Hillary Clinton’s attack on the Electoral College is only her latest act of desperation -- and denial

Last week on Twitter, Hillary Clinton issued a call to arms to her loyal supporters, telling them that progressives must “fight back” against the Republicans and stop the GOP’s assault on America’s democracy.
“The president is waging war on the truth. The administration is undermining the national unity that makes democracy possible. And then there's the breathtaking corruption.”
Clinton listed a slew of policies that Democrats should embrace to stop President Trump as well as shore up the electoral system. A few ideas were refreshingly non-partisan, like mandatory paper ballots to backup electronic voting machines.
But also in the mix was the return of a favorite punching bag for Clinton supporters: abolishing the Electoral College.
It’s a demand she first made back in 2000, insisting that America adopt a national popular vote to directly select our president rather than letting a group of state electors do it for us.
Had the country adopted her proposal, recent political history would read very differently. For starters, we’d be debating the legacy of President Al Gore instead of President George Bush.
And, yes, we would also be debating the current successes and failures of a President Hillary Clinton rather than President Donald Trump. As her supporters are fond of saying, Mrs. Clinton won the popular vote but lost the all-important Electoral College.
Just like Al Gore.
Yet Clinton’s continued demand for change ignores a rather inconvenient bit of truth: 14 Democratic nominees before her were able to win the Electoral College and go on to the White House.
Roosevelt did it four times, in fact. Barack Obama twice.

While claiming that “our democracy is in crisis” and “our institutions and traditions under siege,” her remedy is an unambiguous assault on the constitution and a siege against the traditions that have served 14 Democrats quite well.

In other words, America doesn’t have a broken electoral system in need of fixing. Rather, Hillary Clinton was simply a broken candidate.
But instead of acknowledging any degree of ownership over her loss, Clinton and her supporters continue to point fingers at everything and everyone else. Activists like Michael Moore, for example, have raged in particular that the Electoral College is “racist.”
He promised to “lead the charge” to disband it.
Meanwhile, media partners like The New York Times have thrown their weight behind legislation – dubbed the “Interstate Compact” – that would effectively gut the Electoral College through legislative trickery. In short, state electors would be forced to vote for whomever wins the national popular vote, regardless of how a candidate performs in a particular state.
In other words, the electors from Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania would have been compelled to vote for Clinton in 2016 even though their states went for Trump.
Clinton would now be in the White House.
Most reasonable people see this proposal for what it is: an act of political desperation. In fact, constitutional scholars have made the case that the Interstate Compact is a violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 if not the constitution itself.
And that is the greatest irony of Clinton’s latest Tweetstorm.
While claiming that “our democracy is in crisis” and “our institutions and traditions under siege,” her remedy is an unambiguous assault on the constitution and a siege against the traditions that have served 14 Democrats quite well.
Just not her.
None of this is to say that Clinton doesn’t have a point on the importance of electoral reforms. Indeed, most Americans would likely support things like a return to paper ballots to avoid a hacked election.
But by attacking the constitution in such a transparent way, she and her supporters have reminded the nation not only of the importance of the Electoral College but why so many of us have rejected her candidacy for president. Twice.
It’s a lesson that disgruntled Democrats would be wise to remember.
Bryan Dean Wright is a former CIA officer and member of the Democratic Party who resides in Oregon. He contributes on issues of politics, national security, and the economy. Follow him on Twitter @BryanDeanWright.

James Woods refuses to delete meme that he says got him locked out of Twitter

FILE: Actor James Woods poses at the premiere of the film "Bleed for This" at the Samuel Goldwyn Theater in Beverly Hills, Calif.  (AP)

Actor James Woods has been locked out of his Twitter account over a two-month-old tweet that was found to be in violation of the tech company’s rules.
The tweet, posted July 20, included a hoax meme that said it came from Democrats and encouraged men not to vote in the midterm elections.

