LAPDOG: Marco Rubio Unveils Law That Would Ban Guns For Anyone Ever Investigated For ‘Domestic Terrorism’

Marco Rubio reintroduces legislation that would strip guns from anyone investigated for domestic terrorism, even if there are no charges.

Failed presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) has introduced legislation that would strip the Second Amendment rights of any individual who was simply investigated for domestic terrorism, even if they were not charged or convicted for committing an actual crime.

On February 2, Rubio reintroduced the bill he has been pushing since the Orlando Pulse radical Islamic terrorist attack in 2016. The bill calls for stripping individuals under investigation for domestic terrorism of their ability to own or purchase firearms, a move Rubio somehow suggests would “also provide more authority for law enforcement agencies to go after suspected terrorists, while safeguarding law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment and due process rights.”

According to Rubio’s website, the bill would “When an individual who was the subject of a federal terrorism investigation within the last 10 years tries to obtain a firearm, allow the U.S. Attorney General to delay the purchase or transfer for up to ten business days and file an emergency petition in court to prevent the transfer. If the court finds probable cause that the individual is or has been engaged in terrorism, the Attorney General may arrest the individual.”

Under the Biden regime, the current Attorney General is Merrick Garland, who has fantasized about taking guns from American citizens since the early 2000s.

Rubio reentered the bill during the hysteria following the Capitol Hill protest on January 6, during which the only death by a firearm was Ashli Babbitt, who was slain by a D.C. police officer. The officer will face no punishment.

This comes as past intelligence officials who are friendly to the Joe Biden regime essentially classify the overwhelming majority of Republicans as domestic terrorists.

As National File recently reported, former CIA Counterterrorism Center director Robert Grenier compared American citizens to violent Muslim “insurgents,” writing in the New York Times, “As a former overseas operative who has struggled both on the side of insurgents and against them, the past few days have brought a jarring realization: We may be witnessing the dawn of a sustained wave of violent insurgency within our own country, perpetrated by our own countrymen.”

https://nationalfile.com/lapdog-marco-rubio-unveils-law-that-would-ban-guns-for-anyone-ever-investigated-for-domestic-terrorism/

Trump Lawyers To Use Videos Of Democrats Inciting Violence During Impeachment Defense

Former President Donald Trump’s lead impeachment defense attorney Bruce Castor said he will use video clips of top Democrats inciting violence during the coming impeachment trial.

Castor said the defense team will adhere to the strategy outlined in the brief they submitted to the Senate on Tuesday.

The Trump defense team argued in the brief that the Constitution “requires that a person actually hold office to be impeached” and that Trump was exercising his First Amendment right of free speech to question the results of the November election.

The impeachment against Trump goes against the Constitution because Trump doesn’t hold any office after he left the White House on Jan. 20, the lawyers argued.

The First Deputy Attorney General Bruce Castor speaks during a news conference in Harrisburg, Pa., on Aug. 16, 2016. (Dan Gleiter/PennLive.com via AP)

Castor revealed that the defense team will use some video clips of top Democrats encouraging violence during the impeachment trial which is scheduled to start on Monday.

“I think you can count on that,” he told Fox’s Laura Ingraham.

“If my eyes look a little red to the viewers, it’s because I have been looking at a lot of videos the last couple of days.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-lawyers-to-use-videos-of-democrats-inciting-violence-during-impeachment-defense_3687744.html

"There Is No Modern Precedent": American Murder Rate Soars 30% In 2020

Many Americans probably aren't surprised to learn that 2020 was one of the most violent years in recent memory, a solid break with the decades-long trend of lower national crime rates (with certain stubborn exceptions among bombed out rust-belt cities…and Baltimore). In addition to BLM marches across the nation that enabled waves of looting, along with more than a dozen killed, 2020 was, generally speaking, a year of unrest as millions of Americans, trapped inside their own homes, lashed out.

A wave of headlines warning about the spike in crime has now been confirmed: US murder rates saw a "historic" increase in 2020 vs. 2019, with more than 1.2K additional killings year-over-year in a sample of 34 American cities, the biggest being NYC, the smallest being Norfolk, Va.

Keep in mind, this isn't the official FBI report on crime data, which will no doubt include a fair bit of "massaging", as government reports like these often do. The report, cited by Fox News and others, was published by the National Commission of COVID-19 and Criminal Justice (NCCCJ), a non-profit group created in July of last year that includes former AG Loretta Lynch as a co-chair.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/there-no-modern-precedent-american-murder-rate-soars-30-2020

Rep. Cori Bush under fire for defending riot at St. Louis city jail

Bush's comments saw as much support as it did condemnation

Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., is facing criticism for her reaction to a riot Saturday at a downtown St. Louis jail.

Inmates rioted over a variety of concerns, setting fires, smashing windows and throwing debris to the street below. It took corrections officers almost eight hours to end the "extremely violent" disturbance.

But the Missouri congresswoman tweeted a statement of support for the rioters, saying she would work to address their grievances, which include safety fears due to the coronavirus pandemic.

"I want to talk to my constituents in the window," Bush tweeted, referring to the inmates. "Their lives and their rights must be protected. My team and I are working to ensure that the urgent needs of people who are incarcerated are not ignored."

A quote from Martin Luther King, Jr. that Bush included in her tweet also raised some eyebrows: "A riot is the language of the unheard."

