Today's Headlines

Today's News 10-16-2024

Meta senior software engineer reveals platform ‘demotes’ content critical of Kamala, boosts Democrats: OMG

(Post Millennial – Hannah Nightingale) *Lead Story*

Trump-Appointed Judge Orders Alabama To Stop Effort To Remove Non-Citizens From Voter Rolls

(Daily Caller – Jason Hopkins) *Must Read*

Harris Explodes at Baier Because He Kept Pressing on Immigration

(Legal Insurrection – Mary Chastain)

DeSantis Fulfills Another Promise, and It Made Me Smile

(Hot Air – David Strom)

Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias’ history of legal failures as 2024 litigation continues

(Just In News – Natalia Mittelstadt)

Democrat-Friendly Licensing Boards Target Republican Attorneys General In Election Year

(The Federalist – Joy Pullmann)

‘Black Men Are Not Political Infants’: Detroit Pastor Slams Harris for ‘Exploiting’ Black Voters, Says ‘Virtue Signaling’ Won’t Work

(Washington Free Beacon – Matthew Xiao)

Mark Halperin Tells Tucker Carlson How Bad TDS Will Get If Trump Wins

(Red State – Becky Noble)

Peter Schweizer: GAI Study Details 50 Threats to Election Integrity

(Breitbart – Staff)

Why I’m Voting for Donald Trump

(American Spectator – Debra J. Saunders)

Glasses Equipped with Facial Recognition Are in Our Future

(Reason – J.D. Tuccille)

Buying the News: How Leftwing Donors Are Taking Over Local Journalism

(American Greatness – Mark Hemingway) *Must Read*

Projection, Demonization, and Fear-Mongering

(Frontpage Mag – Mark Tapson)

How to blow a quarter of a billion dollars: University of Michigan wastes its cash on failed DEI programs -NY Times report

(American Thinker – Monica Showalter)

FBI Quietly Revises Crime Stats to Less Democrat-Friendly Numbers

(PJ Media – Chris Queen)

It’s Not Your Father’s Pot Anymore

(anncoulter.com – Ann Coulter) *Must Read*

Harris wants U.S. to have world’s highest death tax

(Boston Herald – Stephen Moore)

Georgia Judge Rules New Election Rules Are ‘Illegal, Unconstitutional, and Void’

(Townhall – Sarah Arnold)

New FTC rule aims to make canceling subscriptions easier

(Center Square – Brett Rowland)

Gallup Poll Finds Record Low Trust in Media – and It May Actually Be Far Lower than That

(MRC TV – Craig Bannister)

Browse all 'News' »

Videos and Op Ed

Trump Assassination Attempt Leaves Many Injured, Two Dead At Pennsylvania Rally

Posted on July 13th, 2024 in 'Video'

Just minutes after his speech began, President Donald Trump was interrupted by the sound of gunfire at his rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. The Secret Service was seen rushing to his aide before the shocked crowd could even process what was happening. 

The shots rang out mere seconds after Trump mentioned that the “worst president in the history of our country took over,” and added, “and look what happened to our country!” He could be seen raising his hand to his ear, and was quickly pushed down behind the podium as the Secret Service agents covered him with their own bodies. 

Soon after, the screams of the crowd could be heard as people began to understand that a shooting had taken place, and that many of them had possibly been injured. Voices could be heard saying, “Shooter is down, are we clear to move?” and another answers, “We’re clear!” Then, “Let’s move!” 

Then Trump, surrounded by Secret Service and armed men, raised and pumped his fist and the crowd went wild, loudly cheering, “USA! USA! USA!,” as he was quickly whisked away. He was taken to a medical facility to be checked, reportedly with blood on his face. 

The former president assured everyone that he is “fine,” despite some reports that he had been hit in the head, and others that he was shot in the ear.

Sadly, some of his followers were hit, and one of the crowd members, a former fire chief and father, Corey Comperatore was killed protecting his wife and daughters.

The nephew of Rep Ronny Jackson (R-TX) was also shot during the assassination attempt.

The gunman has also been killed, according to the Guardian. The shooter has been identified as 20 year old Thomas Matthew Crooks. He lived just 40 miles from the rally in Bethel Park. The shooting is being investigated as an attempt to assassinate the 45th president and current presidential candidate. 

There are, however, serious questions surrounding this entire event. In a video on X is an eye-witness who claims to have seen a man with a rifle climbing on top of a building just a few hundred feet from where Trump was speaking. He says that he tried to report it to police and Secret Service, but was ignored. 

Others on Twitter raise valid questions as well, such as why nearby rooftops had not been cleared and guarded by the Secret Service, and why the shooter wasn’t discovered by drone or even binoculars. For many, it seems suspicious that a shooter could get anywhere close to the former president and endanger him and the crowd attending his rally.

Along with their suspicions, Trump supporters and others quickly went to X, formerly known as Twitter, to show their support. Georgia Governor Brian Kemp shared, “We are all praying for former President Trump, his family, and everyone at the Pennsylvania rally.”

New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu stated, “Violence of any form has no place in America. Glad to hear that President Trump is doing well and wish him the best in a speedy recovery.” 

