Top Stories • Kamala Harris Launches Nationwide Tour to Celebrate Abortion • Planned Parenthood’s Trans Hormone Business is Booming as It Mutilates Thousands of Children • Planned Parenthood is Still Killing Babies and Selling Their Body Parts • Sandra Merritt Fights Bogus Criminal Charges for Exposing Planned Parenthood Aborted Baby Parts Sales
More Pro-Life News • Supreme Court Should Ban Mail-Order Abortions, Protect Women From Dangerous Abortion Pills • Joe Biden is So Bad Even Some Democrats Want to Replace Him • Hispanics Reject Joe Biden as His Radical Abortion Agenda Continues • Kamala Harris Wants Abortions Up to Birth Across America • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2023 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved. For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.
Follow America’s fastest-growing news aggregator, Spreely News, and stay informed. You can find all of our articles plus information from your favorite Conservative voices.
On Friday, a jury in Washington, D.C., issued a significant judgment against former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani in a defamation case brought forward by two 2020 Georgia election workers, Ruby Freeman and Wandrea “Shaye” Moss.
CNN reported that the unanimous verdict included damages for each of the plaintiffs who had accused Giuliani of falsely accusing them of aiding to steal the election from then-President Donald Trump. The lawsuit revealed that both Freeman and Moss experienced immense harassment, racist attacks, and death threats as a result of being falsely accused. This resulted in their need to flee their homes, resign from their positions as election workers, and fear using their real names.
The jury awarded them more than $148 million in damages.
Following the verdict, the former mayor had to also cover the attorney fees of both plaintiffs. He subsequently gave a statement to reporters.
“Possibly will move for a new trial, certainly will appeal,” Giuliani, a former federal prosecutor, said. “The absurdity of the number merely underscores the absurdity of the entire proceeding where I’ve not been allowed to offer one single piece of evidence in defense, of which I have a lot.
“So I am quite confident when this case gets before a fair tribunal, it will be reversed so quickly. That will make your head spin. And the absurd number that just came in will help that, actually,” he added.
“Why did you think it was unfair?” one reporter asked.
“I cannot go into the details. I didn’t testify because the judge made it clear that if I made any mistake or did anything wrong, she was considering contempt,” Giuliani responded. “And this judge does have a reputation for putting people in jail. And I thought, honestly, it wouldn’t do any good.
“Do you still believe what you said about these two women in the wake of the 2020 elections?” another reporter asked.
“I have no doubt. I have no doubt that my comments were made,and they were supportable and are supportable today,” Giuliani added.
“I just did not have an opportunity to present the evidence that we offered,” he said.
“Did you notice we were not allowed to put in one piece of evidence in defense? Do you also realize that liability is not based on any trial? My ability is based on her disagreement with me on discovery, which is absurd. Get it? Because I believe the judge was threatening me with the strong possibility that I’d be held in contempt or that I’d even be put in jail,” he said.
“So, it didn’t seem like it was going to do much to persuade anybody, and it could give her what she seemed to be threatening. Do you believe the women’s testimony? All right. That’s all I have to say,” he added.
“Do you have regrets about some of the comments that the women received?” a reporter then asked.
“Well, of course the comments they received, I had nothing to do with those comments, [they] are abominable. They’re deplorable,” Giuliani insisted.
This $148 million verdict against Giuliani is just one among numerous lawsuits awaiting resolution over “false claims” associated with the 2020 election, Mediaite reported on Friday.
A homeless man pushes his belongings past tents on August 16, 2023, on a Skid Row sidewalk in Los Angeles, California, where homelessness has seen a 10 percent surge compared to last year. A recent report from the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority reveals an estimate of 42,260 people living on the streets of Los Angeles without shelter, as the homeless population has more than doubled over the past decade. | FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images
As rents soared and programs focused on preventing evictions and housing loss ended, homelessness hit a record high in 2023, with roughly 20 out of every 10,000 people in the United States found to be experiencing homelessness on a single night, a new report from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development shows.
Among the key findings of HUD’s 2023 Annual Homeless Assessment Report: Part 1: Point-in-Time Estimates, officials found that homelessness increased across all household types. Roughly 653,100 people nationwide were experiencing homelessness during a Point-In-Time count conducted in January 2023. Between 2022 and 2023, the number of people experiencing homelessness increased by 12%, or an increase of roughly 70,650 people. The 2023 Point-in-Time count is the highest number of people reported as experiencing homelessness on a single night since reporting began in 2007, officials say.
Homelessness among people in families with children rose 16%, while individuals registered an 11% increase in the homeless population.
Most of the homelessness crisis remains centered in the nation’s 50 largest cities. According to the data, nearly 60% of the people experiencing homelessness did so in urban areas, while the remainder of the homeless population was noted in suburban areas (23%) and rural communities (18%).
Reacting to the findings Friday, HUD Secretary Marcia L. Fudge said homelessness “should not exist in the United States” because it is “solvable.”
“From day one, this Administration has put forth a comprehensive plan to tackle homelessness and we’ve acted aggressively and in conjunction with our federal, state, and local partners to address this challenge,” Fudge said in a statement.
“We’ve made positive strides, but there is still more work to be done. This data underscores the urgent need for support for proven solutions and strategies that help people quickly exit homelessness and that prevent homelessness in the first place.”
The data also shows a sharp increase in people who became homeless for the first time. Between the federal fiscal years of 2021 and 2022, there was a 25% increase in people who became newly homeless, even as the number of people who exited homelessness to permanent housing increased by 8%, the agency said.
HUD attributes the rise in homelessness to several factors, including “recent changes in the rental housing market and the winding down of pandemic protections and programs focused on preventing evictions and housing loss.” Additionally, rental housing conditions were “extraordinarily challenging” in the year leading up to the January Point-in-Time count.
“[T]he supply shortage of 2022 likely contributed to this increase in rents and homelessness in 2022,” the HUD release states.
A 2019 report released by the White House Office of Economic Advisers during the Trump administration titled “The State of Homelessness in America” called homelessness a “serious problem” in America “due to decades of misguided and faulty policies.” It also pointed out that homelessness is concentrated in major cities on the West Coast and the Northeast, like Boston, New York City and Washington, D.C., with nearly half (47%) of unsheltered homeless people found in California alone.
President Joe Biden’s younger brother James Biden took a quiet personal loan from one of his now-bankrupt investment companies on the condition that he would leverage his family’s political influence to increase their funding from the Middle East, testimony collected by the House Oversight Committee states. He then used those funds to line his elder brother’s pockets.
Shortly after the FBI raided Americore’s offices in January 2020, the health care company’s former CEO Grant White prepared a lawsuit accusing James of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and committing fraud. As Mark Hemingway reported at the time, documents prepared as part of the legal proceedings specifically alleged that James used company cash to stuff his pocketbook via a six-figure personal loan but did not deliver on his promise to use the Biden family name to bring the company investments from the Middle East.
“[Biden told me] there’s not a single door in the country that we can’t open. So if I wanted to meet, you know, the head of Google, it’s a phone call,” White said. “He always represented himself as the fundraiser for his brother’s campaigns. … He was the guy raising the money and so he knew everybody.”
Corporate media like Politico acknowledged that James “introduced Americore’s founder to his older brother” but never paid back the loan in full. James eventually paid Americore a $350,000 settlement over the loan dispute.
Americore Chapter 11 Trustee Carol Fox confirmed to the House Oversight Committee on Monday that the company quietly loaned $600,000 to James on the condition that his political connections would bring the company funding from the Middle East.
Americore handed over $200,000 of the loan to James in March 2018, a decision that Fox said the company deliberately decided to do without documentation. Shortly after he received the wire, James wrote a check for the same amount to his elder brother Joe that he painted as a personal loan repayment.
When House investigators showed Fox the check on Monday, she commented that $200,000 is a hefty sum. She also said that the money that eventually lined Joe’s pockets came from either “predatory loans or senior citizens’ money fraudulently invested by James Biden’s business partner, Michael Lewitt.”
The House Oversight Committee warned in October that the Biden brothers’ 2018 financial exchange warranted more scrutiny.
The $200,000 transfer is even more suspect in light of news that Joe received a $40,000 “loan repayment” in the form of a check from Sara and James Biden’s personal checking account in September 2017. That transfer followed shortly after a handful of transactions that were part of a deal Hunter Biden, Joe’s son and James’ nephew, struck with businessmen linked to communist China.
Just a few months prior in June 2017, Hunter had written in a WhatsApp message to his uncle and to other Biden business associates that he was hesitant to “sign over” the family “brand” to another associate. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith identified the “brand” as Joe.
Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.
For Democrats to succeed with their 2024 presidential campaign strategy of imprisoning the current front-runner in the race, they need a massive assist from key judges.
