Joe Biden Stresses Background Checks for Guns as Hunter Biden Accused of Lying on Gun Form

President Joe Biden issued several new executive orders and actions on Thursday aimed at gun control — while his son, Hunter Biden, is accused by critics of having violated federal law by lying about his past drug use in a background check for a gun.

The gun was part of a domestic dispute that reportedly involved the Secret Service. It later disappeared.

As Breitbart News reported last month:

Politico managed to obtain a copy of the Firearms Transaction Record and a receipt for the gun in question, dated Oct. 12, 2018. It asked, “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?” Hunter answered “no” despite his history of drug use — something that ultimately had him discharged from the Navy Reserve.

“Lying on the form is a felony, though prosecutions for it are exceedingly rare,” Politico reported, adding that neither Hallie Biden nor Hunter’s lawyer provided a comment on the matter.

The Firearms Transaction Record is part of a routine background check for gun purchases from federally-licensed firearms dealers. Hunter Biden has documented his intense drug use in a new memoir that was released this week. At one point, he told an interviewer, he smoked parmesan cheese, mistaking it for crack cocaine.

President Biden, lamenting the cost of gun violence, spoke Thursday at the White House about the importance of making background checks stronger. He cited his other son, the late Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, who pushed for “red flag” laws that would allow authorities to take away the guns of people who had been identified as mentally unstable.

“Hundreds of thousands of people have been denied guns because of background checks,” Biden said, stressing the need. He said that the “vast majority” of the American people and “responsible gun owners” supported stronger background checks.

He did not address the fact that his other son, Hunter Biden, faces questions about allegedly lying in his background check.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the recent e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.


Instacart Attacked Georgia’s Voter ID Law But Requires Its Own Shoppers To Provide ID

Two hundred companies signed off on a letter last week to condemn the new Georgia election bill, which notably requires identification for voter absentee ballots. Among the signees was the founder and CEO of food-delivery service Instacart, Apoorva Mehta.

“We believe every American should have a voice in our democracy and that voting should be safe and accessible to all voters,” the statement said. “There are hundreds of bills threatening to make voting more difficult in dozens of states nationwide. We call on elected leaders in every state capitol and in Congress to work across the aisle and ensure that every eligible American has the freedom to easily cast their ballot and participate fully in our democracy.”

While Instacart joined the group of virtue-signaling executives, the company neglects that it mandates all shoppers who deliver groceries to demonstrate photo and facial identification to participate in the gig economy.

According to the company’s website, “the first thing you’ll need to have on-hand” to become an Instacart shopper is “the details of your driver’s license.” Furthermore, applicants must provide their social security number information to get to the next step of inputting their bank information. Additionally, a shopper must undergo a background check that will take up to 10 business days to be cleared to be a contractor. Even after providing this information, a shopper must center their face on the application and be confirmed to shop on a daily or weekly basis.

Nevertheless, Instacart has seemingly taken issue with a bill that both mandates voter ID for absentee ballots and institutes an 11-day deadline for requesting an absentee before election day. Instacart has placed itself on the side that prefers an “election season,” which Democrats have sought.

The hypocrisy here is only worsened by the fact that the company wishes to make shoppers wait up to 10 days to begin working, while implying in its condemnation of the bill that 11 days is far too short for a contractor to have to request an absentee ballot. Why should there be any window, any background check, or any mandate for its employees to prove ID if Instacart takes issue with a bill to do exactly what it is doing (for something far less consequential)?

In truth, one should need to demonstrate ID to both work at Instacart and vote in an election, but these companies are too beholden to left-wing activists, and thus have lost any shred of credibility to comment on the issues of the day.

Instacart did not immediately respond to a request for comment by The Federalist.


Pollak: In ‘Jim Crow’ Charge, Joe Biden Breaks ‘Healing’ Promise to Georgia Voters

President Joe Biden reiterated his claim Tuesday that Georgia and other states that are passing laws to discourage voter fraud are enacting “new Jim Crow laws” that “are just antithetical to who we are.”

In pursuing that outrageous, inflammatory claim — hearkening to the worst days of racial segregation — Joe Biden is betraying his promise on the 2020 campaign trail, and in his Inaugural Address, to heal a divided nation and to unite Americans in a common cause.

