Greg Gutfeld Slams Behavior of Anti-ICE Democrats on Memorial Day: ‘Illegal Immigrants Take Priority Over Dead Soldiers’ (VIDEO)

 

Screencap of Twitter/X video.

Yesterday on The Five, Greg Gutfeld blasted the Democrats who used Memorial Day to attack ICE agents, and in the process, made the day all about themselves instead of our fallen heroes.

Senator Andy Kim of New Jersey managed to get himself pepper-sprayed and we’re supposed to care more about that than the people we’re trying to honor on Memorial Day? No way, said Greg.

Democrats show us their priorities through their actions, and it’s not pretty.

Transcript via Real Clear Politics:

GUTFELD: Yes, so on Memorial Day, the message is clear: illegal immigrants, no matter how criminal they are, take priority over dead soldiers. We would rather foment anti-American spectacles on Memorial Day than express support for a country. It’s like throwing mud at a bride at our wedding. We do not celebrate this day.

Do I care that Andy Kim got pepper-sprayed? No, I don’t care. You — what you are doing — this is Memorial Day, champ. You go — you’re actually participating in something that undermines our country’s security. A veteran was murdered a few days ago, you didn’t give two turns about that. I don’t care about you. What Kim got was what he wanted. He wanted the attention off Memorial Day and on him, but it’s not going to change the way we feel about him or anything else.

Here’s the deal, this is all designed, all this, we know this, and we’re not scared of it anymore. That’s the beauty of it. Doesn’t bother us, but it’s designed to create a visual spectacle and obstacle that then pressures you into submission. Then, when you, the spectacle happens, they go, look, look what the policy is creating. Look at this chaos. Isn’t this awful? This went on in Minnesota. We can go through all that, but it’s the visual chaos that they claim is being caused by the deportations.

No, it isn’t. The visual chaos is caused by them. It’s like if I throw a party and you bring a gun, you can’t blame me for my party leading to gun violence. You brought the violence there, you scum.

Maryland’s Democrat Governor Just Signed a Law Banning the Most Popular Handgun in the United States

 

Screencap of Twitter/X video.

Maryland’s Democrat Governor Wes Moore has just signed a new law that would effectively ban Glock pistols, the most popular handgun in the United States.

This is just the latest reminder that Democrats will never, ever stop trying to implement more gun control.

What Moore has done with this new law however, is a real doozy. Millions of people, including lots of people who live in Maryland, already own these guns. This new law would make them criminals.

The NRA is already suing.

WBFF News reports:

NRA sues Maryland governor and officials over ‘Glock ban’

The National Rifle Association, along with two other gun rights organizations, is suing Governor Wes Moore, Attorney General Anthony Brown, and Maryland State Police Acting Superintendent Michael Jackson for what they are calling the Glock ban.

The lawsuit filed in federal court cites Senate Bill 334, which outlaws the manufacture, purchase, selling, offering for sale, receiving, or transfer of certain pistols capable of being easily converted to machine-gun type weapons.

The legislation includes several popular handguns, including Glock and Glock-style handguns. Active and retired law enforcement are exempt from the ban. Violators could face up to three years in jail, a $5,000 fine, or both.

The law is expected to start enforcement on or after January 1, 2027.

“NRA is not going to stand back and let Governor Moore limit the self-defense options and the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens across the great state of Maryland,” NRA-ILA Executive Director John Commerford said.

The governor signed the bill into law on Tuesday. That same day, the lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court of Maryland, stating the law violates constitutional rights and requests the court declare SB334 as unconstitutional.

What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do these people not get?

Progressive DAs won’t prosecute criminals and Democrat governors ban guns. They can’t have it both ways.

Gavin Newsom Announces Plan to Tax 100% of Trump DOJ Anti-Weaponization Fund Payouts to California Residents

 

Screenshot

Radical California Governor Gavin Newsom has vowed to impose a 100 percent tax on any payouts that California residents receive from President Donald Trump’s new $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund.