District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan has done everything in her power to speed up the process for one of the complicated cases Democrats have filed against former President Donald Trump. Whereas the standard federal fraud and conspiracy case takes about two years to get to trial, controversial Special Counsel Jack Smith and Chutkan have worked in concert to get the trial started in March, a breathtaking seven months after Trump’s indictment.
Likewise, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Florence Pan is doing her part to assist the effort to give Trump far less time than other defendants to prepare for a trial against him. Last week, she led a panel to fast-track an appeal in order to facilitate Smith’s goal of securing a quick conviction before one of Washington, D.C.’s notoriously partisan juries.
“Any fair-minded observer has to agree” that Smith and Chutkan are acting based on the election schedule, conceded former federal prosecutor and left-wing pundit Elie Honig. “Just look at Jack Smith’s conduct in this case. The motivating principle behind every procedural request he’s made has been speed, has been getting this trial in before the election.”
Election interference isn’t incidental to this prosecution, then, it’s the entire point.
While hundreds of defendants in the relatively simple Jan. 6 cases brought by the Department of Justice have had a few years to prepare for trial, Trump and his attorneys have to prepare for one of the most complicated and unprecedented cases in American history in just a matter of months. “Donald Trump is being given far less time to prepare than other defendants,” Honig said.
In September, Trump’s legal team asked Chutkan to recuse herself due to her personal bias against the former president and his supporters. Chutkan, the foreign-born “scion of Marxist revolutionaries,” has received attention for her partisan and incendiary commentary against Trump and his supporters. She denied the request. In October, Trump’s attorneys asked for the suit to be dismissed on multiple grounds, including presidential immunity, violation of the freedom of speech clause, violation of the double jeopardy clause and due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, and several other issues. By Dec. 1, Chutkan ruled against Trump in each case.
A week later, Trump announced his plan to appeal Chutkan’s ruling. The next court to hear the case would be the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
On Dec. 11, Smith did two things. He asked the D.C. Circuit to expedite Trump’s appeal, and he asked the Supreme Court to expedite an appeal as well. He explained to the lower court that while the Supreme Court is considering the petition, the D.C. Circuit has jurisdiction. The singular goal of rushing the process is to make sure that one way or another, Democrats can ram through the trial and conviction of their main political opponent to control the outcome of the election.
In the D.C. Circuit Court, Smith asked that Trump’s attorneys be forced to prepare and file their opening brief within 10 days, that the government get an additional week to respond, and that Trump’s attorneys have three days to respond to that government brief.
Trump’s team was given two days to prepare an argument against Smith’s request for this shockingly abbreviated schedule. In its 16-page response, Trump’s legal team noted that the case was among the most complex and unprecedented in history, that it presented serious constitutional questions, and that rushing the process would violate Trump’s due process and Sixth Amendment rights. Trump’s lawyers also noted how the issues in this trial would affect every president, not just the one Democrats are consumed with hatred toward.
“Could President George W. Bush face criminal charges of defrauding the United States and obstructing official proceedings for allegedly giving Congress false information about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, to induce war on false premises? Could President Obama be charged with murder for allegedly authorizing the drone strike that killed Anwar Al-Awlaki and his sixteen-year-old son, both U.S. citizens?” Trump’s attorneys asked.
The team noted how rarely the circuit court expedites such legal procedures, and never in cases even close to the sensitivity of this one. Trump’s attorneys said Chutkan’s speed contributed to her making sloppy mistakes and failing to give thoughtful consideration to arguments.
Citing the court’s own “handbook of practice and internal procedures,” Trump’s attorneys said the court should set a reasonable schedule of providing Trump 40 days to serve and file his initial brief, 21 days to file a reply brief, and 45 days to prepare for oral argument.
“Anything less would result in a heedless rush to judgment on some of the most sensitive and important issues that this Court may ever decide,” Trump’s attorneys wrote.
Instead, the three judges on the D.C. Circuit did precisely what Smith asked them to. They gave Trump until Saturday, Dec. 23 to file his initial brief.
Liberal Panel Lassos the Case for Itself
Each month, the D.C. Circuit has a panel of three judges who consider motions that come before the court. The panel changes each month. While many of the motions that come before the court are simple and administrative, others relate to complicated cases that will require hearings and other court actions. The panel of judges that begins hearing appeals usually keeps the case as it progresses.
This is important because the December panel is particularly left-wing, even for the left-leaning D.C. Circuit. Karen Henderson, the 79-year-old appointee of George H.W. Bush, is on the panel. More importantly, two relatively young Biden appointees named J. Michelle Childs and Florence Pan are also on the panel.
Panels in the coming months will reportedly not be as left-wing as the December panel. The scheduling question, then, becomes one of how hostile the panel of judges will be to Trump’s appeal. By setting an aggressive schedule, the December panel can keep with the case and help ensure Democrats can get their conviction in time for it to affect the election.
Judge Florence Pan has shown a particular interest in lassoing the case for herself. Appointed in 2022, Pan is the wife of Max Stier, a longtime associate of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Stier is also known for being one of the Democrats eager to join the smear campaign against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Stier and Kavanaugh had been on opposite sides of the Whitewater investigation in the late 1990s. When Democrats ran their unseemly attack on Kavanaugh, Stier told the FBI and two anti-Kavanaugh reporters at The New York Times a weird story about how freshmen at Yale might have done something to an inebriated Kavanaugh and a young woman that was inappropriate. The woman, for her part, told friends she has no recollection of what Stier claimed.
“Stier has always held himself out as a consummate civil servant and above politics, but he provided information wildly irrelevant but calculated to inflame the situation. He’s a malign actor,” said one attorney about the stunt.
Pan is also the judge who wrote the D.C. Circuit’s opinion upholding the reinterpretation of an obscure financial crimes statute to imprison Republican protesters for years. The Supreme Court announced it would be hearing an appeal of her decision in the current term. Many constitutional scholars agree with the dissent, which stated the government’s use of the statute to go after protesters is “implausibly broad and unconstitutional.”
On December 18, the D.C. Circuit announced it was scheduling oral argument for January 9, another example of the way Democrats are rushing to give Trump less time to prepare for argument than other defendants receive. Judge Henderson, the lone Republican appointee on the panel, took the rare step of publicly noting she disagrees with the extreme path chosen by her Democrat-appointed colleagues on the panel.
“Judge Henderson would stay any further action by this court until the United States Supreme Court has taken final action on the Government’s Petition for Certiorari before Judgment now pending before it in this case,” noted the Court order.
Too many Americans have forgotten how to be tough. Too many are just giving up. They’re “quiet quitting” their jobs, and even their marriages. The youngest generation in the workforce claims to be “completely overwhelmed” by daily life.
It’s true that we’re facing significant challenges at home and abroad today. But in America’s long history, that’s nothing new. Our greatest leaders were molded into towering figures because of – not in spite of – the challenges they faced.
At the dawn of the 20th century, two such men were Theodore Roosevelt and Booker T. Washington. One of these men had to overcome the evils of slavery, and fought for the rest of his life against evil institutional racism. The other was born into privilege, but forced himself to conquer the fragile health that plagued him in youth.
Booker T. Washington and Teddy Roosevelt (Sentinel)
They both went on to become prominent men of their day, and when the president and the civil rights leader came together, they worked hard to make the new century a fairer and more equitable one for all Americans.
Booker T. Washington’s first home was a one-room log cabin. Meals were “a piece of bread here and a scrap of meat there.” He wore no shoes until he was 8. Brutalizing punishment was a fact of life. And he could forget about education. “Learning from books in a schoolroom,” his mother explained, “[is] forbidden to a Negro child.” He was told reading was “dangerous,” but that only upped his curiosity.
“From that moment I resolved that I should never be satisfied until I learned what this dangerous practice was like.”
At the age of 16, he walked all the way to the Hampton Normal and Agricultural Institute. His teachers there were impressed by his work ethic, with one, Nathalie Lord, remarking: “I think I may safely say he was never idle.”
It soon became clear that Booker wasn’t just interested in acquiring knowledge for his own sake. “To help his people,” Miss Lord learned, “was foremost in his mind.”
And help he did. After spending several years teaching, in 1881 he became the head of the brand-new Tuskegee Institute in Alabama, a training school for Black educators. First, though, he had to build the campus.
Washington and his students took on the hard work of clearing dozens of acres. One of his colleagues later wrote: “They couldn’t say they were too good for that kind of work when Mr. Washington himself was at it harder than any of them.”
The Tuskegee Institute grew into the base from which Washington launched a national movement to improve the lives of Black Americans. By 1901, Washington was such a major voice in the national conversation that he became the first Black person to dine at the White House – at the invitation of President Theodore Roosevelt.