There is no basis whatsoever for the “Jim Crow” claim. The vast majority of Americans — including 73% of black Americans in a poll this week — favor the use of photo identification in voting.

Biden and the Democrats claim that the push for new laws is based on the “lie” that the 2020 election was stolen. But even if the 2020 result was entirely accurate, it lacked credibility to many Americans. The use of widespread vote-by-mail in many states that had never used it before, for example, created confusion on Election Night.

The fiasco with Major League Baseball proves the point.

Last week, Biden encouraged the league to move its All-Star Game out of Atlanta over the Georgia law, which actually expands voting in many ways. The league moved it to Denver, Colorado, a “whiter” city in a state where some voting laws are more restrictive than in Georgia.

The White House tried to claim that the president had not “dictated” the move, even as it tried to defend the league’s decision, and as Biden continued to cite “Jim Crow.”

The people hurt most directly by the loss of the All-Star Game are the residents of Atlanta, a majority-black city — one that was crucial to Biden’s election victory and to Democratic control of the Senate.

There is no better example of how Democrats have hurt black Americans while exploiting black voters and false claims of racism for political purposes.

Moreover, Biden’s stance is a direct betrayal of the promise he made to Georgia voters in the 2020 election.

Last October, while campaigning in Georgia, Biden devoted an entire speech to the idea of healing.

“I want to talk about how we’re going to heal our nation,” he told voters in Warm Springs. “I know this country, I know our people, and I know we can unite and heal this nation. Warm Springs is a good place to talk about hope and healing.”

America needed “a President who doesn’t divide us, but unites us,” he said. “A President who appeals not to the worst in us, but to the best. A President who cares less about his TV ratings and more about the American people. A President who looks not to settle scores, but to find solutions.”

Biden then warned: “Time and again, throughout our history, we’ve seen charlatans, the con men, the phony populists, who sought to play on our fears, appeal to our worst appetites, and pick at the oldest scabs we have for their own political gain.”

He invoked the Pope, and the Bible:

Pope Francis asked questions that anyone who seeks to lead this great nation should be able to answer. And my answer is this: I run to unite this nation and to heal this nation. I’ve said that from the beginning. It is badly necessary. The Bible tells us there’s a time to break down, and a time to build up, a time to heal. This is that time. God and history have called us to this moment, and to this mission. … And if we do so, we’ll once more become one nation under God, indivisible, a nation united, a nation strengthened, a nation healed. That is my goal. That is why I’m running. That is what we must do.

Later, in November, when the news networks declared that he had won the election, Biden declared: “This is the time to heal in America.” In his Inaugural Address, Biden spoke of “unity, not division,” and gave his “sacred oath” that he would write an “American story” of “love and of healing.”

In his abuse of “Jim Crow” to inflame the debate around voting, President Joe Biden is violating that oath, and breaking his explicit promises to voters in Georgia and beyond.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the recent e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.


John Kerry Gets To Take Off His Mask In A Plane, But Not These 12 Toddlers

Former secretary of state and 2004 failed presidential candidate John Kerry got away with taking off his mask on an American Airlines flight on Wednesday. The Tennessee Star obtained and posted a photo of Kerry, who is now President Biden’s climate envoy, and noted he was neither eating or drinking at the time.

In response to Kerry claiming on Twitter that “if” he dropped his mask it was “momentary,” a fellow passenger told Fox News that Kerry’s mask was off for five minutes. After Twitter users called on American Airlines to respond, the airline said it was “looking into” the situation.

There are problems with a culture in which it’s normal to publicly shame people for dropping their masks. But the fact that Kerry was allowed to fly while airlines have kicked off toddlers for the same behavior, including autistic children with medical mask exemptions, exposes the performative hypocrisy of the mask-police industry.

American Airlines policy threatens to remove maskless passengers and possibly bar them from future travel, as do most other airlines, including United, JetBlue, and Spirit. But while American Airlines neglected to enforce these policies against Biden’s special climate envoy, American and other airlines have employed them to kick these families off of their flights.

Carter Kimball

Carter Kimball is a 4-year-old boy with nonverbal autism. When he and his parents boarded their Spirit Airlines flight out of Las Vegas on Monday, they brought a doctor’s exemption showing that Carter need not wear a mask because of his medical condition.

The airline kicked the Kimball family off of their flight anyway, even though the family says wearing a mask makes Carter “harm himself” or hold his breath. After receiving backlash, Spirit has promised to add room for medical exemptions to its mask policy.

