Thank you, Governor Chris Sununu(R-NH)for vetoing these gun bills.
August 28, 2019
USF & NRA Members and Friends
Marion P. Hammer
USF Executive Director
NRA Past President
You won’t read this in the mainstream media and we thought you should know that common sense and loyalty to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is alive and well in the New Hampshire Governor’s office.
In the past, Governor Chris Sununu has signed legislation to ensure that law-abiding adults can exercise their right to self-defense without burdensome red tape and fees. He opposes the failed gun control schemes pushed by well-funded, out-of-state, anti-gun elites such as bans on commonly owned firearms and ammunition.
Read about it below.
HERE IN FLORIDA: Anti-gun Democrats in the Florida Legislature were soundly rebuffed by the Florida Senate and the Florida House in an overwhelming vote refusing to call a Special Legislative Session on gun control. The vote fell significantly short of the 3/5 vote needed
Tuesday, Aug. 27 at 5pm was the deadline for voting.
Senate: 14 YES, 20 NO,
6 DID NOT VOTE (4 Republicans and 2 Democrats did not vote)
House of Representatives: 38 YES, 68 NO,
14 DID NOT VOTE (7 Republicans and 7 Democrats did not vote)
The call for the Special Session on gun control was nothing more than political shenanigans by the Democrats.
They KNEW the vote would fail, they just wanted to create an opportunity for political grandstanding.
Further, they wanted to get legislators on record for political attacks during the 2020 elections. (Democrats forget that works both ways.)
Red Flag Laws are just an end-run around the Second Amendment.
When neighbors can red flag each other
no one wins, everybody loses.
Abandoning constitutional guarantees destroys
American freedom for a false hope of safety
A red flag law allows you to officially snitch on your neighbors, relatives or friends, and have them detained without bringing real charges. You can do it out of fear, or just suspicion that people you know may be “up to something” without proof. The cops can break in, confiscate property (arms), and the person you rat out ends up with giant legal bills, court dates, a permanent blot that can’t be removed — and they didn’t actually do anything — you just used your expanded legal “right” to red flag the person. If that sounds terribly wrong it”s because it is. Mass media didn’t tell you that, did they.
These red flag laws are being promoted by people on the political left who are motivated by fear of psychos, often drugged up, who have been encouraged by mass media, TV and the movies to shoot up schools, theaters, restaurants and their workplaces. Those horrific tragedies, shown endlessly on nightly “news” reports, are being used to get legislators and the public to adopt these red flag laws as a supposed solution. You, Mr. and Mrs. Normal, can notify (“red flag”) authorities about these supposed sociopaths before they explode and we’ll all be safe. It almost sounds good, except you’ve heard that authorities knew about the maniacs many times, did nothing, and then picked up the pieces when it was too late.
No, the red flag laws have a different, hidden and terrible purpose. They are a new clandestine method for taking guns away from innocent Americans — a long-time and frustrated goal of the political left. With these new laws in place, authorities have a permanent excuse, and a way around due process (also known as the rule of law) to confiscate guns with little civil protection for the innocent. People in the know get it, but the public isn’t getting even a hint of the truth, just the blaring loudspeakers of CNN and the networks, promoting a false promise of safety from some new law, where all other similar laws have failed miserably.
Red flag laws have zero effect on the reason children want to slaughter their classmates. They do nothing on top of the background checks we’ve had for decades that do nothing to disarm the inner cities where historically black neighborhoods endure 6,000 murders every year. Officials are lying to you, and so-called reporters merely perpetuate the lie.
You get truth from a group like us, JPFO, and others, but the mass media is a mass of deception. Red flag laws are wrong for America from every angle. We already have a half dozen of them on the books, did you know that? Does a wife sleep better with a paper restraining order against an abusive husband, even if they forcible take the guns she knows he has, with a drawer full of kitchen knives? It doesn’t even make sense.
People too dangerous to have their own firearms are too dangerous to be left out on the street by themselves. Join JPFO to learn more. We’ll give you the real deal, not a false flag to wave. Get and read Dial 911 and Die from JPFO.