The meme that Woods posted in July said #LetWomenDecide and #NoMenMidterm. Woods acknowledged the tweet was "not likely" real.  (Twitter)

Woods said he received an email from Twitter on Thursday saying the tweet "has the potential to be misleading in a way that could impact an election."
The email said Woods can use his account again if he deletes the tweet, but would be suspended from the social media platform permanently if there are repeated abuses.
Woods told The Associated Press Sunday, he interpreted the message to mean he’ll be allowed back on Twitter only if he decides to do what Twitter says.
"Free speech is free speech — it's not Jack Dorsey's version of free speech," Woods said, referring to Twitter Chief Executive Jack Dorsey.
"The irony is, Twitter accused me of affecting the political process, when in fact, their banning of me is the truly egregious interference," Woods said. "Because now, having your voice smothered is much more disturbing than having your vocal chords slit. If you want to kill my free speech, man up and slit my throat with a knife, don't smother me with a pillow."
Twitter told the AP that it doesn't comment on individual accounts for privacy and security reasons. A spokesman for the social media platform said by email that he had nothing more to share when asked if Dorsey would respond directly to Wood's comments.
Fox News reached out to Twitter early Monday but did not immeidately hear back.
His Twitter page is still online, though he can't access it. Many of his recent tweets include his views of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her decades ago.
KAVANAUGH ACCUSER CHRISTINE FORD OPENS DOOR TO TESTIFYING NEXT WEEK
Woods, who has more than 1.7 million Twitter followers and is outspoken in his conservative views, believes he was singled out. He said the original tweet was reposted by his girlfriend Friday and had been retweeted thousands of times by Sunday. His girlfriend's account wasn't locked, which he said proves his claim.
The meme, posted in July, said #LetWomenDecide and #NoMenMidterm. It claimed to be from a Democratic group, but it was determined to be a hoax campaign to encourage liberal men not to vote in November, according to the website knowyourmeme.com. Woods called it a parody.
Woods acknowledged the meme likely wasn't real in the original tweet, saying: "Pretty scary that there is a distinct possibility this could be real. Not likely, but in this day and age of absolute liberal insanity, it is at least possible ..."
Social media companies like Twitter have come under pressure to flag hate speech and posts that could influence elections offline. Numerous conservative and right-wing groups have protested that the tech companies disproportionately target them over liberal-leaning groups. Dorsey testified before the GOP-led House Energy and Commerce Committee earlier this month, as the committee examined whether Twitter has censored conservatives.
TWITTER CEO JACK DORSEY ADMITS CONSERVATIVE STAFFERS ‘DON’T FEEL SAFE TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS’ AT LIBERAL TECH GIANT
Woods said he wants open discourse, and called the situation a dangerous precedent for free speech.
"I wish this were about an unknown Twitter user so that I could be even more passionate about it," Woods said. "This is not about a celebrity being muzzled. This is about an American being silenced — one tweet at a time."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Bradford Betz is an editor for Fox News. Follow him on Twitter @bradford_betz.

Grassley promises evaluation of new claims against Kavanaugh, hits Dems for withholding info

Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, late Sunday slammed Senate Democrats for withholding information from the committee regarding new sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
The Iowa Republican said the committee will attempt to evaluate the new claims, but said in a statement “it appears that they [Democrats] are more interested in a political takedown" than “pursing allegations through a bipartisan and professional investigative process.”
His office released the statement after two new allegations emerged against Kavanaugh.
Deborah Ramirez, 53, a former Yale classmate, said he exposed himself and thrusted his penis in her face during a drunken dormitory party, according to an article in The New Yorker.
Ramirez claimed Kavanaugh exposed himself to her while she was intoxicated during a drinking game in the 1983-84 academic year, when Kavanaugh was a freshman. She also claimed she inadvertently touched Kavanaugh's penis when she pushed him away and says the incident left her "embarrassed and ashamed and humiliated."
The report stated that the magazine had not corroborated that Kavanaugh was at the party in question. An anonymous male classmate said he was told that Kavanaugh had exposed himself to Ramirez within the following days.
Ramirez admitted to the magazine that she does not fully remember the alleged incident because she had been drinking at the time. The magazine also reported that Ramirez spent six days "carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney" before telling the full version of her story.
Kavanaugh says the event “did not happen” and that the allegation is “a smear, plain and simple.”
A White House spokeswoman adds in a second statement that the allegation is “designed to tear down a good man.”
Grassley’s office said the committee’s majority staff learned about the allegations in the magazine’s article. His statement read that Democratic staff were aware of the allegations, but did not inform Republican staffers.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., called the timing of the new allegations “very suspicious.”
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Ct., called on a full FBI investigation and said the committee cannot "in good conscience" vote on the nomination at this point.
Michael Avenatti, the attorney for Stormy Daniels, on Sunday alleged that he had knowledge that Kavanaugh and high school friend Mark Judge targeted women with drugs and alcohol in order to "allow a 'train' of men to subsequently gang rape them."
He did not state the source of his evidence and did not name any alleged victims.
Grassley’s office said it reached out to Avenatti to find out more information about his allegations and requested that he provide any new information.
Avenatti posted a letter he wrote to Mike Davis, the chief counsel on nominations for the Senate Judiciary Committee.
He wrote that he had “significant evidence of multiple house parties” in the 1980s where Kavanaugh, high school friend Mark Judge and others would target women with alcohol and drugs in order to take advantage of them sexually, including gang rapes. He said to expect additional evidence in the coming days.
Avenatti included a list of questions for Senate investigators to ask Kavanaugh, including: "Did you ever attend any house party during which a woman was gang raped or used for sex by multiple men?"
Neither Kavanaugh nor Judge immediately responded to Avenatti's accusations.
Kavanaugh is slated to testify Thursday about the first allegation of sexual assault, dating back from a high school party more than 35 years ago. His accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is also set to testify.
Kavanaugh, 53, an appellate court judge, has denied Ford's allegation and said he wanted to testify as soon as possible to clear his name.
"This alleged event from 35 years ago did not happen. The people who knew me then know that this did not happen, and have said so," Kavanaugh responded. "This is a smear, plain and simple. I look forward to testifying on Thursday about the truth, and defending my good name--and the reputation for character and integrity I have spent a lifetime building--against these last-minute allegations."
In response to the New Yorker report, Judiciary Committee ranking member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., called on the committee's Republicans to postpone all proceedings related to Kavanaugh's nomination and refer Ramirez's allegation to the FBI.
Edmund DeMarche is a news editor for FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter @EDeMarche.