Cebastian Lewis

Cebastian Lewis is 3 years old and autistic. Back in September, he and his family attempted to board a Spirit Airlines flight to Chicago. Cebastian kept his mask on as he boarded but then removed it while in his seat.

After the airline asked his family to get off the aircraft and they refused, the airline made everyone on the aircraft deplane. The airline also called the police, according to Lewis’ mother, Zana Shelton.

Makenna Leshinsky

Two-year-old Makenna and her family were traveling from Michigan to their Florida home in December, when American Airlines kicked them off their flight.

“They’re kicking us off and making everybody deplane because Makenna won’t keep her mask on,” Makenna’s mother, Briana, said in a video recording she took of the incident. Her daughter was eating during the time she had removed her mask, Leshinsky added, but the airline still brought a federal air marshal onboard to confront them before forcing them off the flight.

Dina Bruck

JetBlue kicked Chaya Bruck and her six kids off their flight from Florida to New Jersey in August, after her 2-year-old daughter Dina wouldn’t wear a mask.

The flight crew “came over to me and told me my daughter was 3 years old,” Chaya Bruck said. “I told them she’s 2.” JetBlue policy currently requires passengers 2 years old and older to wear masks, but Bruck insisted that the website at the time said “children who are not able to maintain a face covering are exempt from the requirement.”

After other passengers on the plane took up for Bruck and her children, all passengers were forced to deplane. “There is zero tolerance,” a flight attendant can be heard saying in a video from the incident.

Edeline Orban

Eliz and Erhard Orban were kicked off a United Airlines flight from Denver to New Jersey in December when their 2-year-old daughter Edeline refused to keep her mask on. “We’re banned from United forever because a 2-year-old would not put on a mask,” Eliz said in a video of the incident she posted to Instagram.

“We’re over here holding this mask on her face,” Erhard told the flight attendant in the video. A few minutes later, after kicking the family off of the flight, an airline representative can be heard telling the family “there’s a no-tolerance policy.”

The family told Fox News later that Twitter posted a “sensitive content” warning on the video, and Instagram threatened to delete Orban’s account.

Lyon Davis

American Airlines removed Lyon, his mother Rachel Starr Davis, and his grandmother from their flight after the 2-year-old wouldn’t wear his mask in September. “I’m shaking holding this piece of cloth to my son’s face so that we can take off,” Davis said.

American forced everyone to deplane then refused to let the Davis family reboard. Another passenger who had tried to help Lyon put a mask on was also kept from getting back on the flight, according to Davis.

Hayes Jarboe

Two-year-old Hayes and his mother, Jodi Degyansky, were on a Southwest Airlines flight to Chicago when he took his mask off to eat a snack, according to Degyansky. The airline staff insisted the toddler put his mask back on. Even though Dgyansky was then able to put her son’s mask back on, she said, the plane returned to the gate so staff could escort them off the flight.

In a photo posted by MSN, Hayes has a pacifier in his mouth as he’s held by his mother in an airplane seat.

Ava Breiterman

Southwest Airlines booted five-year-old Ava Breiterman, who is autistic, and her mother Kelly off their flight in September. Even though Ava had a doctor’s note exempting her from wearing a mask, Southwest forced them off the plane, sending their bags on without them.

“I was trying to get her to put her mask back on, she wouldn’t,” Breiterman said. “The manager came back in and said, ‘Sorry ma’am, we’re going to have to deboard you.’”

Zupda and Zara Choudhry

Safwan Choudhry, his wife, and daughters Zupda and Zara were forced off their WestJet flight in Canada after the airline called the police. Choudhry said the family was kicked off because Zara, who was 19 months, wasn’t wearing a mask. WestJet said it was because of three-year-old Zupda.

“It started with my toddler and once we got a mask on her, they turned to my 19-month-old infant and said ‘every person on the plane has to wear a mask or the plane can’t take off,’” Choudhry said.

After police confronted the family and the family did not leave the aircraft, the entire flight was canceled.

Alyssa Sadler and Her Son

Alyssa Sadler was flying with her 3-year-old autistic son from Midland, Texas to Houston when Southwest Airlines booted them from their flight. “He was screaming,” Sadler said, adding that the plane had left the gate but turned around once the crew discovered that her son wouldn’t wear his mask.