MacArthur’s first priority was to set up a food distribution network; following the collapse of the ruling government and the wholesale destruction of most major cities, virtually everyone was starving. Even with these measures, millions of people were still on the brink of starvation for several years after the surrender. As expressed by Kawai Kazuo, “Democracy cannot be taught to a starving people”. The US government encouraged democratic reform in Japan, and while it sent billions of dollars in food aid, this was dwarfed by the occupation costs it imposed on the struggling Japanese administration.
Initially, the US government provided emergency food relief through Government and Relief in Occupied Areas (GARIOA) funds. In fiscal year 1946, this aid amounted to US $92 million in loans. From April 1946, in the guise Licensed Agencies for Relief, private relief organizations were also permitted to provide relief.
This is what securing the border looks like slowing illegals from crossing our border.
Records show ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy is cutting illegal immigration.
Thousands of would-be illegal immigrants are being returned to await asylum hearings in Mexico as part of a program the Trump administration has credited with curbing the recent wave of family migration at the southwestern border.
The Migrant Protection Protocols—more colloquially known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy—are regulations issued by former secretary of homeland security Kirstjen Nielsen in December 2018. Under the MPP, a subset of individuals who claim to be seeking asylum after being apprehended at the border now must await the results of their immigration court hearings in Mexico, rather than being detained—or, more often, released on their own recognizance—in the United States.
Asylum seekers, especially from non-contiguous countries, pose a unique challenge to the immigration system. Preexisting laws and regulations mean that asylum seekers can only be detained for so long before being released, while the large immigration court backlog essentially guarantees that these time thresholds will be passed. The result is a system of de facto catch-and-release, in which an individual can simply claim asylum at the border and then disappear into the interior while his or her case is processed.
The stated goal of the “Remain in Mexico” policy at the time of its implementation was to curb the then-swelling crisis at the southwestern border, which was in no small part a product of this asylum loophole. Individuals apprehended seeking asylum would await the results of their hearings in Mexico, meaning that they could not abscond into the United States before their application is denied. Nearly 90 percent of applications are denied.
How effective have the MPP regulations actually been? New data released Monday by the nonpartisan Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) show that the program has taken off in recent months. Nearly 12,000 people were returned to Mexico in July, compared with about 5,000 in May, and just 15 at the start of the year.
MPP cases make up a small share of the immigration court’s total backlog, just 2.7 percent, according to TRAC. But it made up a substantial proportion—22.3 percent—of new cases added to the docket in July. A third of those apprehended traveled from Honduras, 28 percent from Nicaragua, and 22 percent from Guatemala.
The new data support Department of Homeland Security claims that a substantial drop in monthly apprehensions in June and July is partially attributable to the implementation of the MPP. While the protocols have been in place since January, ramped up implementation in May, and their expansion to the Laredo and Brownsville ports of entry, likely drove the dips evident following May’s peak.
Notably, the “Remain in Mexico” policy does not work by stopping individuals before they enter at the southwestern border, only returning them back once they cross. This means that to the extent the policy is effective, the MPP reduces immigration by deterring would-be crossers, who may not attempt to enter because they know they are less likely to be able to stay in the country.
The MPP’s success suggests two conclusions. One is that at least some individuals migrating north and seeking asylum are doing so explicitly because they know they will likely be able to abscond—a sign that the loopholes in America’s asylum rules are known south of the border. The other is that these data supply tentative evidence that immigration reduction policies—such as the administration’s now-withdrawn “zero tolerance” prosecution approach—actually work.
The government of Venezuela knows that DemocRat run cities are not a whole lot better off than their own country.
What do you do when your political promises fail? What can you say once your political graft and corruption lead to widespread poverty and violence? That is a tough situation, but the political solution is well know and time tested; you blame someone else. Venezuelan socialists reduced the richest country in south america from prosperity to violent poverty. Their political policies also caused a frightening surge in robbery and kidnapping. Politicians and the electorate in Venezuela and the US have more in common than first appears.
The Venezuelan government told its citizens to avoid violent cities in the USA. They named Atlanta, Baltimore, Birmingham, Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, Memphis, Oakland and Saint Louis as places to avoid. Let’s look closer.
Atlanta hasn’t had a Republican mayor for the last 140 years.
Baltimore had only Democrat mayors and only Democrat City Councils for the last 18,000 days.
Birmingham had Democrat mayors for the last 16,000 days.
