Texas Weekly Online

Texas-trans-white
Menu
Menu

Author:

Trump mocks RFK Jr for not making debate stage: ‘Maybe someday’

Trump mocks RFK Jr for not making debate stage: ‘Maybe someday’

Former President Trump released a video Thursday mocking independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for not meeting the requirements to appear at the first presidential debate. The short video, recorded aboard Trump’s private jet, addressed reports that Kennedy had insufficient support in national polls and did not appear on enough state ballots to earn a spot at CNN’s upcoming debate. “I know RFK Jr. wants to try to get onto the stage on Thursday, and I’d love to have him frankly, because I don’t think he’s much of a debater, and he’s got some very liberal, radical left ideas,” Trump said in the video. “But you have to get certain numbers, that was the criteria, and he’s way below those numbers. He’s not coming close.” RFK JR. FAILS TO MEET REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE, CNN SAYS “So I hope to see him up there someday, but it looks to me like he’s not going to qualify on many fronts,” Trump continued. “They say he hurts Biden more than he hurts me, and I don’t know if that’s true or not. They say he hurts Biden because he’s a serious left person. If he is, that’s good — I don’t really care.” In order to qualify for the CNN-hosted debate, candidates are required to receive at least 15% support in four separate national polls. Candidates must also be on the ballot in enough states to make it hypothetically possible to collect the 270 electoral college votes necessary to win the election. Kennedy — the highest-performing 2024 candidate outside the Republican and Democratic parties — failed to meet the criteria by the Thursday morning deadline, the network said. DNC KEEPS GOING AFTER RFK JR. SUPER PAC, ALLEGES TRUMP’S LARGEST DONOR PROPPING UP CANDIDACY A CNN spokesperson independently confirmed to Fox News that RFK Jr. did not qualify. “You have to do better than six or seven points. Maybe someday he’ll be there, but I doubt it,” Trump concluded in his Thursday video. The independent candidate was only able to produce the necessary 15% support figure in three separate national polls, according to a news release by CNN. The network also reported that Kennedy had not qualified for the ballot in enough states to meet the 270 possible electoral college votes threshold. “Presidents Biden and Trump do not want me on the debate stage and CNN illegally agreed to their demand,” Kennedy said in his own statement on Thursday. “My exclusion by Presidents Biden and Trump from the debate is undemocratic, un-American, and cowardly.” “Americans want an independent leader who will break apart the two-party duopoly,” he added. “They want a President who will heal the divide, restore the middle class, unwind the war machine, and end the chronic disease epidemic.”

White House finalizes rules increasing clean energy subsidies fivefold in bid to support green jobs

White House finalizes rules increasing clean energy subsidies fivefold in bid to support green jobs

The Biden administration this week enacted new rules seeking to aid companies involved in clean energy, as the White House argued the investments will help communities tied to the energy sector that predate the green movement. The rules establish guidelines for subsidies that companies can qualify for under the Inflation Reduction Act, so long as they pay prevailing wages, among other stipulations. Qualifying projects involving nuclear, solar, wind and other green energy sources can see their tax credit eligibility under the Inflation Reduction Act quintuple. “America has unleashed a clean energy manufacturing and deployment boom that has attracted hundreds of billions of dollars in private sector investment and created more than 270,000 new, good-paying and union clean energy jobs,” the White House said in a statement on the announcement. GREEN GOVERNANCE THE NEW GUISE FOR MERCANTILISM, WILL LEAD TO GLOBAL INSTABILITY: EXPERT “The final rules provide certainty for clean energy developers and workers to realize the benefits of President Biden’s historic investments in the clean energy economy,” the statement continued. “These investments are flowing to the places President Biden promised not to leave behind, including the historic energy communities that have powered this nation for generations and economically distressed communities, providing jobs and economic opportunity, particularly for workers without a college degree.” EPA SUED OVER ‘CAPRICIOUS’ BIG RIG EMISSIONS STANDARDS CRITICS CLAIM COULD CRIPPLE CORN INDUSTRY John Podesta, a longtime Democratic figure who advises Biden on climate policy, said in a statement the finalized rules reassure workers that “clean energy jobs will be good jobs,” as green energy has largely trailed the fossil fuel sector in that regard. Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su also praised the new rules, predicting in a statement that they will provide “real, tangible benefits to workers in communities across the country.” In reaction to the announcement, a spokesperson for the American Petroleum Institute said the oil and gas industry remains a top investor in the U.S. economy, while also supporting an American future with a lower carbon output. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Meanwhile, a fossil fuel trade group leader told Fox News Digital the administration should not pick sides when supporting U.S. energy jobs. “Rather than funneling taxpayer dollars to inflate the value of his preferred jobs, the president should stop his regulatory assault on the future of America’s oil, gas and petrochemical industry workers, and the millions of other Americans whose jobs are supported by these industries,” said Chet Thompson, president of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers. Fox News Digital also reached out to several top Democratic lawmakers involved in energy policymaking, but did not receive responses.