Roosevelt’s privileged circumstances could hardly have been more different from Washington’s, but he too faced early challenges that made him into the man he was. Colds, stomach upsets and fevers affected him in early childhood. At age 3, he developed asthma, soon followed by acute bouts of diarrhea and vomiting.
Theodore was 14 and had suffered years of sickness when his father sat him down for a man-to-man conversation about his health. “You have the mind, but you have not the body,” his father said. “Without the help of the body the mind cannot go as far as it should.”
But the boy was ready to rise to the challenge. “I’ll make my body,” he promised.
He started training by lifting weights, wrestling and boxing lessons. Theodore persisted and, as one of his sisters observed, he “widen[ed] his chest by regular, monotonous motion – drudgery indeed.”
He worked his mind, too, reading voraciously, his tastes varying from boys’ fiction to travel books and works on zoology and natural history. Over years of hard work, he turned into the man who would enter New York state politics in 1886, kicking off the true start of a brilliant career that saw him in the White House by 1901.
On Oct. 16 of that year, he invited Booker T. Washington to dinner. Roosevelt had been in office for barely a month. His predecessor William McKinley had been assassinated, and it was now up to Roosevelt to lead a country that was split by racial divisions and tensions despite the end of the Civil War decades earlier.
William McKinley (1843-1901) was the 25th president of the United States, serving from March 4, 1897, until his assassination in September 1901, six months into his second term. (Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
One fateful meal brought together two men whose lives, though very different, had been shaped by similar commitment to overcoming adversity. As Washington fought for equal rights, Roosevelt, bolstered by Washington’s encouragement, fought to appoint Black Americans (and fair-minded Whites) to government positions, becoming personally involved in many cases.
He closed a local post office in Mississippi after they unfairly dismissed their Black postmistress. He faced wailing denunciations from the press and political opposition, but Booker T. Washington had his back.
Both Booker T. and Teddy had vision. They had drive. And their skins were tough enough that they drove forward even in the face of often vicious criticism.
We are a better nation because they chose to fight. Both of those men would have no time for “quiet quitters.” They would not be “overwhelmed” by daily life. Nothing would stop them from fighting for what’s right. That’s a legacy we can all look up to.
Brian Kilmeade is the co-host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) FOX & Friends (weekdays 6-9 AM/ET) alongside Steve Doocy and Ainsley Earhardt and the host of One Nation with Brian Kilmeade (Saturdays 8-9 PM/ET).
As the clock ticks closer to 2024, one outspoken economist is making a dire predication about the markets in the new year.
“Since 2009, this has been 100% artificial, unprecedented money printing and deficits; $27 trillion over 15 years, to be exact. This is off the charts, 100% artificial, which means we’re in a dangerous state,” Harry Dent told Fox News Digital. “I think 2024 is going to be the biggest single crash year we’ll see in our lifetimes.”
“I’m the guy that’s praying for a crash while everybody else is not. We need to get back down to normal, and we need to send a message to central banks,” he continued. “This should be a lesson I don’t think we’ll ever revisit. I don’t think we’ll ever see a bubble for any of our lifetimes again.”
Dent, who spent the majority of his career analyzing proprietary research, credited his against-the-grain prediction to overvalued markets and excessive stimulus spending. While recent rallies have overwhelmingly provided investors with mild recession expectations, Dent remained firm that an “everything bubble” will burst next year.
Historically, market bubbles are characterized by a rapid rise in stock prices, before being met by a sharp fall.
Economist Harry S. Dent warned of a market crash “of a lifetime” with Fox News Digital. (Fox News)
The economist noted that this bubble actually started in late 2021 after the height of the COVID pandemic, with the first signs showing in 2022 when Nasdaq was down 38%. The new year will bring the “B wave” of the crash.
“The Roaring 20s bubble was not an everything bubble. [A] real estate barely bubble [in 2008], it was stocks and urban real estate that bubbled,” Dent said.“This is the one time I’m telling you, do not listen to your financial adviser. Things are not going to come back to normal in a few years. We may never see these levels again. And this crash is not going to be a correction. It’s going to be more in the ’29 to ’32 level. And anybody who sat through that would have shot their stockbroker.”
“That’s an 86% crash in the S&P and a 92% crash in the NASDAQ. And crypto, it’s going to be 96%. So that is a big deal,” the economist added. “And real estate, by the way, is only projected, by me, to go back to its 2012 lows… but that’s a 50% crash for the average house, which went down 34% in the last crash, more than the Great Depression, more than any time in history. That is what’s going to hurt people the most.”
Criticizing investors who have played into a year-end market rally where the Dow Jones Industrial Average ended last week scoring its third record close after crossing 37,000, Dent encouraged Americans to “get out of the way.”
Zuma Global President Heather Zumarraga discusses whether there is any danger of a market selloff in 2024 on ‘Varney & Co.’
“If I’m right, it is going to be the biggest crash of our lifetime, most of it happening in 2024. You’re going to see it start and be more obvious by May,” the analyst stressed. “So if you just get out for six to 12 months and stuff stays at the highest valuation history, maybe you miss a little more gains if I’m wrong. If I’m right, you’re going to save massive losses and be able to reinvest a year or year-and-a-half from now at unbelievably low prices and magnify your gains beyond compare.”
“We’re still up there. We’re still near the highs, and that shouldn’t have happened. So you’ve gotten a gift… you’ve gotten this rebound where you get a second chance to get out near where you could have before. Boy, [that’s] lucky, lucky, lucky.”
Last week, the Fed hinted it would end its historic campaign to bring down inflation, propelling a new streak of records for the Dow.
Economist Peter Morici reacts to the Fed signaling that it could cut interest rates three times in 2024 on ‘Varney & Co.’ Policymakers, in their annual projections, priced in the potential of three rate cuts, with the federal funds rate falling to a range of 4.4% to 4.9%, down from the current 5.25% to 5.50%.
Looking at the Federal Reserve’s rate trajectory, Dent argued there’s “no chance” of a soft landing. He believes continued disinflation will turn into deflation for the first time since the 1930s, and that the central bank has a “weak” economy in its hands.
“The only reason they had to tighten so much is because they stimulated too much over COVID. But that tightening is now going to hit way more in 2024,” Dent said. “And when you stop that gravy train and reverse the tightening, you’re going to be in a depression within a year, not a mile. All this talk about, ‘Oh, yeah, now we’re going to have a mild recession’ – not a chance in Hades.”
“Depressions are different from recessions. They go much deeper, and they end up in deflation,” he further explained. “It’s going to bring down a lot of consumer price inflation, and especially housing… When this asset bubble bursts and the price of everything, especially housing, comes back down to reality, imagine, not only can you buy the house you want at half-off… you can buy twice as nice a house here for the same mortgage you were going to get before. How’s that for a Christmas present?”
Stockmarket Cycles editor and publisher Peter Eliades provides his market outlook on ‘Cavuto: Coast to Coast.’
The “everything” bubble will leave a lasting slowdown impact for 12 to 14 years, Dent cautioned. During that time, he agreed America’s wealth gap would widen as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
“This is going to hurt the rich a lot more than the average person. The average person is going to lose their job for six months to two years. The average rich person is going to lose 50% to 80% of their lifetime accumulated net worth,” Dent said. “They’re going to see the biggest comedown to reality. And then the next stage of the boom is the millennial boom, which will not be as long as the baby boom, but it’ll go into 2037 before we slow down again. That boom will be less rich-get-richer, it will be more the middle class catching up again.”
Democrats are marching through various stages of grief as they contemplate President Joe Biden running for reelection in 2024. They have variously been hopeful, worried, frantic … and now they’re getting downright angry.
Far-left columnist Harold Meyerson, editor of the liberal magazine American Prospect, is furious that more Democrats have not jumped into the race. His latest piece asks, “Are the Democrats sleepwalking to disaster?” Disaster, of course, being the election of Donald Trump, who will bring the U.S. – according to Meyerson – to the “brink of authoritarian rule.”
The former Washington Post writer says Biden has been an “excellent president,” but is concerned that he is “the candidate least able to defeat Donald Trump.” Meyerson is certainly not alone; a rising chorus of Democrat voices are urging Biden to step aside, including now, apparently, Barack Obama. The New York Post reports that the former president “knows this is going to be a close race” and “feels that Democrats very well could lose.”
The question is: who might replace Biden? Meyerson lofts Gavin Newsom as a possibility but notes that the California governor “lacks appeal to working-class voters (California has the lowest share of white working-class residents of any state save Hawaii).”