The fund, established by the Department of Justice as part of the settlement in Trump’s massive lawsuit against the IRS over the unlawful leaking of his tax returns, exists to compensate Americans who were targeted, harassed, and abused through lawfare and government weaponization.

Newsom doesn’t care. He wants every dime clawed back by the state.

During a press conference Wednesday, Newsom declared: “Anyone from California that receives any of those funds, we want to tax 100 percent of those proceeds.” He dismissed the entire effort as a “slush fund.”

WATCH:

On social media, he framed it even more crudely, calling it “Trump’s January 6 slush fund” and claiming people who assault cops don’t deserve a taxpayer-funded payday.

Newsom wrote:

“Capitol police attacked on January 6th are suing to stop the slush fund.

35 retired judges filed a motion to stop the “unprecedentedly fraudulent” slush fund.

It’s a sick misuse of taxpayer money and California will make sure no one in our state gets a dime.”

States cannot selectively confiscate or tax federal compensation payments in this discriminatory manner simply because they dislike the policy or the recipients. This is raw political retaliation dressed up as tax policy.

Newsom is openly coordinating with other Democrat-run states.

Similar 100 percent tax bills are moving in New York and New Jersey. It is a coordinated blue-state effort to obstruct justice and protect the architects of past lawfare, according to Politico.

North Carolina Court Rules Democrat State Board Violated the State Constitution by Allowing ‘Never Residents’ to Vote in Federal Elections

 

Credit: Tony Webster

The Republican National Committee is celebrating a major victory for clean elections after a Wake County Superior Court judge ruled that North Carolina’s State Board of Elections violated the state constitution by letting people who have never lived in the Tar Heel State cast ballots in federal elections.

Special Superior Court Judge Hoyt Tessener sided with the RNC and North Carolina Republican Party this week, slamming the door on a loophole the previous Democrat-controlled elections board tried to keep open even after higher courts already shut it down for state races, according to Carolina Journal.

This is the latest in a string of wins for election integrity in North Carolina, and a direct rebuke to officials who thought they could quietly expand voting rights to non-residents.

Judge Tessener reaffirmed what the North Carolina Court of Appeals and Supreme Court had already made crystal clear: the state constitution requires residency to vote.

“Never residents” — U.S. citizens born abroad to parents or guardians who once lived in North Carolina but who themselves have never resided in the state — have no constitutional right to help pick North Carolina’s representatives in Congress or influence federal elections here.

The previous Democrat-led State Board of Elections had issued a directive allowing these never-residents to vote in both state and federal elections.

After the state Supreme Court struck down the practice for state and local races, the board stopped counting those ballots for state offices… but kept allowing them for federal contests.

The RNC and NCGOP, who brought the lawsuit, are rightly celebrating the ruling as a common-sense restoration of constitutional order.

According to the press release:

The Republican National Committee (RNC) secured a legal victory after a North Carolina court ruled a state board of elections directive that a state law allowing certain individuals who have never resided in the state to register to vote was unconstitutional.

“This is a clear win for fair and lawful elections,” said RNC Chairman Joe Gruters. “The court upheld the North Carolina Constitution and made clear that only North Carolina residents can vote in the state. The RNC will keep fighting to ensure only eligible citizens can vote.”

On Background:

• Yesterday, the Wake County Superior Court ruled that the North Carolina Board of Elections violated the state constitution by allowing individuals who were born overseas and have never lived in North Carolina to vote in federal elections in the state.
• The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled last year in Griffin v North Carolina Board of Elections that people who have never lived in the state cannot vote in state elections.
•  After the State Supreme Court’s decision, the North Carolina Board of Elections stopped allowing non-residents to vote for state offices but continued to allow them to vote in federal elections.
• The RNC brought the case to make sure only North Carolina residents can vote in the state’s elections. The North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision was clear: individuals who do not live—and have never lived—in North Carolina are not allowed to choose who represents the people of the state.
• The court’s ruling does not affect voters who qualify under the federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), which applies to U.S. citizens who have previously lived in a state or who are currently serving overseas.