Sadler said she had a doctor’s note about her son’s autism, but the airline still kicked her, her son, and her 1-year-old daughter off the flight.

A Jewish Family With An 18-Month-Old Baby

Frontier Airlines kicked a family of Hasidic Jews off a flight in February, eventually canceling the entire flight. The family says it was because their 18-month-old baby was unmasked. Frontier Airlines claims other members of the family were also refusing to wear masks, but video of the incident shows only the baby without a face covering.

One woman said she saw airline staff high-fiving after the incident, and thought she heard them say “we did it.”

If an airline is going to have a “zero tolerance” policy for maskless babies, then there’s no excuse for giving Biden’s buddy John Kerry a pass.


Joe Biden Accused of Hypocrisy over Syria Airstrike

President Joe Biden authorized his first military action on Thursday: airstrikes on facilities in Syria used by militias linked to Iran.

The airstrikes came in response to attacks on American personnel in Iraq. Criticism was muted on both sides of the aisle, with some questioning whether the airstrikes were authorized under the existing Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).

Others noted that the airstrikes mark a 180-degree turn for Biden and members of his administration.

Last year, Biden was among those who criticized President Donald Trump’s airstrike on Iranian terrorist General Qasem Soleimani. He called it “a hugely escalatory move in an already dangerous region,” and claimed — falsely, as it turned out — that the attack would provoke, rather than deter, the Iranian regime.

“We could be on the brink of a major conflict across the Middle East,” Biden said — wrongly, again, as peace deals soon emerged.

Vice President Kamala Harris, then a Senator from California, was also critical of airstrikes by President Trump on the Syrian regime after the U.S. found evidence that dictator Bashar al-Assad was still using chemical weapons:

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, who had served in the Obama administration, objected to Trump’s initial airstrike in Syria in 2017, even questioning its legal authority.

Other Obama alumni applauded Trump’s move, as it finally enforced Obama’s “red line” against the use of chemical weapons. Obama himself never did so.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the recent e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.


WATCH: Trump Attorney Slams Media In CBS Interview, Tells Host ‘You Are Bloodthirsty for Ratings’

After the impeachment acquittal of his client former President Donald Trump on Saturday, attorney Michael van der Veen joined CBS News host Lana Zak for an interview. Van der Veen got infuriated with Zak’s leading question sympathizing with the Democratic Party’s doctoring of trial evidence, going on a rant and saying “You are bloodthirsty for ratings,” before taking off his microphone and walking off.

Zak began the interview by accusing van der Veen’s usage of the term “insurrection” as contradicting his prior statements about the January Capitol breach.

“Sure, I used the word ‘insurrection’ in my closing argument when closing the charging documents,” replied Trump’s attorney. “What happened at the Capitol on January 6 is absolutely horrific. But what happened at the Capitol during this trail was not too far away from that. The prosecutors in this case doctored evidence. They did not investigate this case and when they had to come to the court of the Senate to put their case on, they hadn’t done any investigation. They doctored evidence.”

The CBS host followed up with a question about van der Veen’s reference to doctored evidence by the prosecution, attempting to trivialize it.

“To be clear for our viewers, what you’re talking about is a checkmark that’s a verification on Twitter that did not exist on that particular tweet, a 2020 that should have actually read 2021, and the selective editing, you say, of the tapes,” Zak said. “Is that the doctored evidence of what you’re speaking?”

This ridiculous comment pushed the interview off the rails, as Trump’s attorney called her out for attempting to portray the doctoring of evidence in an impeachment trial as of little significance.

The prosecution was found to have doctored a tweet by Jennifer Lynn Lawrence with a blue checkmark to indicate verification. Trump had retweeted Lawrence’s post. Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., falsified the addition in a tweet of his own, while a senior impeachment aide claimed the alteration was wholly accidental.

“I’ve never been verified on Twitter,” Lawrence said, “so why did my Tweet used in the fact-free impeachment include a verification badge? I’m assuming Democrats faked it like they are faking the whole case.”

Van der Veen then went on to own Zak, demonstrating media malfeasance in covering the impeachment.