Polls look bad for President Joe Biden’s chances of keeping the White House in 2024. But the Democrat alternatives aren’t much better. FILE: A flag flies atop the White House November 15, 2000. (Photo by Alex Wong/Newsmakers) (Getty Images)
He also throws Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer into the mix but supposes she would “face misogynistic hurdles,” deploying one of Hillary Clinton’s many excuses for losing in 2016. He totally ignores Vice President Kamala Harris, as do most commentators, even though tossing her aside could be risky for Democrats.
Here is the truth: the Democrat bench is terrible.
For months, Newsom has been the favored candidate of elite liberals. He’s reliably progressive, telegenic and has been running a stealth campaign to introduce himself to American voters. Unfortunately for Newsom backers, the governor is slip-sliding towards oblivion. First, he surprisingly performed a major face-plant in his debate with Republican Ron DeSantis on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show. Most commentators, including myself, expected the glib Newsom to run rings around the supposedly wooden and inarticulate DeSantis.
Instead, Florida’s governor came armed with facts and figures showing his state beating out California on every major metric important to voters – cost of living, taxes, employment, homelessness and crime. Not only did DeSantis win on points, he also won on style. Newsom was smug, condescending and unlikeable. It was a wipeout.
Second, California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office recently projected the state would run a 2024-25 budget deficit of $68 billion next year, twice as large as recorded in 2023-24. The projected gap is an all-time record, as is the state’s $310 billion spending plan. Commentators in California pounced on the news, with the Mercury News declaring “Newsom owns this mess.” The editorial board reminded Californians that at the beginning of last year, Newsom “was bragging about the state’s $98 billion budget surplus.” Oops.
Newsom was first elected governor in 2019; his proposed budget for the 2019-2020 fiscal year called for spending of $209 billion. So, in five years, the budget has skyrocketed nearly 50%; on a per-person basis, it has jumped 56%, because more than one million residents have fled the state’s high taxes and impossible business regulations.
Where has the money gone? More than 50 billion was allocated in the past two budgets for climate change, enormous funds handed to unions like the childcare workers group that is demanding a 25% pay hike and teachers who were given an 8.2% cost-of-living raise; taxpayer money has also funded a 10% increase in welfare payments, and numerous other progressive priorities.
Vice President Kamala Harris would be a logical choice to replace her boss, President Joe Biden. But she’s even less popular than he is. (Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)
Newsom’s mismanagement of California’s finances is a blueprint, as DeSantis charged in their debate, for how Democrats will crush the U.S. economy.
If Newsom falls appropriately by the wayside, could Governor Gretchen Whitmer be next up? Unlike Newsom, she represents an important swing state, and her favorability ratings in Michigan are better than the president’s. In addition, she has a following with Black voters, which Newsom lacks. Politico reports that Democrats outside of Michigan have encouraged her to run, including members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Also, a female candidate could help Democrats next year keep the focus on abortion. Polling shows Whitmer competing against Donald Trump more successfully than Biden, Harris or Newsom. In a month-old Fox News poll, all four Democrats lose to Trump, but Whitmer is down by only 2 points.
Still, the Michigan governor is remembered as the author of ludicrous COVID-19 mandates, such as allowing state residents to shop at hardware stores, but outlawing purchases of seeds or other gardening supplies.
In addition, her state is losing population, like California, though less rapidly. Michigan has also acquired a large Muslim population, which could complicate Whitmer or Biden’s prospects in the state if Democrats continue to support Israel. Further, rivals could go after Michigan’s governor for enacting tougher gun laws but failing to drive down crime in what some have called “America’s most dangerous state.” The state harbors eight of the most crime-ridden cities in the U.S.
Unfortunately for Newsom backers, the governor is slip-sliding towards oblivion. First, he surprisingly performed a major face-plant in his debate with Republican Ron DeSantis on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show. Most commentators, including myself, expected the glib Newsom to run rings around the supposedly wooden and inarticulate DeSantis.
Whitmer’s main handicap, however, is that she is not well known nationally. In a recent Economist/YouGov poll, 31% of respondents said they would like to see the governor run for president, but a whopping 45% were “unsure.” If the selection of a candidate falls to the Democrat convention next summer, Whitmer would have little time to introduce herself.
Harris is the obvious replacement should Biden bow out. But her approval ratings are even worse than the president’s, despite numerous efforts by her team and the White House to gin up support. The Real Clear Politics average approval shows her underwater by 20 points; her boss scores a negative 15 points. She also has worse favorable/unfavorable ratings than Donald Trump.
Newsom, Whitmer and Harris are all likely contenders should Biden withdraw from the race. Given their likely electability, Joe may be forgiven for staying put.
Liz Peek is a Fox News contributor and former partner of major bracket Wall Street firm Wertheim & Company. A former columnist for the Fiscal Times, she writes for The Hill and contributes frequently to Fox News, the New York Sun and other publications. For more visit LizPeek.com. Follow her on Twitter @LizPeek.
Some White House staffers say President Joe Biden doesn’t realize how old he can come across to others, Axios reported. Biden likes to tell friends and family, “I feel so much younger than my age.”
A former official, however, told Axios: “His age is clearly something voters are worried about, fairly or not, and yelling, ‘Nuh-uh’ isn’t cutting it.”
With polls showing that more than 70% of voters have concerns about Biden, 81, serving a second term, his reluctance to acknowledge his physical limitations is causing tension on his team, Axios reported Tuesday. Current and former aides to Biden say he often pushes to do more travel and events than they recommend. Pushing up against his limits sometimes “creates a cycle” in which he wears out himself and then appears fatigued during public events, Axios reported.
“He is his own worst enemy when it comes to his schedule,” a former Biden aide said, according to Axios.
Biden has shown frustration with the perception that he’s too old to be president.
“With regard to age, I can’t even say, I guess, how old I am, I can’t even say the number. It doesn’t register with me,” he said in April.
Despite his sensitivity about his age, Biden in recent months has accepted changes to help him stay healthy and avoid tripping. He’s using the shorter stairs on Air Force One and wearing tennis shoes more often, Axios reported.
Reuters reported last month that Biden’s age has become a defining part of the 2024 campaign. Even some Democrats have questions about his age. Biden entered office as the oldest president and would be 86 at the end of a second term.
Former President Donald Trump, the clear front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, frequently says Biden is too old for the job.
“We have a man that – he can’t even walk off a stage,” Trump, 77, said at a campaign rally in New Hampshire in October, Spectrum News reported. “He walks off the stage, just finishes his speech – he has no idea.”
First lady Jill Biden and her staff are involved in forming the president’s schedule.
A White House official told Axios that the Bidens keep “an eye on one another’s schedules for the sake of balance — and they are far from the only couple in the administration who does that.”
In his memoir, “Promise Me, Dad,” Joe Biden wrote that Jill Biden would tell her husband’s then-chief of staff, Steve Ricchetti, “Joe’s working too hard. He’s exhausted. He’s not sleeping. It’s going to kill him.”
The Heritage Foundation is suing the Treasury Department under President Joe Biden, seen here on Dec. 13, for communications about redefining the term “recession.” (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—The Treasury Department under President Joe Biden has refused to hand over documents showing how officials decided to alter the definition of a recession after the first two quarters of 2022 saw declines in gross domestic product, the traditional definition of a recession.
The Heritage Foundation filed a Freedom of Information Act request on July 6, asking Treasury for internal communications containing the terms “recession,” “alternative definition of recession” and “alternative recession measurements.” (The Daily Signal is The Heritage Foundation’s news outlet.)
The Treasury Department first asked Heritage to narrow the scope of its request, which Heritage did. Yet Treasury failed to hand over the documents, so Heritage filed a lawsuit on Dec. 1, claiming the department violated the Freedom of Information Act.
“The Treasury’s job is to collect taxes and allocate revenue per the dictates of Congress, not engage in Orwellian word games to distract from the economic failures of the leftist agenda,” E.J. Antoni, a research fellow with Heritage’s Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget, told The Daily Signal in a statement Tuesday.
The lawsuit quotes the International Monetary Fund, which notes that while “there is no official definition of recession … most commentators and analysts use, as a practical definition of recession, two consecutive quarters of decline in a country’s real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product.”
In the first quarter of 2022, U.S. inflation-adjusted GDP declined by 1.6%, and it declined by an additional 0.6% in the second quarter of last year.
In July 2022, however, the White House stated that “it is unlikely that the decline of the GDP in the first quarter of this year—even if followed by another GDP decline in the second quarter—indicates a recession.”
“This position is in extreme tension with conventional wisdom and the position of the Board of the Federal Reserve,” the lawsuit states.
The National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonprofit that aims to determine America’s business cycles, defines a recession as “a significant decline in economic activity that is spread across the economy and that lasts more than a few months.” The bureau claimed that the decline in 2022 did not fit its definition.
