Adam Kinzinger, Vindmans, MSNBC Deliver Insane Responses to Second Trump Assassination Attempt

Adam Kinzinger, Vindmans, MSNBC Deliver Insane Responses to Second Trump Assassination Attempt

By Bonchie 

    

AP/Jim Lo Scalzo

As RedState reported, another attempt on Donald Trump's life occurred on Sunday, this time at his golf course in Florida. Shots were fired after the Secret Service spotted the would-be assassin in a treeline and he was taken into custody. 

---

SEE: Second Assassination of Trump at Golf Course in Palm Beach

---

Information was released nearly immediately, revealing Ryan Wesley Routh as the culprit. His background shows dozens of donations to far-left Democrats and a penchant for posting that "democracy is on the ballot," a favorite rant of Kamala Harris and Joe Biden. 

Given the gravity of the situation, some introspection on the left was warranted. Instead, the equivocations and outright blaming of Trump came fast and hard. One exchange on MSNBC called the attempted assassination "exceptionally unfortunate" not because the former president was nearly killed again, but because it might help him politically. 

That was just a warm-up, though. Given the shooter's obsession with supporting Ukraine, it was just a matter of time before the most Ukraine-centric political hacks among us chimed in. On that front, Adam Kinzinger decided to lock replies and post that it was Trump's fault Routh tried to kill him.

There's no sugar-coating it. Hours after another attempted assassination attempt on Donald Trump, Kinzinger decided to wink and nod at his crazed followers that everything would be fine if the former president went away. That is the kind of rhetoric that has led us to this point. The idea that commenting on what is happening in Springfield, OH, is somehow an excuse for political violence is insane.

Alexander Vindman and his crazed wife weren't any more diplomatic in their responses.

That is one sick family. There has never been a politician I've disliked enough to wish death on them. Yeah, I think Joe Biden is a bad president. No, I don't want him to be hurt. Someone who stoops to that level has serious mental issues and shouldn't be trusted to offer commentary on anything. Remember, the mainstream press lionized the Vindmans as selfless heroes. They told you these were the best America had to offer. Does any of the above read like anything other than derangement?

But understand, these people don't care about lowering the temperature or returning civility to politics. Their equivocations and deflections serve only their pursuit of power. If Trump being killed helps them, they are fine with that. I know that's a pointed, perhaps controversial thing to say, but why should I assume any differently given their own words? 

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2024/09/16/adam-kinzinger-msnbc-others-deliver-insane-responses-to-second-trump-assassination-attempt-n2179367?utm_source=rsmorningbriefingvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Kamala’s First Solo Interview Was a Total Train Wreck

Kamala’s First Solo Interview Was a Total Train Wreck

Matt Margolis 

    

AP Photo/Alex Brandon

On Friday, Kamala Harris finally gave her first solo interview since Joe Biden was forced out of the presidential race. It's hard to believe it took her nearly two months finally do an interview on her own.

And yet, the interview proved exactly why she hasn't.

Taking a page out of Barack Obama's playbook, Kamala didn't do an interview with a major news network, but with an ABC News affiliate in Philadelphia. Barack Obama employed this strategy in order to have more leverage over the terms of the interview, and it seems the Obama people who have joined her campaign have advised her to do the same.

So, obviously, you know that she was given a bunch of softball questions from reporter Brian Taft, and yet the short interview was a complete trainwreck.

"Talk about bringing down prices and making life more affordable for people," Taff began. "What are one or two specific things you have in mind for that?"

"Well, I'll start with this," she said. "I grew up a middle-class kid. My mother raised my sister and me. She worked very hard. She was able to finally save up enough money to buy our first house when I was a teenager. I grew up in a community of hardworking people. You know, construction workers and nurses and teachers. I try to explain to some people who might not have had the same experience, but a lot of people will relate to this."

We heard a version of this at the debate. Remember that? She sure has her lines memorized. Did she answer the question? Nope. But, wait, she wasn't done.

You know, I grew up in a neighborhood of people who were really proud of their lawn, you know, and I was raised to believe and to know that all people deserve dignity and that we as Americans have a beautiful character. You know, we have ambitions and aspirations and dreams, but not everyone necessarily has access to the resources that can help them fuel those dreams and ambitions. So, when I talk about building an opportunity economy, it is very much with the mind of investing in the ambitions and aspirations and the incredible work ethic of the American people and creating opportunity for people, for example, to start a small business.

So, instead of answering the question, she gave us her trademark word salad instead. You literally can't get an easier question than this. Yet, rather than offer an answer that could have included a couple of policy proposals she just defaulted to the same script she was practicing for a week for the debate.