Joy Behar The View Cartoons

Dan Gainor: Ford's accusations against Kavanaugh reveal big problem in media

Kavanaugh is not the enemy of America

Journalists have set aside their already pretend neutrality to openly support Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford. 

These are the people we should be worrying about and they're just the tip of the iceberg.

ABC Chief Political Analyst Matthew Dowd

 

Joy Behar

 New York Times columnist Paul Krugman

MSNBC Host Chris Hayes‏

 MSNBC host Rachel Maddow

 Washington Post Deputy Editorial Page Editor Ruth Marcus

 Bloomberg Opinion Editor Francis Wilkinson

 Baltimore Sun media critic David Zurawik

 NBC News Chairman Andrew Lack

 State Department Correspondent Gardiner Harris

 Times White House correspondent Katie Rogers

 Hillary Clinton

In a nation where every major issue ends up in the Supreme Court, it only makes sense a nomination to that court has turned into political combat. And the media love it.
Journalists have set aside their already pretend neutrality to openly support Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford. They have either skewered Kavanaugh or pushed to delay the hearings in a desperate hope that Democrats take the Senate and stop all future Trump nominees.
This is a national #MeToo moment. Ford has to be believed because, in the words of ABC Chief Political Analyst Matthew Dowd, “For 250 years we have believed the he in these scenarios.  Enough is enough.”
The battle spiraled out of control from there. “View” Co-host Joy Behar called Kavanaugh a “coward” and “probably guilty.” Smarmy New York Times columnist Paul Krugman called out the judge as “smarmy, smirking, entitled and mercenary.” The Times editorial board described the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh as “credible,” a common term journalists used to tip the scales of justice.
The Atlantic turned the whole history of American jurisprudence on its head and dumped responsibility on the accused. “Kavanaugh Bears the Burden of Proof,” though innocent until proven guilty is the American legal standard. ABC merely ignored the death threats Kavanaugh and his family have received
Then there’s Kavanaugh’s accuser Ford, who Times White House correspondent Katie Rogers lauded: “It takes guts to do something like this.” MSNBC Host Chris Hayes‏ defended Ford and bizarrely compared holding early hearings to rape, asking if the GOP is going to “ignore her telling them to stop and just take what they think is rightfully theirs?”
The left can’t even be consistent about being opposed to sexual assault. CNN tried to downplay a self-confessed sexual assault by Democrat media darling Sen. Cory Booker as somehow “different” than allegations against Kavanaugh.
MSNBC host Rachel Maddow had Hillary Clinton on her show and asked her about the case. Yet Maddow didn’t have the guts to ask Clinton about the rape allegations against her own husband. Clinton accuser Juanita Broaddrick complained on Twitter and called for an investigation into “My RAPE Allegations.”
When journalists aren’t trying to destroy Kavanaugh, they are trying to delay. Washington Post Deputy Editorial Page Editor Ruth Marcus is a good liberal bellwether. She covered the nomination of Judge Robert Bork as a “journalist” and claims now “it was a fight worth waging with all necessary ferocity.” Nice and neutral.
Back in June she called for similar treatment of Kavanaugh, saying “This must be another Bork moment.” In a recent column, she argued, “The urgency is to investigate, not to rush to confirm a lifetime appointment.” That’s the liberal party line. Marcus liked it so much, she relied on the words of the late Democrat Sen. Robert C. Byrd when he rejected African-American nominee and now Justice Clarence Thomas. Of course, Byrd was also a former Klansman. (She didn’t mention that.)