The White House has repeatedly claimed that the economy is improving due to Biden’s economic policies it brands “Bidenomics.” President Joe Biden has touted declines in the rate of inflation—which in this case do not mean that prices have declined, but that they are rising at a slower pace—as if they meant inflation is no longer a factor affecting Americans.
“The Biden administration clearly isn’t too proud of their destructive ‘Bidenomics’ if they are hiding documents related to the most basic questions,” Mike Howell, director of The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project and a signatory on the lawsuit, told The Daily Signal. “If ‘Bidenomics’ was so great, why do we have to sue them for this?”
Since Biden took office in 2021, inflation has outpaced wage increases in 27 of the past 31 months. According to Antoni, the Heritage researcher, the average American worker pays $4.97 per hour under Biden in the hidden tax of inflation, effectively doubling how much he or she pays in federal income tax. The typical American family with two parents working has lost more than $5,000 in annual income.
A Monmouth University poll surveying 803 U.S. adults between Nov. 30 and Dec. 4 found that 68% of respondents disapproved of Biden’s handling of inflation.
From Philadelphia and Chicago to Issaquah, Washington, and Shady Cove, Oregon, ordinary Americans routinely use firearms to defend themselves, their homes, and their families. (Photo illustration: Evgen Prozhyrko/Getty Images)
As cities across the country reel from explosive crime rates, many politicians at the local, state, and federal levels are too preoccupied with disarming peaceable American gun owners to identify, arrest, and prosecute actual criminals adequately.
Two masked attackers met their match last month when they attacked Los Angeles resident Vince Ricci as he walked toward the front door of his house. The pair brandished a firearm at Ricci, who pulled out his own gun and shot at the thugs, who ran away. Ricci successfully defended not only himself but his wife and baby daughter, who were inside.
Like millions of other Americans, Ricci is a law-abiding gun owner who carries a firearm for protection. Well, he used to be.
After the attack, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department suspended Ricci’s concealed carry permit for reasons that are still unclear. His attackers were still at large, and he said he worries that his family will “become a statistic” because of this unfair treatment as a crime victim.
Despite repeated attempts by gun control advocates to downplay the importance of armed self-defense, successful defensive gun uses such as Ricci’s actions are far from a rare occurrence. Almost every major study has found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times annually, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has acknowledged. In 2021, the most comprehensive study ever conducted on the issue concluded that roughly 1.6 million defensive gun uses occur in the United States every year.
For this reason, The Daily Signal publishes a monthly article highlighting some of the previous
month’s many news stories on defensive gun use that you may have missed—or that might not have made it to the national spotlight in the first place. (Read other accounts here from past months and years. You also may follow @DailyDGU on X, formerly Twitter, for daily highlights of defensive gun uses.)
The examples below represent only a small portion of the news stories on defensive gun use that we found in November. You may explore more using The Heritage Foundation’s interactive Defensive Gun Use Database. (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s multimedia news organization.)
Nov. 2, Mesquite, Texas: A jewelry store owner shot at thieves attempting to steal his merchandise, police said. Two young men, one armed, entered as the owner was preparing his golf bag for a tournament the next day. The owner exchanged gunfire with the armed man until both would-be robbers ran. It was the second time the store owner had shot at armed thieves in his store; earlier this year, $75,000 worth of merchandise was stolen from his car.
Nov. 4, Walton County, Florida: After a criminal fled during a traffic stop initiated because he was driving a stolen car, police said, the ensuing manhunt ended in a citizen’s arrest. The car thief tried to break into a nearby home, and police officers arrived to find three residents holding the suspect at gunpoint.
Nov. 5, Los Angeles: In the Ricci case described above, two robbers charged a concealed carry holder as he walked to his front door, police said. One attacker pointed a gun at the homeowner, who pulled out his own gun and fired until the two fled. His wife, 5-month-old baby, and a nanny were inside the residence.
Nov. 8, Chicago: Police said a group of armed robbers attacked a man who had just crashed his car. The concealed carry holder and the robbers then exchanged more than 30 rounds. One of the man’s assailants sought medical attention and was taken into custody.
Nov. 12, Allegre, Kentucky: A property dispute turned into a physical altercation in which a man shot three assailants in self-defense, police said. He was treated for injuries that weren’t life-threatening. The three assailants involved were charged with trespassing, assault, and terroristic threatening.
Nov. 17, Issaquah, Washington: Police said a woman fatally shot her ex-boyfriend when he tried to break into her apartment. Authorities questioned and released her after determining that she acted in self-defense. “From now on, I will be walking the neighborhood with a gun,” one neighbor said.
Nov. 19, Philadelphia: A man fired his gun in self-defense as a group of teenagers attacked him in a transit station, police said. He scared the teens away, and there were no reported injuries. The week before, another man was robbed and pulled down a stairway in the same area.
Nov. 20, Shady Cove, Oregon: A homeowner shot and killed an intruder during a home invasion, investigators said. One resident had a “valid protection order” against the slain intruder, the Jackson County Sherriff’s Office said.
Nov. 25, Hampton, Virginia: A driver shot and wounded an armed carjacker, police said. Critically wounded, the thief fled in the stolen vehicle and was caught minutes later after driving to a local hospital. Less than two hours before, police said, the same man had carjacked another automobile at gunpoint. He was charged with both carjackings and with using a firearm in committing a felony.
Nov. 26, Richland County, South Carolina: Police said a woman shot and killed a man who had followed her home, aggressively approached, and tried to hit her. The woman had obtained a protective order against the man, who had a history of domestic violence.
Nov. 29, Nashville, Tennessee: A man was shot in his home when his girlfriend’s ex-boyfriend broke in and attacked him, police said. The wounded man and his girlfriend both shot back at the intruder, who fled. Three warrants for the attacker’s arrest were active at the time, all involving his behavior toward the former girlfriend.
From Chicago and Philadelphia to Issaquah, Washington, and Shady Cove, Oregon, ordinary Americans routinely use their firearms to defend themselves, their homes, and their families. In many of these instances, the victims either had orders of protection against their attacker, or the attacker otherwise had a clear history of violent, criminal behavior. In one incident, another crime had been committed in the same area less than a week earlier.
If law enforcement can’t keep people safe, especially from a demonstrated threat, it is up to ordinary Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights to protect themselves and their loved ones.
Governor Gavin Newsom should read Larry Elder’s Most recent book “As Goes California” In an entertaining account of his surprisingly strong run for California governor in the 2021 recall election, bestselling author, commentator, and radio host Larry Elder argues that Democrats have systematically failed our country—especially black Americans. ORDER lARRY’S BOOK HERE!!!
Throughout his years as a popular LA talk radio host, Larry Elder watched California go from bad to worse under a regime of corrupt and ideological liberal management. Rising rates of crime, addiction, homelessness, immigration, and failing schools, skyrocketing energy and housing costs, crushing anti-business regulation, and numerous other problems—all traceable to Democratic policies—made life harder for the average Californian. Then came the COVID lockdowns, school closings, mask and vaccine mandates, the BLM riots, the defund the police movement, and a general breakdown of law and order in San Francisco and LA. People began fleeing the state in droves. In the midst of all this, Governor Gavin Newsom saw fit to drop $12,000 at a trendy French restaurant, sparking outrage throughout the state and leading to demands for a recall. A special election was held, and forty-five candidates jumped in. READ MORE…
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
Top Stories • Canadian Woman Euthanized After Waiting 10 Weeks for Cancer Treatment Appointment • Woman Drops Lawsuit Against Kentucky Abortion Ban, Law Will Keep Saving Babies From Abortion • Dobbs is Saving Tens of Thousands of Babies From Abortion, That’s Great News • University Used Body Parts From Dozens of Aborted Babies for Dubious Research
More Pro-Life News • Planned Parenthood Just Sells Abortions, But Pro-Life Americans Help Thousands of Pregnant Women Every Day • Amazing Bronze Sculptures Depict Unborn Baby’s “Miraculous Journey” to Birth • Florida Appeals Court Ruling Protects Baby From Dying in Abortion • Ohio Supreme Court Decision Means Babies Will be Killed in Abortions Up to Birth • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2023 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved. For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.
A recently elected Pennsylvania school board president made his priorities clear this month when she was sworn in using controversial books, including sexually explicit material.
On Dec. 4, Karen Smith, a Democrat who was elected to lead the state’s third-largest school district in November, was sworn in with a stack of books, including sexually explicit material.
“Thank you for your trust in me, I do not take this hand lightly,” Smith said when she became president of the Central Bucks County School Board. “To my supporters, I am so very thankful. To those of you who have challenged me, I will do all I can to hear your voices and concerns.”
However, based on the books upon which she swore an oath, Smith’s pledge to keep an open mind to parental concerns was hardly austere. According to Fox News, one of the books used in the swearing ceremony included Flamer, by Mike Curato, published in 2020.