Buffalo had Democrat mayors for the last 18,000 days and has a completely Democrat Common Council.
Cleveland had Democrat mayors for the last 10,000 days and has a completely Democrat City Council.
Detroit had Democrat mayors for the last 22,000 days and has a 90% Democrat City Council.
Memphis had Democrat mayors for the last 9,000 days.
Oakland had Democrat mayors for the last 15,000 days and has a super-majority Democrat city council.
Saint Louis had Democrat mayors for the last 15,000 days and has a super-majority of Democrat aldermen.
That is a clear pattern. The avowed Socialists in Venezuela said their starving citizens shouldn’t flee to cities controlled by Democrats in the US.
That condemnation by Venezuela has to hurt. The top Democrats on the national stage have all endorsed big government Socialism as their economic platform. The candidates have all come out for gun confiscation as their path to lower crime. Those are precisely the policies implemented in impoverished and violent Venezuela. There, laid bare, is the cause and effect, the political failure, that American Socialists would like to hide from us.
The Venezuelan government is right about one thing. Political and economic refugees fleeing Socialism want the American dream rather than more of the poverty and corruption they fled. They want jobs, and those Democrat-controlled cities are the laggards in our economy. Immigrants want peace and freedom, while these Democrat mayors have delivered more regulation, more poverty, and more drug gangs.
Democrat-controlled cities look more like Venezuela than like the rest of the US.
Big government Socialists say they are sophisticated and worldly. They claim to take the best ideas and the brightest people from around the world to rule over us. Someone forgot to tell the Venezuelan government that it isn’t nice to call out the corruption and failures of fellow Socialists. The deteriorating buildings of Caracas and Havana look too much like the dilapidated buildings of Baltimore and Chicago. It is embarrassing to Democrats here in the US when collapsing Socialist regimes point out those similarities.
People who live in crumbling glass houses should not throw stones, but as we’ve seen in Venezuelan protests, stones maybe all the citizens have now that honest citizens are disarmed.
This is one historical fact the anti-gun left conveniently forgets.
Philadelphia, PA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Many people try to claim that the Founding Fathers couldn’t have conceived of repeating rifles when they drafted the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights. However, the story of Joseph Belton and his correspondence with the Continental Congress proves otherwise.
If you’d prefer to watch and learn, the video I made below details the entire event. If you’d prefer to read about it, the story unfolds below.
Belton, an inventor and gunsmith from Philadelphia, claimed to have devised a new form of flintlock musket that was capable of firing as many as sixteen consecutive shots in as little as twenty seconds. After the gun had fired its consecutive loads, it could then be reloaded individually like all other traditional firearms of that era. He first wrote to Congress about his new invention on April 11, 1777, letting them know he was available to demonstrate his invention to them at any time.
Intrigued by Belton’s claim, Congress ordered 100 examples of his “new improved gun.” They authorized him to oversee the construction of new guns, or alteration of existing guns, so that they were capable of discharging eight rounds with one loading and that he “receive a reasonable compensation for his trouble, and be allowed all just and necessary expences [sic].”
On May 7, Belton replied to Congress with his terms regarding what he felt to be “reasonable compensation.” In order to determine his fee, Belton wanted to arm 100 soldiers with his invention and demonstrate the capabilities of such armed men to a panel of four military officers – two of Congress’ choosing and two of Belton’s choosing. The officers would then determine how many men they felt Belton’s 100 men were equivalent to when carrying a standard firearm. (For example, 100 specially-armed men were equivalent to 200 regularly-armed men, or more.)
For his ability to double the manpower, Belton felt that he was entitled to £1,000 for every 100 men he armed from a given state. Belton justified his price by claiming that a state could not raise, equip, and clothe 100 men for £1,000, making his 100 men armed as though they were 200 men a bargain. (For reference, £1,000 in 1777 is the equivalent of £150,000 today. If all 13 states outfitted 100 men, Belton would receive £13,000 – or £1,900,000 today.)
Belton argued that arming 3,000 men or more with his invention created enumerable advantages beyond description on the battlefield, making his compensation “vastly reasonable.” As such, his terms were nonnegotiable. If Congress refused or attempted to haggle in any way, he would withdraw his offer completely. (For those doing the math, 3,000 men armed with Belton’s repeater would mean that he’d collect more than £4,500,000 in today’s currency.)
