President Biden was “deeply disappointing” by the Supreme Court’s gun ruling that overturned New York’s law restricting concealed carry permits.

Biden made this statement shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision. New York law requires permit applicants to give reasons for obtaining a firearm.

Biden stated that New York has required that anyone who wants to carry concealed weapons in public must prove self-defense. ”

He stated, “I urge all states to continue to enact commonsense legislation to make their citizens and communities safer from gun violence.”

Biden’s statement came minutes after Democratic New York Governor Kathy Hochul condemned it. Hochul stated that the United States did not have access to muskets when the 2nd Amendment was written and that she was open to returning to muskets with gun restrictions.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen is the first major 2nd Amendment case to reach the Supreme Court in more than a decade.

To determine whether applicants have provided a reason for owning a firearm, the state could use “proper cause” to determine. They could then deny access to anyone who wanted to be secure.

Respondents agree with petitioners that law-abiding citizens have the right to openly carry handguns publicly for self-defense. We concluded that New York’s licensing system is in violation of the Constitution.

The gun-rights case will be one of many cases that SCOTUS will decide on Thursday and Friday. Dobbs v. Jackson is another case in which the court is expected to overturn Roe V. Wade.

According to a poll of New Hampshire voters, only 9% said they want President Biden back to run. However, 20% said they would “probably” vote for him to run. According to a University of New Hampshire Survey Center poll, 52% of voters said they don’t want Biden running again in 2022, up from 43% in 2021.

Only 54% of likely Democratic voters said Biden should run again, a sharp drop from the 74% of self identified Democrats who wanted Biden to be re-elected in University of New Hampshire’s 2021 survey.

According to a Wednesday poll, Kamala Harris’ approval in New Hampshire is much lower than President Biden’s. The poll measures support for potential 2024 candidates.

The University of New Hampshire poll showed Harris had 23% favorability, while Biden was at 23%. However, the number of likely Democratic primary voters who saw Harris unfavorably is significantly higher. Sixty-four per cent of respondents see Harris as unfavorable as a potential Democratic presidential nominee for 2024, compared with 56% who saw Biden unfavorably.

Biden’s net negative 30 percentage point is tied for the lowest, which was established in May 2020, just a few months after he won the Democratic nomination.

An earlier Fox News poll found that Harris was unpopular with likely voters. 39% viewed her favorably, and 56% viewed her unfavorably.

Recent speculation about a Democratic nominee has grown in response to the president’s low approval ratings, fears about his age, and the possibility of a disastrous midterm election for Democrats.

The University of New Hampshire also surveyed potential Republican presidential nominees. Voters had a favorable view of Florida Governor. Ron DeSantis is more popular than Trump.

39% of likely Republican primary voters said they would support Florida’s first governor and 37% said that they would support the former president. The survey provided respondents with a list of possible candidates for the GOP presidential nomination in 2024. DeSantis’ margin was within the sampling error.

New Hampshire is the first state to hold a primary in the presidential nomination cycle. It has been a battleground state for decades. Trump lost four of the state’s electoral votes to Hillary Clinton in 2016, a narrow margin. Biden won the state by seven points in 2020.

According to the poll, Trump would be outnumbered by Biden in New Hampshire by 50%-43%, but DeSantis is ahead of Biden by 47%-46%.

The UNH Survey Center poll took place June 16-20. 845 likely voters in 2024, including 318 likely GOP primaries voters, were questioned online. The overall sampling error for the survey is +/- 3.4 percentage points. For likely GOP primary voters, it’s +/- 5.5 percentage points.

The Feds served a search warrant on Michael McDonald, Nevada Republican chairman, and James DeGraffenreid, state party secretary, as Democrats continued their partisan hearings. This week, they also raided Jeffrey Clark’s home. Clark is a Trump-era Justice Department official.

8 News Now reports that McDonald’s agents took McDonald’s’ phone to investigate the fake elector scheme at the 2020 election. This was in response to the controversy surrounding Biden winning. According to official statistics, the vote was cast by six Nevadans who won the state by less than three percent.

According to the outlet, “A second search warrant has been issued in respect state party secretary James DeGraffenreid, who signed the document.” Sources say that FBI agents failed to locate DeGraffenreid Wednesday.