“[Flamer] tells the story of a character who is bullied at a Boy Scouts summer camp for ‘acting in a manner considered stereotypical of gay men,’” Fox News reported. “The graphic novel includes characters discussing pornography, erections, masturbation, penis size, and an illustration that depicts naked teenage boys.”
Other books included in the stack upon which she was sworn in were Night, by Elie Wiesel; The Bluest Eye, by Toni Morrison; and All Boys Aren’t Blue, by George M. Johnson. At least three of the books Smith was sworn in on were listed in the top 5 of the American Library Association’s (ALA) “most challenged books” of 2022. The national library group’s activism promoting these books in local curriculums has led conservative policymakers in at least nine states to begin severing ties with the ALA. Last week, Texas, which ended its tax-subsidized affiliation with the ALA in August, passed new rules to keep “sexually explicit” books out of school libraries.
Smith’s decision to use material endorsed by far-left activists to infiltrate classrooms illustrates how identity politics has become embraced as a cynical, secular religion. Had Smith been genuine with a pledge to hear district parents’ concerns, she might have chosen different material to be sworn in on.
Silvi Haldipur, a mom of two boys in Bucks County schools, said she was previously “horrified” by LGBT and antisemitic remarks in the boardroom of the east Pennsylvania district. However, parents in this district could have more difficulty being involved in their children’s education moving forward. The school board’s new Democrat majority immediately voted to “freeze two policies related to library books that passed last year along with other policies.” This includes halting a previous update to the Library Materials policy that allowed parents to challenge certain books in the classroom.
Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist and the author of Social Justice Redux, a conservative newsletter on culture, health, and wellness. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com. Sign up for Tristan’s email newsletter here.
Over the past two weeks, regime-approved press outlets have run several articles rushing to the defense of leftists’ latest scheme to inflate voter rolls with likely-Democrat voters: the Electronic Registration Information Center. Otherwise known as ERIC, this organization is a widely used voter-roll “management” system founded by Democrat activist David Becker that was “sold to states as a quick and easy way to update their voter rolls.” In reality, ERIC’s membership agreement places a higher priority on registering new voters than on cleaning up existing voter rolls.
The program inflates voter rolls by requiring member states to contact “eligible but unregistered” residents to encourage them to register to vote. When a state becomes an ERIC member, it is required to submit “all active and inactive voter files,” “all licensing or identification records contained in the motor vehicles database,” and any state files related to “voter registration functions” to the organization, which then compares this information with that submitted by other member states.
It’s after this process that ERIC compiles updated voter-roll information — including lists of voters who have multiple registrations, moved, or died, and lists of “eligible but unregistered” voters — and sends it to member states. As Victoria Marshall wrote in these pages, ERIC mandates that states engage in voter list maintenance “only after [they have] independently validated” the data they receive from the organization. In other words, “if a state does not independently validate the ERIC data, it is not required to clean its voter rolls.”
ERIC’s ties to Becker — who has since resigned from his role as a nonvoting ERIC board member — and its refusal to change its bylaws have prompted a flurry of GOP election officials to withdraw their states from the organization within the past two years. Included in this growing list are the states of Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Texas, and several others. Some of these jurisdictions, including Virginia, Ohio, and Alabama, have since formed separate interstate voter data-sharing pacts to serve as an ERIC replacement.
In light of ERIC’s steady collapse, Votebeat’s Jen Fifield and Rolling Stone’s Adam Rawnsley and Asawin Suebsaeng have painted these GOP officials as “conspiracy theorists” and fomented Democrat accusations that these states are struggling to effectively share and maintain accurate voter rolls. While handing out “far-right” and “MAGA Republican” labels like candy on Halloween, these “reporters” weave a web of deception to obscure the organization’s role in Democrats’ election machine.
Both articles’ writers, for example, attempt to pin the source of Republican election officials’ concerns with ERIC on a 2022 Gateway Pundit piece about the organization, which they quickly dismiss as riddled with “conspiracy theories.” Of course, nowhere in their articles do these so-called “journalists” bother to explore one of the — if not the — most alarming details about ERIC: the group’s ties to the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR), a Becker-founded nonprofit responsible for interfering in the 2020 election to help Democrats.
CEIR and the Center for Tech and Civic Life collectively received hundreds of millions of dollars from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg leading up to the 2020 contest. These “Zuckbucks” were then poured into local election offices throughout the country to push sloppy Democrat-backed voting policies, such as mass mail-in voting and the widespread use of ballot drop boxes. Analyses have shown these grants were heavily skewed toward Democrat municipalities, especially in swing states, effectively making it a giant Democrat get-out-the-vote operation.
As The Federalist previously reported and communication records have indicated, CEIR enjoys a transactional relationship with ERIC, which sends the voter-roll data it receives from states to CEIR. Upon receiving the data, CEIR “then develops targeted mailing lists and sends them back to the states to use for voter registration outreach.” In other words, CEIR — a highly partisan nonprofit with a history of left-wing activism — is creating lists of potential (and likely Democrat) voters for states to register in the lead-up to major elections.
Convenient how that incredibly important detail didn’t make it into the Votebeat and Rolling Stone articles, isn’t it?
Fifield then took things a step further by advancing the contrived narrative that Republican officials whose states left ERIC are having difficulty sharing voter data with other states and ensuring accuracy within their voter rolls. She bases this claim upon internal documents obtained by American Oversight, a left-wing nonprofit dedicated to “filing open records requests targeting Republican interests.”
Contrary to Fifield’s activist “reporting,” several GOP secretaries of state whose jurisdictions have departed ERIC have publicly testified under oath that they haven’t experienced any issues with managing their voter rolls since withdrawing from the organization. In October, Secretaries of State Frank LaRose of Ohio and Cord Byrd of Florida spoke before a Pennsylvania Senate committee hearing about their respective experiences with ERIC and maintaining accurate voter registration lists since departing the program.
When asked if he thought states can keep voter rolls clean without ERIC, LaRose replied, “100 percent,” and went on to debunk Democrats’ sky-is-falling talking points about what will happen if states withdraw from the organization.
ERIC “has only existed for the last 10 or 12 years, and states have had this responsibility for a long time to maintain accurate voter rolls,” LaRose said. “States absolutely can maintain the accuracy of their voter rolls if they’re intentional about it. And it’s important to use all the different tools at your disposal.”
LaRose went on to describe Ohio’s various processes of removing deceased voters, noncitizens, and other ineligible voters from its voter registration lists. He also discussed the effectiveness of data-sharing pacts with other states and noted Ohio’s intent to formulate these agreements with more states ahead of the 2024 election.
Meanwhile, Byrd explained how interstate data-sharing agreements have allowed Florida to possess greater control over its voter data, saying, “We know exactly what we’re sharing with the other state [and] they know what they’re sharing with us.” Byrd expressed hope that “through these different [memorandums of understanding] … a consistent standard will be created” when it comes to states exchanging voter data.
ERIC’s role in the left’s get-out-the-vote apparatus is bigger than Democrats are willing to admit — and that’s exactly why their regime-approved media allies will never tell their readers the truth about it.
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
U.S. Capitol Police are continuing to investigate the filming of a sex tape inside a prominent hearing room at the Hart Senate Office Building, a source told Fox News on Monday. Fox has learned that the Senate sex tape was recorded last week. But time of day is unclear. A Congressional security source is promising a “thorough investigation” with interviews upcoming. While there are currently no pending charges in the case, a security source did not rule out the possibility.
The investigation comes after a staffer filmed an amateur pornography video inside a Senate hearing room. The identities of the men in the video have not been confirmed. The Daily Caller, which broke news of the video, reported that the footage was leaked in a chat and was “shared in a private group for gay men in politics.”
U.S. Capitol Police are continuing to investigate the filming of a sex tape inside a prominent hearing room at the Hart Senate Office Building, a source told Fox News on Monday. (Caroline Brehman/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Room 216 in the Hart Senate Office Building is a storied hearing room. The dais where the graphic video was filmed is a place from which U.S. senators have grilled high-profile presidential nominees, including those who would go on to become justices of the Supreme Court.
Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley, an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law, discussed possible charges that could be brought last week. Turley said, “the question is whether this unofficial use would constitute trespass.”
“It also uses an official area for personal purposes, though it is not clear if there were any commercial benefits garnered from the video found on various sites,” Turley wrote.
Sen. Ben Cardin’s office says the staffer involved in the filming of a sex tape is no longer with the office. (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Turley said one possible charge could fall under D.C. code section 22-1312, which discusses lewd, indecent or obscene acts.