If all else fails, the news media are already laying the groundwork for the next effort. The Times has already run an oped constructing, you guessed it, “The Case for Impeaching Kavanaugh.” Bloomberg Opinion Editor Francis Wilkinson was worse, sounding like a representative from a banana republic. He threatened that, after Trump is gone, “Kavanaugh’s case would be reopened and relitigated by a Democratic majority.”
2. Rosenstein Destroys the Narrative: The Times has built its reputation by setting the narrative for the left and the media. This week it certainly complicated things by proving the claims that forces within the deep state are working against Trump.
The paper took down media darling Rod Rosenstein on Friday with this headline: “Rod Rosenstein Suggested Secretly Recording Trump and Discussed 25th Amendment.” That’s a huge reversal of about a year and a half of media coverage that dismissed the “Deep State” as the ravings of right-wing loons.
The Times itself used the term back in February, 2017, quoting radio icon Rush Limbaugh about “the shadows of the deep state.” The paper mocked it as an idea coming from radio hosts and “talk radio listeners.”
That’s been the media theme ever since. Baltimore Sun media critic David Zurawik mocked the idea back in February with talk of boogeymen. “Right-wing's 'deep state' narrative sounding like 1950s McCarthy talk to me,” he wrote. NPR ran an oped in August saying the same thing. “Opinion: Why The Term 'Deep State' Speaks To Conspiracy Theorists,” it pretended.
Oops.
The Times already gutted this idea with the infamous oped from within the Trump administration. But the Rosenstein reveal was not what the left or media wanted to hear. They either believe what they have told themselves like a mantra or they believe their favorite lefty newspaper.
Even CNN had to admit the story was a “bombshell.” The problem for them is that, so far, Rosenstein was the only one in the room when the bomb went off. Lefty Vox was quickly warning that Rosenstein might soon be fired. By Friday night, ABC News had confirmed The Times report of Rosenstein’s planned overthrow of the president.
Now, which outlets will admit Trump was right all along?
3. More NBC #MeToo Problems: NBC News Chairman Andrew Lack is caught up in an ever-evolving #MeToo scandal and the story keeps getting worse. It involves porn and his time as chairman and CEO of Sony BMG Music Entertainment and lands under the headline: “Accused Sexual Harassers Thrived Under NBC News Chief Andy Lack.”
According to the Daily Beast, the company couldn’t get Lack to act even when it “discovered that a music executive named Charlie Walk had sent ‘sexual’ messages via company email to female employees, including ‘graphic’ pornography.”
Things reportedly got worse after that. “After Lack was confronted with evidence of Walk’s misconduct, Walk allegedly harassed several Sony female employees, which he categorically denies,” the report continued.
The story is incredible or incredibly depressing and just gets worse with one of the people reviewing the Ronan Farrow sex harassment investigation also alleged to be “an accused sexual harasser.”
4. The Times’ Self Own about Disinformation Tips: Every news outlet wants story tips, but how you go about it matters. The Times, in classic holier-than-thou fashion, declared: “If You See Disinformation Ahead of the Midterms, We Want to Hear From You.”
Only that request landed just days after the paper’s State Department Correspondent Gardiner Harris smeared UN Ambassador Nikki Haley and falsely claimed she had spent $52,701 on curtains that had actually been ordered by Team Obama. The article even told readers that fact in paragraph six, beneath a headline, five paragraphs and a photo all blasting Haley. The Times followed with a lengthy editor’s note.
There was more. The Times was forced to run an embarrassing correction admitting it had confused Hollywood star Angela Bassett for former Trump appointee Omarosa Manigault Newman. Bassett, who has nearly 100 acting credits including “Black Panther” and “How Stella Got Her Groove Back,” handled it with class. The Times blamed a “photo wire service” while readers mocked the paper mercilessly.