Belton must have realized immediately that his demands were more than outlandish because the next day, on May 8, he wrote a letter to John Hancock lowering his fee to £500 for doubling, £1,500 for tripling, £2,000 for quadrupling, and so forth.
On May 15, Congress read Belton’s letter to the body. They quickly dismissed it because of his “extraordinary allowance.” (No one saw that coming, right?) Congress considered the matter dropped and didn’t reply to Belton, likely assuming he would take their lack of reply as a refusal.
They assumed wrong.
Having heard nothing from Congress for more than a month, Belton wrote them again on Saturday, June 14. This time, he claimed he could accurately hit targets with his rifle out to 100 yards, and possibly even out to 200 yards. He offered to demonstrate this feat to Congress on the following Monday at 10:00am in the State House Yard.
The same day that Belton wrote this letter, Congress was involved with something that would prove to be far more important. On June 14, 1777, the Continental Congress approved the design for a national flag.
With Congress engaged in more pressing matters, Belton’s letter went unanswered for almost a month when he decided to write again.
His letter from July 10 was not nearly as polite as his previous ones. This time, he tried to rile members of the body by claiming that Great Britain regularly pays £500 for lesser services. If, he mused, the “little Island” could afford such payments, surely this “extensive continent” could do the same.
He also enclosed a letter signed by General Horatio Gates, Major General Benedict Arnold (before he became a turncoat), well-known scientist David Rittenhouse, and others, all claiming that his invention would be of “great Service, in the Defense of lives, Redoubts, Ships &c, & even in the Field,” and that they felt Belton was entitled to “a hansome [sic] reward from the Publick [sic].”
Having received the letter immediately, Congress resolved that same day to refer Belton’s petition to the Board of War, made up of five delegates. Among these five delegates were future 2nd President of the United States, John Adams; and Benjamin Harrison V, father and great-grandfather of the 9th and 23rd Presidents of the United States, respectively.
Nine days later on July 19, Congress got word from the Board of War. Much to Belton’s dismay, they dismissed his petition altogether. At this point, he must have finally gotten the hint that Congress wasn’t going to authorize such exorbitant payment for his services. The historic record turns up no more correspondence between Belton and Congress.
Despite the fact that Joseph Belton failed to convince the Continental Congress to outfit colonial soldiers with his repeating rifle, it’s still a very important story. Belton invented his gun in 1777. The Bill of Rights wasn’t ratified until 1791. That means our Founding Fathers not only knew about repeating rifles 14 years before the creation of the Second Amendment, but that they thought highly enough of the idea to pursue further development and implementation of such technology. The fact that it proved to be cost-prohibitive is moot, as it certainly could have been done if Congress and Belton had agreed upon the definition of “reasonable compensation.”
So, the next time someone tells you the Second Amendment was never designed to protect the right to own a repeating rifle, or that it was only meant to apply to flintlock firearms, sit them down and tell them the story of Joseph Belton and his repeating flintlock musket.
About Logan Metesh
LoganMetesh is a historian with a focus on firearms history and development. He runs High Caliber History LLC and has more than a decade of experience working for the Smithsonian Institution, the National Park Service, and the NRA Museums. His ability to present history and research in an engaging manner has made him a sought after consultant, writer, and museum professional. The ease with which he can recall obscure historical facts and figures makes him very good at Jeopardy!, but exceptionally bad at geometry.
Gunowners of Utah need to call write and email this RINO Governor Gary Herbert and tell him no more gun restrictions.
Gov. Gary Herbert is calling for nearly every major gun control measure there is.
Speaking at his monthly KUED news conference, the governor specifically mentioned proposals such as expanded background checks and age limits. He also brought up extreme risk protection orders, or “red flag” laws, which allow law enforcement to temporarily confiscate the weapons of someone deemed a danger to themselves or others.
The governor said violence in video games and movies should bear some of the blame for mass shootings.
“I think all those things ought to be talked about and discussed in an open and frank manner and see if we can’t change the culture in which we seem to find ourselves in today where violence is just an acceptable part of life,” Herbert said.“I think there is a sense of frustration about why is it happening and what can we do to prevent it.”