Ma’am, your question is turned. What has to happen, the media has to start telling the right story in this country. The media is trying to divide the country. You are bloodthirsty for ratings, and as such, you’re asking questions now that are already set up with a fact pattern. I can’t believe you would ask me a question indicating that it’s all right just to doctor a little bit of evidence. There’s more stuff that we uncovered that they doctored, to be frank with you, and perhaps that will come out one day. …

What I’m telling you is that they doctored evidence, and I believe your question says, ‘Well, it’s only a Twitter check and changing a year of date here.’ They switched the date of a Twitter a year to try to connect it to this case. That’s not a small thing. ma’am. The other thing they did is they put a check mark on something to make it look like it was a validated account when it wasn’t. And when they were caught, they didn’t say anything about it. They didn’t even try to come up with an excuse about it. And that’s not the way our prosecutors or our government officials should be conducting themselves.

And the media shouldn’t be letting them get away with it, either. I’m tired of the biased media on both sides, left and right. What this country wants, what this country needs, is this country to come together; to take the left and the right and find a middle ground and start responsibly being our public officials, our elected officials. And one of the reasons why they do it is because of the media. Because the media want to tell their narrative, rather than just telling it is. And frankly, I’m tired of it. I’m not in front of your cameras all the time, but what I’ve been subjected to this last week —

At the end of the interview, van der Veen tossed his microphone aside and walked off the camera, while Zak looked flushed.

The media’s disdain for facts and preference for their own truth lives on.


WATCH: Trump Legal Team Obliterates Dems’ Impeachment Case With Videos Of Their Violent Rhetoric

Donald Trump’s legal team just wiped the Senate floor with the Democratic members of Congress seeking to impeach the former president after forcing them, on the fourth day of Trump’s trial, to view a slew of videos of their past violent rhetoric calling for their supporters to “fight” and encouraging the summer 2020 rioters.

The legal team opened with a video of all the times politicians and journalists suggested they wanted to impeach Trump, long before his first trial at the beginning of 2020, and transitioned into another series of clips depicting some of the same politicians such as Rep. Maxine Waters, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and others calling for violence against Trump and his supporters over the last four years.

Many of the lawmakers attempting to convict the former president were featured in the video telling their political supporters to “fight like hell” and “fight back,” using much of the same rhetoric that the House’s article of impeachment took issue with when Trump said it.

Among those highlighted in the visual evidence was Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who was featured multiple times throughout the montage telling crowds of people nearly 50 times that they should “fight” for what they believe in. Now-Vice President Kamala Harris also made an appearance not only with her infamous suggestion that she would murder Trump and former Vice President Mike Pence if she were stuck in an elevator with them but also with her speeches rallying people and promising to “fight” nearly 70 times. In addition to Warren and Harris, the video also showed at least 10 times when President Joe Biden used the word “fight” in a political speech or to address a crowd.

But wait, “there’s more”:

Using a simple word or phrase to communicate urgency or importance to a crowd, Trump attorney David Schoen said, is not the mistake in these videos. The Democrats’ mistake, he said, was capitalizing on something they are guilty of doing to accomplish a political goal.

“You didn’t do anything wrong. It’s a word people use,” the attorney continued. “But please stop the hypocrisy.”

Trump’s defense team continued their argument against the Democrats’ impeachment case by showing multiple clips of left-wing journalists and legislators encouraging the rioting, looting, and violence that plagued American cities for months last summer following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, as well as clips of Democrats objecting to previous election results.


Blue State Blues: Why The House Failed to Prove Its Case

The House impeachment managers could not prove incitement — the central charge in the Article of Impeachment.

Then-President Donald Trump told supporters to protest “peacefully and patriotically.” No court could convict him on the facts.

So Democrats created a new standard. Trump is guilty of “inciting” the Capitol riot, they said, because he rejected the election, and he used provocative rhetoric for years.

But by that standard, Democrats would be guilty of “incitement,” too.

Democrats never accepted the result of the 2016 presidential election. Hillary Clinton “conceded” only in a formal sense. She and her deputies blamed “Russia collusion,” a conspiracy theory for which there was no real evidence.

The “Russia collusion” hoax undermined the peaceful transition of power, divided the nation, and led to violations of civil liberties. After it was debunked, neither the Democrats nor the media apologized for the hoax. Clinton, in fact, is still pushing it.