Supreme Court upholds federal gun ban for those under domestic violence restraining orders

Supreme Court upholds federal gun ban for those under domestic violence restraining orders

The Supreme Court Friday upheld a federal law that bans guns for those subject to domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs) in the first major test of the Second Amendment at the high court this term. In an 8-1 opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the court’s majority said, “[W]e conclude only this: An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.” Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter. Both liberal and conservative justices agreed with the Biden administration that there was a history and tradition of keeping firearms from dangerous persons, despite the lack of any specific ban that may have been in place when the Constitution was enacted in the 1790s. The case, U.S. v. Rahimi, is first major test of the Second Amendment since a high court ruling in 2022 expanding rights of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for protection, and could have major implications for several gun-rights measures working their way through the legal system and in state legislatures. SUPREME COURT APPEARS LIKELY TO HAND BIDEN DOJ A WIN ON CHALLENGE TO GUN LAW The conservative majority in that case known as “Bruen” said gun regulations must be consistent and analogous with “the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” in order to withstand present-day constitutional scrutiny. It could also affect current cases that deal with whether current and former drug users can similarly be denied gun ownership – like that of Hunter Biden. The president’s son plans to challenge his conviction this month for lying on a federal registration form in 2018 about his addiction when buying a firearm. The case before the court stemmed from a lawsuit that involves a Texas man, Zackey Rahimi, who – under a DVRO – argued he still had a right to keep a gun for self-protection. Rahimi was charged with separate state offenses that began with the 2019 physical assault of his ex-girlfriend and later another woman by use of firearms. READ THE SUPREME COURT OPINION – APP USERS, CLICK HERE:  A Texas court in a civil proceeding found Rahimi had “committed family violence,” then granted his former girlfriend a protective order that included suspension of Rahimi’s gun license. Court records show he was warned gun possession under the protective order would be a federal offense. After repeatedly violating the order, including approaching the victim and threatening her, Rahimi was also accused of firing a gun in public in five different locations within a span of weeks. Police then searched his residence and found handgun, rifle, and ammunition. While contesting some of the allegations against him, he pleaded guilty to a violation of federal law for later possessing a handgun despite an earlier restraining order, but then appealed. The 5th Circuit U-S Court of Appeals ruled for Rahimi, saying the federal restriction was unconstitutional since there was no historical analog justifying the burden on individual self-defense rights.  A major question was whether there was a precise analog now to the 18th century legal concept of domestic violence and gun rights– that would give modern day legislatures and courts the discretion to limit gun possession for those deemed dangerous or irresponsible. Friday’s decision in the DVRO case was narrow in scope, focusing only on whether the Second Amendment protects those considered a danger to society. “When a restraining order contains a finding that an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner, that individual may—consistent with the Second Amendment—be banned from possessing firearms while the order is in effect,” the Chief Justice wrote for the majority.  “Since the founding, our Nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms. As applied to the facts of this case, [the statute] fits comfortably within this tradition,” he wrote.   Six justices filed separate concurrences, agreeing with the outcome, but offering separate thoughts on the scope of the majority opinion—signaling some concerns with Roberts’ reasoning laid out in the majority opinion. Those were Justices Sonia Sotomayor – supported by Elana Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Thomas wrote a long dissenting opinion.  “The question before us is not whether Rahimi and others like him can be disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. Instead, the question is whether the Government can strip the Second Amendment right of anyone subject to a protective order—even if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime. It cannot,” he said.  “The Court and Government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizen’s Second Amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence. The Government has not borne its burden to prove that [the statute] is consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.  “The Framers and ratifying public understood ‘that the right to keep and bear arms was essential to the preservation of liberty,’” he continued.  “Yet, in the interest of ensuring the Government can regulate one subset of society, today’s decision puts at risk the Second Amendment rights of many more. I respectfully dissent,” he said.

Personal House – Where Customized Gifts Tell Your Story

Personal House – Where Customized Gifts Tell Your Story

If you’re sick of getting the same old boring presents and are looking for something more meaningful, then you should check out Personal House. Browse their vast variety and begin making your own customized gifts at personalhouse.com.