Elon Musk tweeted out, “I fully endorse President Trump and hope for his rapid recovery.” 

As do we, Sirs, As do we.

Browse all 'Video' »

Supreme Court Determines States Cannot Remove Trump From Ballots

Posted by Angie Kaye in 'Op Ed' on March 4th, 2024

The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that the states cannot remove Trump from their ballots over J6 accusations, impacting his eligibility for the 2024 presidential election. This decision sets a precedence that will be felt throughout future elections.

rectangular red Supreme container

Trump’s Ballot Battle: Inside the Supreme Court’s Landmark Decision

The Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump cannot be removed from the 2024 presidential ballots by states, stating that only Congress has the authority to disqualify a candidate under the Constitution’s “insurrection clause”. This decision has significant implications for Trump’s eligibility for the upcoming election and sets a precedent for future challenges to candidates’ qualifications. The unanimous nature of the ruling underscores the clarity and strength of the Court’s position on this matter.

The key legal principles that influenced the Supreme Court’s decision revolved around the interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Section 3, which prohibits insurrectionists from holding office. By emphasizing that only Congress can enact disqualification under this clause, the Court reaffirmed the federal government’s authority in such matters. This ruling not only impacts Trump’s candidacy but also shapes the landscape of state-level challenges to candidates in federal elections.

This decision could basically punt the issue back to Congress, since the Supreme Court did not give a decision on whether or not Trump was guilty of insurrection. This is a key point for many who worry over the dangerous precedent that would be set by removing a presidential candidate from a ballot based on accusations for which they have not been convicted.

Background and Context Of The Supreme Court Decision

The events leading to the Supreme Court ruling were rooted in Trump’s alleged involvement in the January 6 insurrection, where he was accused of inciting violence at the Capitol. The insurrection clause in the Constitution, particularly Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, played a central role in the case, as it prohibits individuals who engaged in insurrection from holding office. 

Various states, including Colorado, brought forth challenges to Trump’s candidacy based on this provision, leading to conflicting rulings at the state and federal levels. However, no court has ever convicted Trump of those accusations, and allowing states to remove a candidate in these circumstances could lead to future candidates from both parties being removed over political mudslinging. 

While the Colorado Supreme Court initially ruled to bar Trump from the state’s primary ballot, the US Supreme Court overturned this decision, emphasizing the exclusive authority of Congress in matters of disqualification under the insurrection clause. The legal arguments presented during the case highlighted the complexities of balancing state and federal powers in regulating presidential elections, especially concerning allegations of insurrection.

Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis: It’s Up To Congress

In its legal analysis, the Supreme Court delved into the interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Section 3 and its application to presidential candidacy disqualification. The Court’s reasoning centered on the separation of powers, clarifying that state courts do not have the jurisdiction to enforce federal disqualification provisions. By aligning its decision with past electoral rulings, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the precedence of federal law in matters of national significance, such as presidential elections.

The ruling’s long-term effects on the electoral process are considerable, as it establishes a clear boundary between state and federal authority in regulating candidacy qualifications. By emphasizing that only Congress can disqualify a presidential candidate under the insurrection clause, the Court’s decision sets a precedent for future cases and reinforces the constitutional framework governing federal elections.

Ramifications on State-Level Challenges

The Supreme Court’s ruling has far-reaching implications for ongoing and future state-level challenges to candidates’ eligibility, particularly in cases involving insurrection allegations. The decision not only impacts Trump’s candidacy but also guides how states approach disqualification issues for federal offices.

States involved in challenging Trump’s qualification, such as Colorado, are now bound by the Supreme Court’s ruling, which clarifies that states cannot unilaterally disqualify candidates based on federal provisions like the insurrection clause. The precedents set by this decision will likely influence state-level election laws and regulations, ensuring a more consistent application of federal standards in candidate vetting processes.

Constitutional Implications and Legal Precedents

The case surrounding Trump’s ballot eligibility raised important constitutional considerations, particularly concerning the scope of the 14th Amendment’s insurrection provision and its applicability to presidential candidates. The arguments presented in the case underscored the complexities of interpreting this constitutional clause in the context of modern political challenges.

By rejecting the use of the 14th Amendment to keep Trump off the ballot, the Supreme Court clarified the boundaries of state authority in regulating federal elections. This decision not only resolves immediate disputes but also sets a legal precedent for future interpretations of the Constitution, especially regarding insurrection allegations and their impact on presidential candidacies.

Key Takeaways and Future Outlook

In summary, the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding Trump’s eligibility for the 2024 election ballots reaffirms the federal government’s exclusive authority in matters of candidate disqualification under the insurrection clause. This decision carries significant implications for the upcoming election landscape and underscores the importance of a consistent legal framework for regulating federal elections.

The case serves as a defining moment in clarifying the boundaries of states’ authority in regulating federal elections, ensuring that challenges to candidates’ qualifications adhere to established constitutional principles. Moving forward, the ruling is likely to shape future legal developments and challenges in the electoral process, setting a clear precedent for how insurrection allegations are addressed at the federal level.

Browse all 'Op Ed' »

Advertise here on
RebellionNews.com
*_Contact us now for more info_*