Number of illegal immigrants crossing border surges after US ends family separations

As the Trump administration regroups from multiple political and legal setbacks in its efforts to curb illegal immigration, the message south of the border could not be more clear, with families and unaccompanied minors flooding into Texas, Arizona and California.
An alarming new report from the Department of Homeland Security shows the number of families crossing into the U.S. illegally surged last month. The agency said illegal immigrants have been taking advantage of a legal loophole that requires “family units” to be released once they are caught.
New figures showed a 10 percent increase in August of unaccompanied minors, a 38 percent increase among families entering illegally or asking for asylum. Overall, people arrested or stopped at the border totaled nearly 47,000 in August, up 17 percent from July and up 52 percent from August 2017.
"These numbers are a result of our failure do what is necessary to control the border," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the right-leaning Center for Immigration Studies.
The administration tried separating parents and children to deter immigrants from making the dangerous trek through Mexico, however a political outcry forced it to reverse the policy. It also tried holding in families in detention until their court date, but the courts rejected the policy. As a result, Customs and Border Protection sources say, immigrants see an opportunity to exploit gridlock in Washington and get in while the administration tries to figure out its next step.
"My question is how many illegal immigrants have to be let go into the U.S. for there to be a political demand that something be done about it," said Krikorian, who favors stricter border enforcement.
The numbers say something entirely different to Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum.
"The situation in Central America is so bad, parents are deciding that the risk of losing their child to the U.S. government is better than the risk of losing their child to violence," said Noorani. "This leaves lawmakers two choices. They can continue a failed strategy of trying to enforce our way out of a problem... Or, they can develop bipartisan solutions that address root causes in Central America and ensure migrants fleeing violence and persecution can seek protection and a fair hearing in the U.S.”
In the last nine months, 98.6 percent of families who entered the U.S. illegally or without papers from countries other than Mexico, remain here, and officials say it's likely most will never leave.
"We know that the vast majority of family units who have been released, despite having no right to remain in any legal status, fail to ever depart or be removed," DHS Press Secretary Tyler Q. Houlton said Wednesday in a statement. "Through the third quarter of FY 2018, only 1.4 percent of family units have been repatriated to their home country from noncontiguous countries such as El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras."
The highest number of minors and families entering arrived from Guatemala (64,000) following by Honduras (43,000), El Salvador (16,000) and Mexico (11,000).
The biggest change agents see is the size of groups they encounter. Instead of a handful of immigrants or groups under 10, they are now apprehending groups of 20 or more. In Lukeville, Arizona, last week, agents stopped a group of 50 spanning a half-mile wide. Instead of running from agents, the immigrants sought them out to request asylum.
"Right now, the word is out. Bring a child," a Border Patrol agent in Arizona told Fox News. "That's their ticket. If they come as an adult, they can be held. If they come as family, or as minor, they can't. They know it. The smugglers tell them."
The Trump administration said Tuesday it's tried to handle the influx by tripling the amount of bed space for unaccompanied minors at its detention camp in Tornillo, Texas, so it can handle up to 3,800 children.
It also added 44 new immigration judges and has considered a policy change allowing it to hold families in detention together until their immigration cases are heard. That is likely to face a legal challenge, especially since federal Judge Dolly Gee already declined to change her ruling, that families in detention must be released after 20 days.

DHS plan would push immigrants to 'show they can support themselves,' Nielsen says

Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen address the National Cybersecurity Summit in New York City, July 31, 2018.  (Associated Press)

Immigrants to the United States who are overly reliant on public assistance may soon find it more difficult to remain in the country.
In a 447-page proposal posted online Saturday, the Department of Homeland Security calls for immigrants to be denied permanent residency if they’ve received or are likely to receive benefits such as food stamps, Medicaid or housing vouchers.
“Under long-standing federal law, those seeking to immigrate to the United States must show they can support themselves financially,” DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said in a statement to the Washington Post.

“Under long-standing federal law, those seeking to immigrate to the United States must show they can support themselves financially.”