Utah saw a bill to bring red flag laws introduced last year, as well as a bill to expand background checks, but neither bill became law.
According to KUER, a Republican, “has said he plans to reintroduce the red flag bill in 2020 for the third year in a row.”
There needs to be some major clean up of the putrid mess know as the Veterans Administration.
We need less brass and more ass in the grass types to run the Veterans Administration.
It is shameful the way veterans are treated and now looks like murdered in the places that were supposed to be helping them.
How many more veterans death are homicides that were passed off as natural?
Disturbing news out of West Virginia when authorities learned that one patient was given a drug he did not need. Even more terrifying, is that almost a dozen patients have died at this same hospital under similar circumstances.
Authorities are investigating a string of about 10 (Possibly 11) suspicious deaths of patients, including one ruled a homicide, at a Veterans Affairs hospital in West Virginia out of concern they were targeted, according to three people familiar with the probe.
In October, the body of Felix Kirk McDermott, an 82-year-old Army veteran who died last year at a VA hospital in Clarksburg, West Virginia, was exhumed and brought to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware.
A federal medical examiner conducted an autopsy and concluded that McDermott’s sudden death on April 9, 2018, was caused by an injection of insulin into his abdomen – which can kill someone who is not diabetic.
There was no order for the injection in McDermott’s hospital records, and he had no history of diabetes or insulin use to control his blood sugar levels, according to the autopsy report.
“It’s just not right,” his daughter Melanie Proctor told USA TODAY. “I thought my dad was safe there.”
‘Manner of death is homicide’
McDermott died several hours after his blood sugar dropped, according to the autopsy report.
“Based on the investigative and autopsy findings, the manner of death is homicide,” the medical examiner wrote in his report.
McDermott’s death certificate now says his death was a homicide, the result of a non-diabetic patient being injected with insulin “by an assailant.”
His daughter said the discovery left her feeling “hurt and betrayed.”
“I expected him to be taken care of, especially somebody with dementia that can’t talk for themselves,” she said.
Before he was admitted to the hospital, McDermott resided at the VA nursing home on the campus of the VA medical center. Proctor said she and other family members visited regularly and brought him chocolate, which he enjoyed.
McDermott retired from the Army as a sergeant major after 20 years of active duty, including a tour in Vietnam, Proctor said.
The other nine or now are also suspected to be homicides.
“Today I made sure to talk to Secretary Wilkie and Dr. Snider to make sure that their investigation into these deaths is accurate and thorough. I was also assured by both Secretary Wilkie and Dr. Snider that the person of interest is no longer in any contact with Veterans at the VA facility. These crimes shock the conscience and I’m still appalled they were not only committed but that our Veterans, who have sacrificed so much for our country, were the victims. As a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee I will do everything in my power to investigate these accusations and get to the bottom of what happened. These families and loved ones deserve answers as soon as possible and I will make sure they get them,” Senator Manchin said.
“We don’t know whether this is just an unbelievably incompetent person, which is hard to believe, or if someone is doing this willfully to people who have served our country,” said Tony O’Dell, a Charleston lawyer who is representing McDermott’s family.
So far, no one has released the name of this ‘person of interest’. Likely because the investigation is still ongoing but if these deaths are intentional that person should be made to pay dearly for 9hurting our most valued seniors.
It seems the Moron leaders do not care much what happens in their churches.
No police officers present means no protection for the congregations.
A new law in Texas allowing concealed carry holders to carry in churches, synagogues, and houses of worship has gone into effect, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has responded by declaring that only worshippers who are police officers are allowed to be armed while at church.
Church spokesman Daniel Woodruff told The Washington Post that a letter detailing the policy change was first sent to local leaders in Texas and shared with the 360,000 or so church members there. The letter, Woodruff explained, was sent following a recent change in state law that will permit licensed handgun owners to carry weapons in churches, synagogues and other places of worship unless they are explicitly told otherwise.
The same letter will soon be sent to other local leaders, Woodruff said.
“Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world,” the updated handbook entrysays. “With the exception of current law enforcement officers, the carrying of lethal weapons on church property, concealed or otherwise, is prohibited.”