Moreover, Democrats have used provocative tactics — including violence — for years. In 2011, Democrats surrounded and occupied the Wisconsin state capitol to prevent Republicans from governing. That same year, they backed Occupy Wall Street, a lawless movement. In 2014, they embraced Black Lives Matter, which led to rioting and attacks on police. They did so again on a massive scale in 2020, as rioters burned cities, destroyed monuments, and attacked the White House.

For Democrats to judge Trump by their new standard of “incitement,” they would have had to admit that it was wrong to question the 2016 election, or to condone left-wing rioting.

But they could not. Just look at who is prosecuting Trump.

Lead impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) objected to the certification of the Electoral College vote in 2017, hoping to prevent Trump from being declared the winner. He also vowed to impeach Trump as soon as he took office.

Fellow impeachment manager Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX), who lectured the Senate this week on the need to accept losing elections, pushed the “Russia collusion” hoax. He also “doxxed” Trump donors in his congressional district in 2019.

Their colleague, impeachment manager Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA), claimed Trump was an “illegitimate” president in 2017. He also pushed “Russia collusion.” At one point, he had to apologize for mocking Trump for visiting tornado victims.

The problem with the Democrats’ “incitement” standard is that they have no credibility.

It took the Capitol riot for the Democrats to condemn political violence or to speak out on behalf of police or in defense of national monuments.

The new “incitement” standard is also too broad. It cannot be forbidden to raise questions about an election — especially in light of revelations in TIME about how a “secret” and “well-funded cabal” worked to change rules and suppress media.

The House impeachment managers told the Senators that if they did not vote to convict Trump by their new standard, there would be no accountability for the riot.

But if Democrats wanted accountability, they would not have put a trial before any investigation.

There would have been other ways to hold Trump accountable, such as a bipartisan inquiry to investigate what happened. The impeachment has poisoned future efforts to find out the truth and assign responsibility.

At one point, several Republican Senators walked out of the trial, after Raskin played clips from Trump rallies going back to 2015 to argue his supporters were violent, painting them as extremists.

They knew: if Trump is guilty of “incitement,” millions can be smeared as accomplices.

Democrats made clear that convicting Trump, and barring him from office, would blacklist a generation of conservatives.

Their case failed because they put Republicans on trial. Perhaps that was the point.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the recent e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.


Leftists Must Be Punished At The Ballot Box For Their COVID-19 Hypocrisy

Last July, I visited the historic Christ Church in Old Town Alexandria. It was where I took my son and daughter to show them where George Washington went to church, and where I had celebrated the baptism of my godson just three years before.

Now, the church was completely silent — an iconic American landmark in the era of pandemic policies that had crippled tourism and unconstitutionally kept Americans from worshipping together, something my own family had felt, having only been to church in person once since March.

While there, I did a quick Skype interview near the church. During the interview, I joked that after the election, the coronavirus would “go away.” This was a reference to the brazen politicization of the virus, which was preventing the implementation of mitigation policies that would have provided the least amount of overall human harm.

Soon after that interview, news outlets claimed I believed COVID-19 was a “hoax” — an obvious mischaracterization of my words. Yet, in the weeks surrounding President Joe Biden’s inauguration, that sarcastic prediction has been more prescient than I could have imagined.

For example, when President Donald Trump said there may have been some promise in a cheap and resourceful drug, Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), we saw that the pandemic would not be about “following the science” and how best to get through it, but rather whose opinion was politically correct.

The media warned incessantly about the dangers of the drug, leading some doctors to publicly refuse it to their patients even on a trial basis. Well, just this month, the American Journal of Medicine published an article highlighting HCQ as a treatment in fighting COVID-19. Where is the rancor and the controversy?

Right on schedule, as power shifted in Washington, so did the tone of the headlines. The day before the inauguration of President Biden (who without a doubt gained politically through the destruction caused by the left’s politicization of the virus), NPR posted an article with the headline “As Death Rate Accelerates, U.S. Records 400,000 Lives Lost To The Coronavirus.” The day after the inauguration, its headline on the virus read, “Current, Deadly U.S. Coronavirus Surge Has Peaked.”

For months we saw story after story criticizing President Trump for appearing maskless at events, regardless of the distancing measures in place. Yet when the Bidens appeared sans-facial coverings at the Lincoln Memorial after the inauguration — in violation of his own executive order, mind you — those same headlines were nowhere to be found. Instead, his press secretary simply said, “We have bigger things to worry about at this moment in time.” And with that, the corporate media moved on.