The proposed changes would “promote immigrant self-sufficiency and protect finite resources by ensuring that they are not likely to become burdens on American taxpayers,” Nielsen added.
President Trump has said he wants to replace the current immigration system with a merit-based one, based on job skills.
Green card applicants are already required by federal law to prove they will not be a burden – or “public charge” – but the proposal would expand the number programs that could disqualify them.
Under the rule, denials for green cards can be issued if an immigrant received government benefits for up to 15 percent of the poverty level - $1,821 for an individual and $3,765 for a family of four, Politico reported.
DHS will allow a 60-day period for public comment on the proposal before it is published in the Federal Register. Afterward, the agency will make changes based on public feedback before issuing a final rule. The agency anticipates court challenges to any change, the Post reported.
If adopted, the changes would affect those applying for immigration visas or those with temporary residency who want to stay in the country, and could affect the more than 600,000 participants in DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) -- the Obama-era "Dreamers" program -- if they file for permanent residency, according to the Post.
The proposal would have little effect on undocumented immigrants or foreigners who apply for “temporary protected status” to remain in the U.S. after a natural disaster or armed conflict in their home countries.
Critics see the measure as just another attempt to restrict legal immigration and force low-income families to choose between receiving public assistance or staying in the United States.
“This would force families -- including citizen children -- to choose between getting the help they need and remaining in their communities,” said Diane Yentel, president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition. “The last thing the federal government should do is punish families that have fallen on hard times for feeding their children or keeping a roof over their heads and avoiding homelessness.”
Some immigrants have already decided to forgo benefits in fear for being deported.
The Post reported that 3.7 percent of the 41.5 million immigrants living in the U.S. received cash benefits in 2013 and 22.7 percent received other forms of assistance like Medicaid, housing subsidies or home heating assistance.
The percentage of native-born Americans who get the same forms of assistance in 2015 was nearly identical.
The changes could expand disparities in health insurance rates between children with native-born parents and those with immigrant parents.
The timing of the proposal, along with an announcement earlier this week that the administration will admit no more than 30,000 refugees in the next fiscal year, could stir up the Republican Party’s base.
“We can be choosy about who we allow into the country,” said Hans von Spakovsky, a senior fellow with the conservative Heritage Foundation. “One of the primary factors ought to be ensuring that the legal immigrants who come in are people who can financially support themselves.”

Maryland's GOP governor loses support of NRA after signing gun laws

Gov. Larry Hogan, R-Md., on Saturday lost the NRA's support in his re-election bid after having signed gun control legislation.  (Associated Press)

Maryland’s Republican governor lost the support of the National Rifle Association and had his ranking downgraded Saturday after signing gun control legislation.
The Baltimore Sun first reported that the organization wouldn’t endorse Gov. Larry Hogan during his re-election campaign as it had during his successful 2014 run for office.
The organization reduced Hogan’s “A-“ rating earned four years ago to a “C,” NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker told the Sun. The grading reflects how well the candidate protects the rights of gun owners.
Hogan had signed a series of gun control bills in April, including a ban on “bump stocks” -- devices that let a weapon fire repeatedly, like a machine gun -- and a “red flag law” that makes it easier to remove guns from individuals deemed dangerous, the Hill reported.
He also said in July, while speaking at a local middle school where a 16-year-old girl died in a shooting, that he would reject the NRA’s endorsement, according to the outlet. Hogan’s spokeswoman also told the outlet that he didn’t think the organization were “big fans” of his at the time.
While the NRA has pulled its support ahead of next month’s midterm elections, Hogan campaign spokesman Doug Mayer told the Sun that the governor continues to support Second Amendment rights.
“The governor’s position on guns will never change; he wants to make it harder for criminals and the mentally ill to get access to them,” Mayer said. “He will continue to pursue policies that work to achieve those goals.”
Hogan is set to face Democratic challenger Ben Jealous in the November midterm elections. Poll results released earlier this month showed Hogan with a 22-point lead, the Sun reported.

Deep State Cartoons

Ben Carson defends Kavanaugh, says opponents 'desperate' to control courts

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson speaks to the 2018 Values Voter Summit in Washington, Sept. 21, 2018.  (Associated Press)

The controversy surrounding Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination was created by opponents who have become “desperate” to regain control of the courts, a member of President Trump's Cabinet said Friday.
Ben Carson, secretary of Housing and Urban Development, told a conservative audience at the annual Values Voter Summit in Washington that opponents of Kavanaugh want to “fundamentally change this country.” But as their likelihood of controlling the courts looks bleak, Carson said, they’re resorting to “chaos and destruction.”
"And now they don't see themselves as being able to control the courts for another generation," Carson said. "So what is left? Chaos and destruction."
Kavanaugh has been accused of sexually assaulting a woman in the 1980s, when both were in high school. The judge has “categorically” denied the allegations and has said he would testify to clear his name.
Carson, who called sexual predators “abominable,” went on to liken the allegations against Kavanaugh to those Carson said he himself has faced during his career.
He described an incident in which he was accused of fathering a child out of wedlock. He said he wasn't intimidated because "I knew that the only woman I had ever slept with in my entire life was my wife."
"Having said that, we must also recognize that there are two sides to every story," Carson said.
Late Friday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley granted another extension to Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault, to decide on whether she will testify before the panel.