This isn’t a complete list. Agents searched Jeffrey Clark’s house on Wednesday. Clark, a Trump-era Justice Department official, reportedly wrote letters to states asking them to reconsider their election results.

Center for Renewing America, Clark’s employer confirmed the search. Russ Vought (President of Center for Renewing America) revealed that Jeff Clark’s house was raided by more than 12 DOJ officers in a predawn raid. Clark was also placed in his pajamas by the officers and his electronic devices were taken.

He stated that “the new age in criminalizing politics has worsened” and then added that Clark was being targeted as he “saw fit to” investigate voter fraud.

Vought was also the Director of the Office of Management and Budget for President Trump.

Democrats are continuing their partisan January 6 hearings. The Feds’ law-enforcement activity is also occurring. Mark Levin a well-known conservative speaker, author and speaker warned that the Feds would “go down as a dark mark on the American political system.” ”

A poll by ABC News found that less than 10% of Americans follow hearings closely. Survey data shows that Americans trust Republicans more to protect democracy than Democrats.

Peter Navarro was a former White House economic adviser. He was detained by the Feds for contempt of Congress three weeks ago. He refused to cooperate in the January 6 committee.

Conservatives took to Twitter to criticize Governor Kathy Hochul (D-N.Y.), after she lashed out at the Supreme Court decision that overturned New York’s restrictive concealed carry firearm regulations.

The Supreme Court’s decision on Thursday to strike down state regulations regarding concealed carry permits was broadcast live by Governor Hochul, who defiantly addressed her citizens and denounced the decision.

Hochul stated that the Supreme Court had “deprived the State of New York of its right and responsibility to protect its citizens” during the press conference. Hochul stated that the Supreme Court’s decision was “frightful” in its scope and “sends us backwards as we try to protect families and prevent gun violence.”

Hochul’s speech, which lasted around seven minutes, went viral. Hochul said, “I’m sorry that this dark day has arrived, and that we’re supposed go back to what was there since 1788, when the Constitution of America was ratified.” I also want to remind the Supreme Court justices of the fact that the only weapon at that time was muskets. I am willing to return to muskets.

Brittany Hughes, MRCTV host, criticized Hochul’s point and responded, “And the only politicians then were men.” What is your point?

Tim Young, Washington Times columnist, tweeted: “If Kathy Hochul’s security detail doesn’t switch to only using mukets first… then she has the right to f— off.”

Stephen Miller, a former Trump senior advisor, asked: “Will the criminals roaming freely through New York be going back into muskets too?” Hochul replied, “Also, just out of curiosity, what medium does Hochul use to broadcast this message? Did it exist in 18th century?”

Carmine Sabia, conservative author, also criticized Hochul’s talk point, saying, “New York Governor. Kathy Hochul claims she is’ready to go back to muzzles’ because she seems determined to [violate] Section 2.

Monica Crowley, Conservative podcast host, asked: “Hi @GovKathyHochul – do you remember when your Congressmanship was and how proudly you displayed your NRA ‘A’ rating? It was good times.

The governor also tweeted her frustrations. She wrote, “It’s outrageous that at a time of national reckoning about gun violence the Supreme Court recklessly struck down New York law which limits who can carry concealed arms,”

Jill Savage, a Blaze reporter, criticized Hochul’s tweet and commented, “Sorry, the Constitution happened to your.”

Matthew Kolken, a conservative lawyer, responded to Hochul’s tweet by writing: “Take the loss Kathy. Or, we will see you again in Court.

Beth Baumann, a conservative journalist, rebutted Hochul’s post and accused her of wanting to make Americans victims. “It’s absurd that you want sexual assault survivors such as myself to prove that we need a CCW, even if our past is sufficient proof.” Because I was in Gavin Newsom’s state when it happened, I understand what that feels like.”

Hochul’s tweet was retweeted by Graham Allen, a conservative personality.

Wendell Husebo, a Breitbart journalist, replied that it was a “great ruling.” It protects self-defense rights. Private security such as Hochul is not affordable for everyone.