One of Kamala's biggest challenges is trying to separate herself from Joe Biden, and yet, when she was asked to explain how she is different from Joe Biden, she couldn't.

"I wonder if there are one or two spots, policy areas or approaches, where you would say 'I'm a different person."

"Well, I'm obviously not Joe Biden," she said, with a nervous smile. "And, umm, you know, I offer a new generation of leadership, For example, thinking about developing and creating an opportunity economy where it's about investing in areas that really need a lot of work and maybe focusing on, again, the aspirations and the dreams but also just recognizing that at this moment in time some of this stuff we could take for granted years ago, we can't take for granted anymore," she said.

Would anyone like to explain what that means? Perhaps glean some kind of policy proposal or a concept for one out of that? Can you explain why she couldn't answer such an important question to distance herself from Joe Biden?

There are plenty of other pathetic moments of this trainwreck interview to enjoy as well.

And this gem.

It's quite obvious why she hasn't done more interviews, isn't it? Don't expect another one anytime soon.

https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2024/09/14/kamalas-first-solo-interview-was-a-total-train-wreck-n4932514?utm_source=pjmedia&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm&bcid=15803c7fc8c68b6fd1f0a5e7f4b59fc49df45d48335d4339ad60f7b0a0c7404d&lctg=28668535?utm_source=pjmediavip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm

Why Won’t This Swing State Clear 4 Million Ineligible Names From Voter Rolls?

Why Won’t This Swing State Clear 4 Million Ineligible Names From Voter Rolls?

Fred Lucas

One of the most fiercely contested battlegrounds in this fall’s presidential race won’t remove more than 4 million ineligible names from its voter rolls. 

“Wisconsin’s population is a little less than 6 million, with 3.5 million active voters,” Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., told The Daily Signal in a written statement. “So why do election officials refuse to clean up Wisconsin’s voter rolls and [instead] allow up to 4.1 million inactive voters to remain, with the potential for fraudulently using those names?”

Although Johnson and some other lawmakers contend that unpruned voter rolls create election security holes, the Wisconsin Elections Commission contends that it ensures proper recordkeeping and prevents fraud. 

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

A website of the Wisconsin Elections Commission called Badger Voters numbers “all voters” in the state at 7.7 million. That’s a total of 3.5 million active voters and 4.19 million inactive voters. 

Voters listed as “inactive” aren’t eligible to vote in Wisconsin. Residents who haven’t voted for four years and failed to respond to repeated notices from election officials are moved to the inactive list. 

But Wisconsin keeps the names on the voter rolls, in contrast to many other states that delete ineligible names. If ineligible names were just deleted, the Wisconsin Elections Commission contends, “There would be no registration history, no participation history, and most importantly, no history of why a record became ineligible.”  

But lawmakers contend that keeping the ineligible names on the rolls creates vulnerabilities. 

Earlier this year, the former deputy director of the Milwaukee County Election Commission was sentenced to one year of probation and a $3,000 fine after she was convicted of charges in October 2022 that she obtained three absentee ballots and used fake names and Social Security numbers, The Associated Press reported. 

The criminal complaint said she used her work-issued computer to obtain three military absentee ballots using fake names and Social Security numbers. Claiming she was trying to make a point,  she sent the phony ballots to a Republican state representative.

“In Milwaukee County, an election official created voters but the Wisconsin Elections Commission says they have to keep those names on their list as inactive for metadata with an explanation of why they are inactive,” state Rep. Scott Krug, chairman of the House Campaign and Elections Committee, told The Daily Signal. “They aren’t even real people, but the WEC won’t take anyone off the voter rolls.”

Krug said state courts have sided with the election commission in the past.

“There has been a conflict over this for a few years about whether we as legislators can order the ineligible names to be removed,” Krug said. “Courts have said we cannot force the removal and it is at the discretion of the WEC.”

The Wisconsin Elections Commission referred The Daily Signal to its previous statements on the matter. 

“There are two big reasons to retain the records of inactive, or ineligible, voters. First and foremost is that the law requires it. The retention of public records is essential to the maintenance of an open and transparent government,” the commission’s website says. 

The commission says the second reason is that “to retain ineligible voter records is to safeguard against fraud.”

“The retention of voter history does not make it any easier to commit election fraud. It is no more difficult or easy to change a voter record than it is to create one from scratch. Instead, the retention of historical data helps to safeguard against abuse of the system,” the Wisconsin Elections Commission contends. “If ineligible records were destroyed, the state of Wisconsin would have no voting history. There would be no registration history, no participation history, and most importantly, no history of why a record became ineligible.”  

