s official actions, executive privilege ensures that the President can make policy decisions without fear of reprisal. The concept of executive privilege also underscores the judiciary’s recognition of the executive branch’s need for confidentiality. While the judiciary can review claims of executive privilege, it generally respects the executive’s prerogative unless there is a compelling need for disclosure.
We use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. We do this to improve browsing experience and to show (non-) personalized ads. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