“It is unlawful for a person, in public, to make an obscene or indecent exposure of his or her genitalia or anus, to engage in masturbation, or to engage in a sexual act as defined in § 22-3001(8). It is unlawful for a person to make an obscene or indecent sexual proposal to a minor. A person who violates any provision of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be fined not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, imprisoned for not more than 90 days, or both,” the criminal code states.
A hearing room in the Hart Senate Office Building. (Caroline Brehman/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Turley says the question regarding charges falling under this section would be whether a locked Senate committee room is considered “in public.”
Whether or not any video filmed in the hearing room was used to make money could also “have bearing on potential charges,” Turley argued.
Fox News’ Adam Sabes and Chris Pandolfo contributed to this report
Anders Hagstrom is a reporter with Fox News Digital covering national politics and major breaking news events. Send tips to Anders.Hagstrom@Fox.com, or on Twitter: @Hagstrom_Anders.
An abandoned electric car is buried in snow in Draper, Utah, on Feb. 23, after a powerful winter storm dumped up to two feet of snow. When the temperature drops below 40 degrees, electric vehicles experience a reduction in range and efficiency, with losses of up to 40% when the heating system is in use. (Photo: George Frey/AFP/Getty Images)
Andrew Weiss is a research assistant at the Center for Energy, Climate and Environment at The Heritage Foundation.
EAU CLAIRE, Wis.— Here in Wisconsin, where fewer than one-tenth of 1% of vehicles are fully electric, it’s rare to see an EV outside the city. That’s why the latest international climate conference, Conference of the Parties (COP28), which advocated widespread adoption of electric vehicles, should have Wisconsinites concerned.
When the temperature drops below 40 degrees, which occurs over 200 days per year in Eau Claire, electric vehicles experience a reduction in range and efficiency, with losses of up to 40% when the heating system is in use. My visit to my local automotive shop to have the tires rotated on the family Ram truck was unaffected by the 13-degree Fahrenheit weather.
While the truck was up on the lift, Liz Fox, a service adviser at the shop, told me that while not many electric vehicles come in for repairs, when they do, repairs typically take longer and are more expensive than repairing internal-combustion engine vehicles.
“Switching to EVs is really costly, and it’s going to be really time-consuming.” Fox told me. She cited a recent case where nearly two months were spent troubleshooting and sourcing components on a broken EV, despite having a certified electric vehicle technician.
She’s not alone. A recent report shows that repair costs for EVs are 56% more expensive than traditional vehicles—and purchase costs are often 50% higher.
A new special report by The Heritage Foundation, “Powering Human Advancement,” shows how access to affordable, abundant energy is essential to living. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)
“Depriving people in any society of reliable and affordable energy denies them access to clean water, adequate medical care, affordable transportation, and economic opportunities, which will limit any human advancement, especially in the most vulnerable of countries,” the report states.
Governments and international organizations cannot force renewable energy and electric vehicles before people are ready. That’s a recipe for crisis.
Construction sites in Eau Claire feature battered pickup trucks and SUVs driven by construction workers, who can’t afford EVs. There is no subway in Eau Claire, bus service is limited, and people can’t rely on bicycles due to snowy weather and long distances.
Affordable transportation provides a means to a job, a ride to school, and to take weekend trips and vacations with the family.
In contrast, EVs are popular as second cars with upper-income individuals who have short commutes. Americans value the freedom to choose gasoline-only, hybrid, or electric vehicles, and for that freedom, it’s crucial to have alternative choices. But the organizers of COP28, supported by President Joe Biden, don’t want Americans or residents of other countries to choose which vehicles to buy.
This erosion of choice is not only detrimental to consumer freedom, but also to the livelihood of auto producers and car dealers. Look no further than last month’s letter to Biden signed by about 4,000 auto dealers, who were disturbed at the surging supply of unsold electric vehicles on their lots. Even with subsidies to car manufacturers and tax credits for buyers, only 7% of new-vehicle sales are electric, well below Biden’s 2030 goal of 60%.
Codifying the recommendations of COP28 would require that America generate an additional costly 1.4 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity, or 30% of current output, to support the charging needs of a full fleet of electric vehicles.
Over the past two decades, nearly $7 trillion has been spent globally on subsidies for wind and solar energy. Despite this substantial investment, these sources contribute only 2.3% to the global supply of energy. Pairing fully electric vehicles with costly and unreliable electricity is a recipe for disaster.
Wisconsinites appreciate the benefits of affordable energy and the mobility of gasoline-powered cars. As a cold Christmas approaches, they know that COP28 recommendations won’t fly here in the Badger State.
The Supreme Court takes the case of Jan. 6 defendants to determine whether the charge of obstructing an official proceeding was applicable. Donald Trump was charged with the same crime, so the court’s decision could affect his legal battle. Pictured: Former President Trump gestures during a campaign rally at the Reno-Sparks Convention Center on Dec. 17 in Reno, Nevada. (Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
John G. Malcolm is the vice president of the Institute for Constitutional Government and director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, overseeing The Heritage Foundation’s work to increase understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law.
The Supreme Court agreed on Wednesday to hear a case that does not involve Donald Trump as a defendant but which could, nonetheless, have a dramatic impact on one of the criminal cases that is pending against the former president.
Here’s the background.
On Jan. 6, 2021, over 2,000 Trump supporters entered the U.S. Capitol and disrupted Congress as it attempted to certify the results of the presidential election. Joseph Fischer, Edward Lang, and Garret Miller were among them. The three were subsequently charged in separate indictments with various offenses. While they do not contest the validity of many of the charges that are still pending against them, each filed a motion to dismiss a charge common to each of them: obstructing an official proceeding in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(2). That statute provides:
(c) Whoever corruptly—
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
This statute, passed in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, was part of the government’s response to the Enron scandal in which executives at Arthur Andersen, Enron’s outside auditor, ordered the destruction of “tons” of documents over a two-week period—literally bringing in a mobile shredding truck and shredders from another company so that they could shred documents around-the-clock at a rate of 7,000 pounds per hour—after the failed energy trading company learned that its accounting practices were the subject of an investigation by federal regulators.
While this law was clearly aimed at corporate wrongdoing that involves an attempt to obstruct a government investigation or proceeding by destroying potential documentary evidence or tampering with witnesses, the government has, on occasion, attempted to broadly apply this law to other, less common circumstances. For example, in Yates v. United States, the government charged a fishing boat captain with violating a similar provision in Sarbanes-Oxley for “destroying” allegedly undersized fish (by tossing them overboard) in order to “impede” a federal investigation being conducted by an official acting on behalf of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In 2015, a closely divided Supreme Court held that “destroying” a fish did not fit within the type of evidence to which the statute applies.
The federal trial judge in Miller’s case granted his motion to dismiss the obstruction count, holding that, while the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6 was an “official proceeding,” the conduct alleged in the indictment fell outside the scope of the statute. The court concluded that the language in the first subsection modified the scope of the second subsection and that the indictment was deficient because the government did not allege that Miller “took some action with respect to a document, record, or other object in order to corruptly obstruct, impede, or influence Congress’s certification of the electoral vote.” For this reason, the judge also dismissed the obstruction counts against Fischer and Lang.
However, a divided panel of the D.C. Circuit Court reversed the district court’s decision.
The majority opinion, written by Judge Florence Pan (a Biden appointee) and joined by Judge Justin Walker (a Trump appointee), adopted the government’s argument that the use of the word “otherwise” in subsection (c)(2) was meant as a “catchall” to encompass any and all forms of obstructive conduct designed to impact any federal investigation or other “official proceeding.”
Judge Greg Katsas (a Trump appointee) dissented, arguing that the word “otherwise” was meant to convey that the obstructive act must be of the same type, and in a similar manner, as those items listed immediately beforehand in subsection (c)(1)—all of which deal with tampering with or impairing the acquisition of relevant evidence, such as witness tampering or destroying, altering, or fabricating a document—and that, at the very least, any ambiguity in the statute ought to be resolved in favor of the accused (a well-established principle in criminal law known as the Rule of Lenity).
The eventual decision by the Supreme Court in Fischer v. United States could have a far-reaching impact not only on the more than 300 individuals who have been charged with violating that statute in connection with their actions on Jan. 6, but also on the criminal case that Special Counsel Jack Smith has brought against former President Trump that is pending in federal court in the District of Columbia before Judge Tanya Chutkan.
In that case, Trump has been charged with committing four crimes, including conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding (Count Two) and obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding (Count Three), both of which would likely fall if the Supreme Court rules against the government in the Fischer case. That is because, setting aside the issue of whether Trump bears any responsibility for what happened at the Capitol on Jan. 6, it is clear that what happened did not involve document destruction or witness tampering.
The remaining charges also rest on a tenuous legal footing.