The Associated Press has noted that if a voter’s address has changed, “Wisconsin voters can register online, by mail, in person at their local clerk’s office, or at the polls on the day of an election.”

The state has strong voter ID laws, which could counter these electron threats, noted Annette Olson, CEO of MacIver Institute, a Wisconsin think tank.

“The Wisconsin Elections Commission will not remove any of those names,” Olson told The Daily Signal. “There are people who are made up that are still on the voter rolls. They are not real. … As long as the [election] clerks enforce the voter ID laws, we should be in good hands.”

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/09/11/sen-ron-johnson-why-wont-wisconsin-clear-4-million-ineligible-names-from-voter-rolls/

ABC News rebuked by pro-life group, asked for correction of abortion claim by debate moderator

 ABC News rebuked by pro-life group, asked for correction of abortion claim by debate moderator

ABC's Linsey Davis told Trump 'there is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born'

 By Brian Flood Fox News

FIRST ON FOX: A prominent pro-life group isn’t happy with ABC News over its hosting of Tuesday’s presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Trump. 

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America on Wednesday sent a letter to ABC News president Almin Karamehmedovic and debate moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis that urges them to issue a correction and meet with abortion survivors over a viral moment where Davis fact-checked Trump.

"[The] ABC News Presidential Debate featured network moderator Linsey Davis attempting to debunk former President Trump's assertion that some states allow for the killing of an infant after birth," Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America president Marjorie Dannenfelser wrote in the letter obtained by Fox News Digital. 

ABC’S LINSEY DAVIS RAISES EYEBROWS WITH ABORTION FACT-CHECK AGAINST TRUMP: 'COMPLETELY INTERJECTS HERSELF'

ABC Presidential Debate co-moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis. (ABC News)

During the debate, Trump referred to infamous comments made by former Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam in 2019 but was promptly "fact-checked" by Davis. At the time, Northam suggested that in those rare instances of third-trimester abortions, a baby could be born alive and a "discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."

"The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother," Northam said in 2019.

Trump's apparent reference to Northam at the debate drew a quick rebuke from Davis.

"There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born," Davis said. 

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America claims the ABC moderator was "inaccurate" and should correct the record. 

"This is 100% inaccurate. Her statement tragically ignores the reality of babies who survive failed, late-term abortions but are denied basic medical care and left to die," Dannenfelser wrote.

"We are writing to request a swift correction from Ms. Davis and ABC News. It is undeniable that babies are born in this country after failed abortions, as the facts below demonstrate," she continued. "A correction from the network and the debate moderators is an important first step in acknowledging this fact. We also encourage ABC to meet with abortion survivors who are a living testament to the need for born-alive protections."

VOTERS GIVE HARRIS THE DEBATE WIN, BUT PRAISE TRUMP ON POLICY: SHE GOT UNDER HIS SKIN

A prominent pro-life group isn’t pleased with ABC News debate moderator Linsey Davis over a fact-check of former President Trump. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

The pro-life advocate then added several claims to back up the request for a correction, including "numerous examples of babies born alive after failed abortions" and a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that "between 2003 and 2014, around 143 babies died after being born alive following failed abortions." 

It also cited a report from the center-right outlet The Dispatch about Minnesota recording eight deaths among infants who survived abortion attempts during Tim Walz’s tenure as governor.

"It’s also a fact that, as a U.S. senator, Kamala Harris voted against protections for babies born alive after failed abortions. And as a member of Congress, her running mate Tim Walz even issued a public apology for ‘accidentally’ voting for said legislation after he previously voted against it," Dannenfelser wrote.

The Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life president requested an in-person meeting with ABC honchos to speak directly with abortion survivors. 

Numerous fact-checks published after the debate slammed Trump for his remarks on abortion.

"Infanticide is illegal in every state, and Harris and Walz have never supported it," CBS News reported. NPR also cited a Kaiser Family Foundation report earlier this year that stated abortions "after birth" are illegal in all 50 states.

At the debate, Harris dodged a question from Davis over whether she supported any restrictions on a woman's right to an abortion. 

"I absolutely support reinstating the protections of Roe v. Wade," Harris said. "And as you rightly mentioned, nowhere in America is a woman carrying a pregnancy to term and asking for an abortion. That is not happening."

https://www.foxnews.com/media/abc-news-rebuked-pro-life-group-asked-correction-abortion-claim-debate-moderator