Bush’s comments drew a polarized response, with some thanking Bush for "listening" and for "not forgetting" about her constituents behind bars.

Some even outright said they agreed with Bush’s sentiment.

Others, however, felt her words did not ring the same tone following the deadly U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6. Bush said that "our country deserves better" after accusing President Donald Trump of inciting the violence.

While the sacking of the Capitol has been widely condemned, some people criticized Bush for accepting the St. Louis mayhem.

"I think that argument fell out of favor about 32 days ago …," Will Truman of the Ordinary Times tweeted about Bush's remarks, drawing a comparison to the Capitol riot.

"Exactly a month ago you were saying riots were dangerous and a threat to democracy," tweeted another user. "Good to know that riots are OK now."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/missouri-lawmaker-under-fire-for-defending-riot-at-st-louis-city-jail

Lawmakers lay blame on Trump over riot as second impeachment trial looms

Republican and Democratic members of Congress on Sunday weighed in on the second impeachment trial of former President Trump, set to begin in the Senate this week.

While some Republicans laid blame on Trump for encouraging a mob to storm the Capitol last month to contest his 2020 presidential election loss, they continued to question the legality of an impeachment trial of a former president.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of Trump’s most vocal supporters during his presidency, affirmed his opposition to a trial, citing Trump's having left the White House.

"I think I'm ready to move on. I'm ready to end the impeachment trial because I think it's blatantly unconstitutional," Graham said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

However, the South Carolina senator suggested history would hold Trump responsible for the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. In January, the House impeached Trump for a historic second time on charges of inciting the riot. Ten Republican lawmakers voted in favor of impeachment, with many acknowledging that casting such a vote likely meant the end of their political careers.

“He had a consequential presidency. Jan. 6 was a very bad day for America, and he'll get his share of blame in history,” Graham said.

Graham said after the insurrection that Trump’s presidency had been “tarnished” by his role in the riot but that he did not back the use of the 25th Amendment to remove him from office.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) took the opposite track, telling Fox News host Chris Wallace that “impeachment comes not only with the provision to remove an individual from office but to disqualify them from future office. I don’t think our job ends just because the president has left office.”

Murphy said the chamber was undecided on whether to call witnesses in the trial because, unlike the phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, for which Trump was impeached in 2019, “we saw what happened in real time. President Trump sent that angry mob to the Capitol on live TV, so it’s not as important that we have witnesses.”

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), meanwhile, called the trial a “meaningless messaging partisan exercise.” He said impeachment was not meant to be used to hold someone accountable who was no longer in office.

“Now, if there are other ways, in the court of public opinion, or if some criminal charge dawns on some prosecutor, perhaps here's another avenue there,” wicker told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos.

Stephanopoulos brought up Wicker’s earlier comments that the impeachment of former President Clinton would "protect the long-term national interest of the United States, to affirm the importance of truth and honesty and to uphold the rule of law in our nation."

Wicker responded that Clinton had been determined to have committed perjury, whereas "I’m not conceding that President Trump incited an insurrection.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/537726-lawmakers-lay-blame-on-trump-over-riot-as-second-impeachment-trial

French court finds France failed to meet its own Paris Agreement climate commitments

The hypocrisy

A French court declared France was guilty of failing to meet its own climate change goals that it had committed to when it signed the international agreement named after its own capital city. The lawsuit brought by four environmental groups claimed that France was not living up to the terms agreed upon in the Paris Agreement.

France, which brokered the 2015 international treaty on climate change, committed to reducing greenhouse gases by 40% by 2030. France also pledged to be carbon neutral by 2050. However, four non-governmental organizations said the French government wasn't doing enough to curb climate change and was "responsible for ecological damage."

The NGOs include environmental groups Greenpeace France, Oxfam France, "It's Everyone's Business," and "The Foundation for Nature and Mandking." Two years ago, the environmental groups organized a petition to denounce "climate inaction" by the French government. The petition received 2 million signatures within a month. In March 2019, the organizations filed a lawsuit against France, according to CBS News.

The lawsuit alleges that France's greenhouse gas emissions "dropped at a pace that was twice as slow as the trajectories foreseen under the law."

On Wednesday, Paris' administrative court ruled that the French government was guilty of not living up to climate change expectations. The court ordered France to pay one euro ($1.20) for moral damage to each of the associations behind the lawsuit. Judges told the state to focus their efforts on meeting the greenhouse gas reduction goals set forth by the Paris Climate Accord.

The administrative tribunal declared that it would reevaluate the country's climate change efforts in two months and determine if further measures should be taken against the government over their climate crisis response.

"The judges examined whether there was a causal link between this ecological damage and the various breaches alleged against the state in the fight against climate change. They held that the state should be held responsible for part of this damage if it failed to meet its commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," the court statement said.

Despite only symbolic punishments levied against the French government, the NGOs were excited over the court's ruling.

"This decision marks a first historic victory for the climate and a major advance in French law," the organizations said in a joint statement. "This judgment also marks a victory for the truth: Until now, the state has denied that its climate policies were insufficient, despite mounting evidence."

"This is the first recognition by the courts of the responsibility of the French State for its climate inaction," Clementine Baldon, a lawyer for one of the NGOs, said.

President Joe Biden signed an executive order on his first day in office to rejoin the Paris Agreement. Former President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Accord during his presidency.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/france-climate-change-paris-agreement

>>12852054