The post Twitter Slams Gov. Hochul’s Anger Over SCOTUS Gun Ruling appeared first on Conservative Research Group.

The Uvalde mass shooting has been the subject of many negative stories. We saw the disturbing picture of the police in uniform with shields at 11:52. They didn’t enter the building for another 58 minutes. They didn’t even attempt to open the door in the remaining minutes, or they would have discovered it wasn’t locked.

BREAKING: Multiple officers were inside Robb Elementary School with rifles and at least one ballistic shield at 11:52 a.m. the day of the shooting, new video and other evidence shows. They didn’t enter the classroom for another 58 minutes. More soon via @statesman and @KVUE. 1/2 pic.twitter.com/0BcYgq2hcQ

— Tony Plohetski (@tplohetski) June 20, 2022

It is hard to believe there is more.

The latest may be the worst.

On Wednesday, Col. Steven McCraw, Texas Department of Public Safety Director, testified about the tragic events that occurred to Eva Mireles. It was heartbreaking. Ruben Ruiz was her husband. He was also a district police officer. McCraw reports that Ruiz received a call from McCraw stating that Ruiz had “shot her and she’s dead.” Ruiz informed the authorities on the scene that Ruiz called at 11:48 AM.

It’s difficult to listen even just for a moment.

McCraw stated, “And what happened? He tried to move forward in the hallway.” “He was taken into custody and his gun confiscated by McCraw and escorted off the scene.”

The husband of Uvalde teacher Eva Mireles is an officer who responded to scene. When he tried to get to her, other officers took his gun away and escorted him out, according to the DPS director. https://t.co/gI5StYusfV

— KHOU 11 News Houston (@KHOU) June 22, 2022

Eva Mireles was still breathing 22 minutes later, at 12:10 p.m., when one of the children called 911 asking for help. “I don’t want to be dead, my teacher has died, please send help for my teacher. She is still alive, but she is shot.”

Mireles’ desperate husband and Mireles’ phone call made it clear that there were still people out there and they knew it.

The shooter was not confronted for more than an hour. Mireles was alive even after that.

The Times reported earlier in the month that officers could be seen on video rushing children out of the room and delivering Ms. Mireles. She appeared to be in severe pain. She was rushed to an ambulance but she died before she reached the hospital.

In emergency medicine, there is a common concept. This is known as the “golden hour”. It refers to the importance of getting help to critically injured patients within the first hour. After that, their chances of dying increase. Every case is different. They wasted their golden hour by not responding. It is hard to not think of the possibility that they could have saved her life if they had rushed to help. It’s difficult to imagine the pain her husband must have endured in all this, not only knowing that he could save her but also having them hold him and the parents of her children back. It’s hard to believe that every officer didn’t want to go into the building with them.

The post In Uvalde Police Detained Teacher’s Officer Husband After She Called Him for Help appeared first on Conservative Research Group.

Biological males who want to participate in women’s sports will notice that the door has closed on another sport.

Tuesday was the official announcement by the International Rugby League:

Male-to-female (transwomen) players are unable to play in sanctioned women’s International Rugby League matches.

But it’s not necessarily the final word. The rule remains “until further research is completed to enable the IRL to implement a formal transgender inclusion policy.”

The association will “review and update rules concerning transgender participation at women’s International Rugby League.”

The study’s conclusion was based on “several relevant developments in world sports”.

The IOC released its November 2021 Framework to Promote Fairness, Non-Discrimination, and Inclusion on the Basis of Gender Identity.

The IOC determined that the governing bodies of each sport and each sport were able to determine how an athlete could be at a disadvantage relative to their peers. This was done taking into consideration the unique nature of each sport.

Depending on the organization’s view of it, everyone is responsible for further inspection.

The IRL believes it is important and responsible to consult further in order to avoid unnecessary welfare and legal risks to International Rugby League competitions.

The IRL is responsible for balancing individual rights to play, which has been an integral part of the Rugby League’s history. It must also consider the risk that other participants may experience.

This balance is not a strength in rugby. It is also not well-known for its cuddles. It’s possible for male dominance to become quite ugly in rugby.

It is hard to decide between broken bones and hurt feelings. I am now open to personal lawsuits by male players who have done me harm. ”

Another ref stated, “If you even ask the question, then you will be told you are a racist.”