Not to be left out, the World Health Organization also joined in on the great 180-degree flip. Just one hour after Biden was sworn into office, the international body issued a notice warning on COVID-19 PCR testing sensitivity thresholds and that relying on a PCR test as a diagnostic was wrong. We’ve known this the entire time, as PCR tests are not meant to be a sole diagnostic test but a confirmatory measure, and the high sensitivity of testing has been fully known and likely inflated the threat of the virus.

Local officials are joining the new narrative as well. In the lead-up to the inauguration, Gov. Andrew Cuomo — perhaps one of the loudest advocates for lockdowns — said New York must start to reopen.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has lifted California’s stay at home order, despite low hospital ICU capacity.

The governor of Kansas has lowered the testing cycle threshold from 42 to 35, effectively making it harder to increase the tally of positive tests.

The anti-Trump Republican governor of Maryland changed his tune on school closures, as have local officials in Chicago.

Restrictions on bars and restaurants have also started to ease. To take just one example, the day after the inauguration, the governor of Massachusetts announced he would rescind curfews and stay-at-home advisories. The mayor of D.C. also decided that two days after the inauguration, it would suddenly be safe to eat and drink indoors, despite an increased number of cases.

Well, at least Biden’s new political appointees won’t have to eat in the cold.

Over the past several months, we have seen businesses destroyed, rapid increases in mental health challenges, massive decreases in treatments for cancer and other deadly diseases, Americans dying alone as their loved ones grieved via video chat, and American children’s education sacrificed.

All of this was supposed to defeat a virus, but with each passing post-election news cycle, it becomes clearer that a lot of it was simply to defeat one man.

The flagrant disregard of the rights, way of life, and very humanity of Americans in response to this virus should not — and will not — be soon forgotten. For those of us who push back on seemingly innocuous mask mandates, it’s not for the mask itself, but because the government is using this all as a tool.

Those responsible for the destruction will be held accountable at the ballot box and in public memory for every shuttered business, stunted education, debilitating mental illness developed, missed cancer diagnosis, and livelihood lost.

Justice demands it.


WATCH: Rand Paul Highlights Democrat ‘Incitement’ in Speech Against Impeachment Trial

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) delivered a strident address on the floor of the Senate on Tuesday afternoon in which he cited examples of Democrats encouraging violence and aggressive behavior against Trump supporters and Republicans.

Paul highlighted the Democrats’ hypocrisy as he spoke against the impending impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump, which is scheduled to begin Tuesday afternoon, though substantive proceedings will be delayed until February 8.

Paul’s remarks, in full, are as follows.


This impeachment is nothing more than a partisan exercise designed to further divide the country.

Democrats claim to want to unify the country, but impeaching a former president, a private citizen, is the antithesis of unity.

Democrats brazenly appointing a pro-impeachment Democrat [Senate President Pro Tem Patrick Leahy] to preside over the trial is not fair or impartial, and hardly encourages any kind of unity in our country.

No, “unity” is the opposite of this travesty we are about to witness.

If we are about to try to impeach a president, where is the Chief Justice? If the accused is no longer president, where is the constitutional power to impeach him? Private citizens don’t get impeached. Impeachment is for removal from office. And the accused here has already left office.

Hyper-partisan Democrats are about to drag our great country down into the gutter of rancor and vitriol the likes of which has never been seen in our nation’s history. Instead of doing the nation’s work, with their new majorities in the House, the Senate, and the executive branch, Democrats are wasting the nation’s time on a partisan vendetta against a man no longer in office.

It’s almost as if they have no ability to exist except in opposition to Donald Trump. Without him as their bogeyman, they might to legislate, and to actually convince Americans that their policies are the right ones.

Democrats are about to do something no self-respecting Senator has stooped to: Democrats are insisting the election is actually not over, and so they insist on regurgitating the bitterness of the election.

This acrimony they are about to unleash has never before been tried. Why? Because calmer heads have typically prevailed in our history, and allowed public opinion to cast blame where blame is deserved.

This sham of an impeachment will ostensibly ask whether the president incited the reprehensible behavior and violence of January 6 when he said, “I know everyone here will soon march to the Capitol to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

“Peacefully and patriotically.” Hardly words of violence.

[Interjection: Not at all.]

But what of Democrat words? What of Democrat incitement to violence?