Of course, church leaders have the right to establish whatever policy they wish, but this seems shortsighted and misguided to me. Not every church is going to have active duty law enforcement attending worship services, and if they’re the only ones allowed to carry, that means that some sanctuaries are just going to be undefended during their most vulnerable times.
Not everyone is happy with this new development either, as you can imagine.
Utah gun rights advocate Janalee Tobias sees a problem with the policy.
“It’s concerning that they are making us a soft target,” said the founder of Women Against Gun Control. “Criminals are cowards and these shootings occur in places that don’t have guns. You always want your enemies to think you are protected.”
Not everyone “has to pack a pistol to the pews,” she added, “just those who wish to.”
Now, those that wish to carry are being told they can’t. While the instructions have gone out specifically to church leaders in Texas, the Salt Lake Tribune notes the policy does apply to all 16-million members around the globe. If someone shows up with their legally carried firearm, according to the instructions, “the priesthood leader should read the approved statement and kindly ask them to comply by removing the firearm from the building.”
Tobias, a Latter-day Saint who lives in South Jordan, wishes her church would follow the “wisdom taught in the Book of Mormon” — the faith’s foundational scripture — that encourages members to “fortify their cities.”
She also argues the policy conflicts with the Second Amendment.
“The church doesn’t have a right to tell me if I have a right to protect my family,” she said, noting Mormon teachings that tout the U.S. Constitution as inspired by God. “But now we can’t have the Second Amendment in church. What do we do about that?”
It seems like this policy would work only if the person who brought a gun to church is willing to listen. If they showed up with evil intentions, kindly telling them to leave the gun free zone isn’t likely to work. At that point, parishioners had better hope there’s a cop in attendance because defending themselves is no longer an option.
“After more than eight incredible months, I’m ending my presidential campaign,” Gillibrand said in a video on Twitter. “We wanted to win this race, but it’s important to know when its not your time and to know how you can best serve your commmunity and country.”
She added: “I believe I can best serve by helping unite us to beat Donald Trump in 2020.”
Today, I am ending my campaign for president.
I am so proud of this team and all we’ve accomplished. But I think it’s important to know how you can best serve.
To our supporters: Thank you, from the bottom of my heart. Now, let’s go beat Donald Trump and win back the Senate.
Gillibrand is the most-well known Democrat to exit the crowded — but winnowing — field of White House hopefuls.
Gillibrand topped an incumbent Republican in a conservative part of upstate New York to get to the U.S. House in 2007, and was appointed to the Senate two years later, filling the seat vacated by Hillary Clinton, who was tapped to be U.S. secretary of state. Gillibrand later easily retained the seat during a 2010 special election, as well as in 2012 and 2018.
Vocal in the Senate on curbing sexual harassment and promoting equal pay for women and family leave, Gillibrand made those and her staunch defense of abortion rights the core of her presidential bid. She stood out in the crowded field by becoming the first Democratic presidential hopeful to declare that she’d only appoint judges to the Supreme Court who consider the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide settled law, though most of her competitors quickly followed suit.
After forming an exploratory committee in January and formally entering the race by calling President Trump a “coward” in a March speech delivered near the New York City skyscraper bearing his name, Gillibrand began with $10.5-plus million left over from her 2018 Senate campaign in her presidential campaign account
That seemed like more than enough resources for the long haul. But Gillibrand was the first Senate Democrat in December 2017 to call for Minnesota Sen. Al Franken’s resignation amid numerous allegations of sexual misconduct, and she has said for months that that alienated donors and some voters in his neighboring, make-or-break Iowa.
Many of her Senate colleagues seeking the Democratic presidential nomination — including Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kamala Harris of California and Bernie Sanders of Vermont — followed her lead in calling for Franken to step down before he quit in January 2018. But Gillibrand has continually faced more questions than others about being too quick to condemn him.
In the past two weeks, former Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colorado, Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington and Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts all dropped out of the White House race. All three immediately moved on to down-ballot races. Hickenlooper launched a bid for the Democratic Senate nomination in Colorado, while Inslee and Moulton announced re-election bids for their respective offices.
Gillibrand was reelected to her second term in the Senate in 2018 and won’t have to face a challenger for her seat until 2024, but she told Fox News last week that she would be open to serving as her party’s vice presidential nominee.
“I’m here to serve,” she said. “I can serve in any capacity.”