Sharron Davy, an ex-Olympic athlete, also contributed:

“My daughter Grace was told at the age of 11 that she could no longer play with the boys because it was no longer safe. How can they have that rule in place and…say it is perfectly okay for a transgender woman who is a biological man to play with the girls, but girls who are girls are not allowed to play with the boys because it is dangerous?”

This decision by the IRL follows a significant one made by the International Swimming Federation.

From NBC News Sunday

Sunday’s women’s events were banned by the World Swimming governing body.

FINA members voted 71% for the new “gender-inclusive” policy, which allows only female swimmers to compete in male-to-female competitions at the extraordinary general congress.

According to the IRL, it will work alongside the eight Women’s Rugby League World Cup 2021 finalists to collect data to develop a transwomen inclusion strategy for 2023 that takes account of the unique characteristics and strengths of rugby league.

Transgenderism has been a topic of debate in athletics for many years.

It’s not a mistake to say that everyone is Team Rugby. There are other sports that might be more welcoming of cisgenderism.

Multiple reports state that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is looking to ban all Juul vaping products. In the long term, this will undoubtedly do more harm than good.

E-cigarettes, also known as vaping, were introduced in the United States in 2007. Millions have used them since 2007 to replace cigarettes (95 percent less dangerous).

Contrary to the far more dangerous combustible tobacco cigarettes, vaping devices do not contain nicotine or any other chemicals known to cause cancer. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration states that these products contain an “e-liquid” which may contain nicotine. There are also varying compositions for flavorings, propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, and other ingredients. To create an aerosol, the liquid is heated and inhaled.

Why would FDA ban Juul? According to the FDA, Juul and vaping products pose a serious risk to American teens.

Let’s go back to 2019. The so-called “teen vaping epidemic”? The mainstream media reported that teens were dying from vaping products like Juul. This was media fearmongering at its worst.

As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) eventually admitted, “We do not yet know the specific cause of these lung injuries. The investigation has not identified any specific e-cigarette or vaping product (devices, liquids, refill pods, and/or cartridges) or substance that is linked to all cases.”

The CDC dropped another bombshell. “Based on initial data…We know: Most patients reported a history of using e-cigarettes containing THC. ”

The epidemic of lung injuries among teenagers in the summer of 2019 was not caused by legal vaping devices or related products

Nevertheless, the events of the summer of 2019 sparked a backlash against vaping companies, especially Juul. In short order, flavored pods were banned because they allegedly appealed to teenagers. Some states also upped the age requirement to buy vaping devices to 21.

These flavor restrictions were only for Juul’s closed-pod system devices. You still have the option to buy any flavor you want in an open pod system device.

Many vapers prefer the closed pod system even though it is more expensive, it is more convenient than open vape systems and doesn’t require maintenance like the open vapes.

The FDA might be dropping the hammer on Juul. Juul is the original vaping brand that was popularized in 2010 when it introduced its closed pod system.

The FDA should not ban products like Juul just as it should not ban sugar-laden cereals or fat-filled donuts. At what point do we the American people say enough is enough?

The post FDA’s War on Juul Is Asinine appeared first on Conservative Research Group.

President Joe Biden sounded alarmists on Twitter by saying that COVID-19 vaccines are being given to children younger than five years old.

Biden was provoked to act out by the head-turning comments of a reporter. He wanted to know what kind of spending the U.S. government would be willing to continue to make to produce and distribute additional vaccines and maintain the infrastructure necessary to combat COVID-19, which lingers in the country.

Last week, the FDA and CDC approved emergency use of COVID-19 vaccinations for children as young at six months.

The reporter told Biden, “I know you want more money to fund this vaccine campaign. COVID funding will continue in the fall.” The reporter then asked Biden, “How many vaccines are there for these kids and how many can I get vaccinated before Congress provides more money?” ”

Biden responded, “We’ll make through at least the calendar year,” before adding that “We need more money.” We don’t need more money to provide vaccines to children.

Biden confirmed his prediction that there would be another pandemic. “We must look ahead. ”

He attacked Trump’s government and said, “And that was not something the prior outfit did very well.” This is something that we have been doing very well. That’s why the money was needed.