No Democrat will honestly ask whether [Senator] Bernie Sanders incited the shooter that nearly killed Steve Scalise and volunteer coach. The shooter nearly pulled off a massacre — I was there — because he fervently believed the false and inflammatory rhetoric spewed by Bernie and other Democrats, such as, “The Republican health care plan for the uninsured is that you die.”

As this avowed Bernie supporter shot Steve Scalise, nearly killing him, and shot one of our coaches and two or three of our staff, he screamed, “This is for health care.” Ask me, or anyone, if that’s incitement.

No Democrat will ask if [Senator] Cory Booker incited violence when he called for his supporters to get — get “up in their face” of congresspeople — a very visual, and specific incitement. No Democrat will ask whether [Representative] Maxine Waters incited violence when she told her supporters, and I quote, that “If you see a member of the Trump administration at a restaurant, at a department store, at a gas station, or any place, you create a crowd, and you push back on them.” Is that not incitement?

My wife and I were pushed and surrounded and screamed at by this same type of mob that Maxine likes to inspire. It’s terrifying to have a swarm of people threatening to kill you, cursing at you and literally holding you hostage until police come to your rescue. That night we were assaulted by the crowd, I wasn’t sure if we would survive even with the police protection. But no Democrat suggested impeaching Maxine for her violent rhetoric.

In fact, Republicans, to our credit, have never once thought it legitimate to formally censor or impeach these Democrats. No Republican has sought to use the government to hold these Democrats responsible for Antifa and Black Lives Matter violence that has consumed our cities all summer,  resulting in over a billion dollars of destruction, looting, and property damage. Not one Republican said, “Oh, let’s impeach the Democrats who are inciting this.” Because it would be ridiculous.

Many on the Democrat side of the aisle cheered them on. [Then-Senator] Kamala Harris famously offered to pay the bill for those who were arrested. I wonder if she’ll be brought up on charges of inciting violence for that now that she’s Vice President.

Should Kamala Harris be impeached for offering to pay for violent people to get out of jail who have been burning our cities down? No! And no Republican has offered that, because we’re not going down the road the Democrats have decided, this low road of impeaching people for political speech.

Should Republicans impeach the Democrat mayor of Seattle who incited and condoned violence by calling the armed takeover of part of her city a “summer of love”? Any Republicans try to impeach her?

On June 8, the New York Post, citing U.S. Justice Department statistics, reported that more than 700 law enforcement officers were injured during the Antifa/Black Lives Matter riots. There were at least 19 murders, including 77-year-old retired police officer David Dorn. Yet Democrats insist on applying a test of incitement to a Republican that they refuse to apply to themselves.

I want the Democrats to raise their hands if they have ever given a speech that says “Take back,” “Fight for your country.” Who hasn’t used the words “fight” figuratively, and are we going to put every politician in jail, or are we going to impeach every politician who has used the words “fight” figuratively in a speech?

Shame. Shame on these angry, unhinged partisans who are putting forth this sham impeachment, deranged by their hatred of the former president. Shame on those who seek blame and revenge, and who choose to pervert a constitutional process while doing so.

I want this body on record, every last person here: Is this how you think politics should be?

Look, we have now got crazy partisans on the other side of the aisle trying to censor and remove two of the Republican Senators for their political position. Now, look, I disagreed. I don’t think Congress should overturn the Electoral College. But impeaching or censoring or expelling a member of Congress you disagree with? Is the truth so narrow that only you know the truth?

We now have the media on their side, saying there is only one set of facts, one set of truths, and you can only interpret it this way. Now we have seven Senators on the other side trying to expel, censor, or impugn two Senators on this side. And I defend them, not because I defend their position — I disagreed with their position — but you can’t impeach, or expel people you disagree with.

What’s this coming to?

In a few minutes, I will insist on a vote to affirm that this proceeding we are about to enter is unconstitutional; that impeachment of a private citizen is illegal, and essentially a bill of attainder; and that no sense of fairness or due process would allow the judge in the proceeding to be a partisan Democrat already on favor of the impeachment.

A sham, this is, a travesty. A dark blot on the history of our country. I urge my colleagues to reconsider this kangaroo court and move forward to debate the great issues of our day.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). His newest e-book is How Not to Be a Sh!thole Country: Lessons from South Africa. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.