Despite Twitter users being confused and annoyed at Biden’s warnings of “another pandemic”, they didn’t seem surprised.

Miranda Devine, a Fox News contributor and New York Post writer, tweeted “Right in Time For 2024”, suggesting that a pandemic could affect the upcoming election.

Conservative commentator Ian Miles Cheong expressed his confusion at Biden’s statements. He was puzzled by the claim that Biden needed more money to combat a new pandemic. He asked, “What was he referring too?

Tara Servatius (Conservative radio host) tweeted: “Here’s Biden Administration saying US they plan to hold another Pandemic almost like it can be controlled.”

Sean Davis CEO of The Federalist said that it sounded very dangerous.

Gary Sheffield Jr., a podcaster for sports, responded to Biden’s remarks by tweeting: “Let Nancy Pelosi pay Nancy Pelosi using her investment portfolio. ”

Phil Holloway, a lawyer and podcast host, made fun of Biden’s remarks by tweeting: “Any clue when?” “I’d like to stockpile toilet tissue a little better next time. ”

Samantha Chang from the Western Journal suggested that Biden would use a second pandemic in order to disrupt the midterm election. This variant will occur shortly before the November midterm elections.

James Melville, a liberal author, reinforced the financial consequences of the first pandemic in order to warn about the potential for the “second” pandemic.”

While on his 2008 campaign trail, Barack Obama ridiculed the idea of a gas-tax holiday as a gimmick. The White House supported the idea on Wednesday.

“I am aware that the gas tax holiday is up for debate. I am aware of how hard this is for people right now and I understand they need relief. Obama stated on the campaign trail 14 year ago that he offered a tax cut for all Americans, as well as $1,000 for working families, so they could deal with rising gas prices and rising health care costs.

He said, “But to suggest that 30c per day for three years is real relief, and that that’s an energy policy, does not mean that we are tackling the problem that needs to be solved.”

He continued, “We’re offering gimmicks while we offer the same thing John McCain is offering for free.” “That is a sign that we are not offering a truthful solution to the problems we face in America. We can do better than this at the moment.”

Jason Furman, a Harvard economist, was a top economic advisor to Obama. He explained via Twitter that the majority of a reduction in gas taxes would end up in the pockets and wallets of oil refiners rather than consumers.

Biden will likely announce his support for a three month gas tax holiday and ask Congress to suspend federal diesel and gasoline taxes.

According to a White House press release, “The cost of gasoline has risen dramatically all over the world and by nearly $2 per gallon in America since Putin began building troops at the border with Ukraine.” Only 11 percent blame Russian President Vladimir Putin, while Biden is most responsible for the rise in gas costs.

The White House continues to release:

High gas prices are a major problem for working families, which President Biden is acutely aware of. He has taken steps to increase the supply of oil, including a historic release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and encouraging refiners and oil companies to increase their output and capacity to ensure more supply to the market.

Notably, Biden did not make such a note and took immediate steps to reduce America’s energy independence. He cancelled the Keystone Pipeline, oil and gas leases were cancelled and he joined the Paris Climate Accord.

The release states that the federal government charges 18 cents per gallon of regular gas and 24 for diesel. To give Americans some breathing space as they confront the consequences of Putin’s war on Ukraine, the White House plans to suspend these taxes until September.

But gas prices had been rising long before Russia invaded Ukraine. On Wednesday, gas prices had risen $2.575 since the last day of President Trump’s term. After a record-breaking $5.016 week, prices were at $2.38 on January 19, 2021. They are now at $4.955 on Tuesday.

On Wednesday, the National Republican Senatorial Committee blasted Biden’s proposal.

“The gallantry of President Biden, Senate Democrats is astounding. T.W., a spokesperson for the NRSC said that pushing for a gas tax suspension in the current crisis is like proposing to make a Band-Aid to it. Arrighi stated in a statement.

It’s absurdity at a near-comedic scale and Americans aren’t buying. Arrighi said that Democrats caused this crisis through their disdain for large swathes of American energy production. “We are less secure and poorer because of Joe Biden, Senate Democrats.”