Count One alleges that Trump engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 371 by using dishonesty to obstruct the procedures by which votes are collected, counted, and certified. In recent years, in cases like Kelly v. United States (2020), Ciminelli v. United States (2023), and Percoco v. United States (2023), the Supreme Court has taken a dim view of more amorphous theories of what constitutes fraud against the United States. As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court in Ciminelli, “Federal fraud statutes criminalize only schemes to deprive people of traditional property rights,” i.e., money or property. As the court said, federal “fraud statutes do no not vest a general power in ‘the Federal government … to enforce (its view of) integrity in broad swaths of state and local policymaking.’”
Fulton County leftist poll worker, Ruby Freeman, caught shoving the same ballots into the scanner over & over. pic.twitter.com/z0GOrywpiw
Here, there is no claim in the indictment that Trump was attempting to defraud anyone of money or property, which the Supreme Court has suggested is a necessary precondition of any claim under any federal fraud statute, including this one.
Count Four alleges that Trump engaged in a conspiracy against rights in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 241. This statute, which was part of the Enforcement Act of 1871, also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, was designed to stop the terrible violence, threats, and intimidation being committed against newly freed blacks and their white allies in the South. The act prohibits anyone from conspiring to “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate” any person from “the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”
The theory behind this charge seems to be that it was unlawful to attempt to deprive people who voted for Joe Biden, who was ultimately declared the winner, of their votes. The indictment suggests that merely questioning the conduct of an election or the propriety of election procedures, including raising such issues in court, could constitute an attempt to “disenfranchise” all the people who voted for the person who was—rightly or wrongly—declared the winner, in this case, Joe Biden.
One could easily imagine how this would have a chilling effect on the First Amendment rights of anyone who dares to question the conduct of our elections or the results in a particular election.
I don’t recall anyone claiming that then-Vice President Al Gore or anyone connected with his campaign could or should be charged with conspiring to overturn an election in 2000 when he mounted numerous legal challenges against George W. Bush, which could, under this indictment’s theory, be characterized as an attempt to disenfranchise those who voted for Bush. Lest anyone forget, Al Gore lost the initial vote count in Florida and every single recount in every single county in Florida, including Palm Beach County. Yet Gore continued to contest the election until the Supreme Court put an end to the litigation in Bush v. Gore.
The same could be said for those who said rigged voting machines in Ohio cost John Kerry the election in 2004 as well as those who urged Trump electors to vote for Hillary Clinton following the 2016 election because Trump was an “illegitimate” president who had colluded with Russian intelligence agents to steal the election.
This is not the first time that Jack Smith has been overly aggressive in his attempts to unreasonably expand the text of a criminal statute in a case involving a public official. In 2016, a unanimous Supreme Court overturned the bribery conviction that Smith had obtained against former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, concluding that many of the acts that McDonnell engaged in did not constitute “official acts” and that adopting Smith’s reading of the federal bribery statute would likely chill the interactions of public officials with their constituents out of fear of prosecution, making it difficult for them to do their jobs.
Proceedings in the D.C. case are currently on hold pending Trump’s appeal of Chutkan’s decision denying his motion to dismiss all the charges on the grounds of presidential immunity and double jeopardy. This threatens to delay the trial, currently scheduled to begin on March 4, which is why Smith has filed an “extraordinary request” urging the Supreme Court to hear that appeal on an expedited basis, bypassing review by the D.C. Circuit. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the Fischer case is yet another reason why the trial is likely to be delayed.
With the trial dates of other three criminal cases against Trump up in the air, it is far from clear that any of these trials will occur anytime soon, much to the dismay and disappointment of liberals and Never-Trumpers.
Dershowitz is a Democrat who voted for Obama but says during this segment that his relationship with Obama is over.
He also makes some pointed comments about the college students who are protesting for Hamas. Alan Dershowitz calls out Obama’s ‘deep hatred of Israel’: ‘He should be ashamed’ Expressing outrage over former President Barack Obama’s call for an end to Israeli “occupation,” Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz expanded on why he’s never… READ MORE..
Elk River board censures pro-parent school board members
Two Elk River school board members who were elected on a pro-parent platform say they are being intimidated by their colleagues after the board voted to censure them for misconduct Monday night. A standing-room only crowd listened as school board attorney Michael Waldspurger read the allegations against newly elected board members John Anderson and Mindy Freiberg before presenting a censure resolution, which the board voted on and approved. Anderson and Freiberg were elected to the ISD 728 board in 2022.
“They want us off the board, but they aren’t going to get rid of me that easy,” Freiberg said.
Allegations of misconduct included being late or unprepared for meetings, speaking to legislators or constituents without authority, inquiring about curriculum, and failing to communicate with Superintendent Dan Bittman, the board’s… READ MORE…
The Democrats have been killing off their future voters through nationwide legal abortion, which explains their passion for open borders.
Majority of Americans Greatly Concerned About Border Security According to New Fox News Poll
by David Greyson
Border security is one of the top concerns for the average American. Although most of the media is ignoring the crisis, it is a vital topic heading into the 2024 election. Since August, the importance of border security has jumped eight percentage points in national polls.
A Fox News poll released Sunday shows 8 out of 10 voters see the border as a significant priority with some seeing it as an emergency or major issue. A majority of those polled said increasing the number of Border Patrol agents was the best way to… READ MORE…
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
Top Stories • University Scalped 5-Month-Old Unborn Babies and Stitched the Hair on to Lab Rats • Supreme Court Justices Quickly Agreed With Alito That There’s No Right to Abortion • Joe Biden Ditched Safety Regulations, Now Abortions Pills are Injuring Thousands of Women • Planned Parenthood, America’s Biggest Abortion Biz, Has Received $7.9 Billion in Taxpayer Funding
More Pro-Life News • Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers Have Helped 1 Million More Women Since Roe Overturned • The Media is Lying About Kate Cox and Abortions on Disabled Babies • Court Rules Against Woman Stopped From Praying at Abortion Clinic: Your Prayers are “Harassment” • Children Survive Trisomy 18, They Should Not be Killed in Abortions • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
Massachusetts Health Department is Pushing Dangerous Abortion Drugs on Students
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2023 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved. For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.
The Virginia Supreme Court unanimously voted Thursday to revive a lawsuit filed by a teacher who was terminated for declining to use male pronouns to refer to a female student.
In 2018, Peter Vlaming was fired from his job of seven years as a French teacher at West Point High School because he would not address a student by biologically inaccurate pronouns. Vlaming “told his superiors his Christian faith prevented him from using male pronouns” for the student. The student complained, leading to a four-hour hearing with the school board, which ultimately voted 5-0 to fire Vlaming for “discrimination.”
“That discrimination then leads to creating a hostile learning environment,” claimed West Point Schools Superintendent Laura Abel. “And the student had expressed that. The parent had expressed that. They felt disrespected.”
Vlaming sued the school board in 2019. After a circuit court judge dismissed the suit in 2021, the seven justices on the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that Vlaming’s case alleging that his rights to free religious exercise and free speech were violated deserves to move forward.
“Peter wasn’t fired for something he said; he was fired for something he couldn’t say,” said Chris Schandevel, a senior defense counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), who represents Vlaming. “The Virginia Supreme Court rightly agreed that Peter’s case against the school board for violating his rights under the Virginia Constitution and state law should proceed.”
In December last year, another teacher represented by ADF filed a lawsuit challenging her termination for refusing to refer to a student by inaccurate pronouns. Ohio middle school teacher Vivian Geraghty was fired over her religious objections to addressing two students by names and pronouns contradictory to their biology.
“Schools can’t force teachers to set their religious beliefs aside just to keep a job and they also can’t force teachers to say things that are untrue and harmful to students,” ADF legal counsel Logan Spena told the Daily Caller.
In California, a Christian teacher was let go for her refusal to conceal students’ attempts to dress and act as the opposite sex from parents. Jessica Tapia was a physical education teacher who would not permit male students to use women’s locker rooms and objected to district policy mandating that teachers hide students’ gender confusion from parents.
“[The district] called me back to work but presented me with various directives, to which I responded I would not be able to comply with some of them based on my beliefs, such as having to call students by their preferred gender/pronoun and withhold that information from their parents,” Tapia told the Daily Caller. “I believe God is love and the most loving thing we can do is affirm one another in who God made us to be.”
Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist and the author of Social Justice Redux, a conservative newsletter on culture, health, and wellness. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com. Sign up for Tristan’s email newsletter here.
Democrats’ Marxist takeover of America’s education system is rearing its ugly head on an almost daily basis, and the latest stories out of Illinois are further proof of it.
On Thursday, Parents Defending Education reported that students attending the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy (IMSA) orchestrated a protest and walkout on Dec. 8 demanding harsh punishments for individuals who have “bias incident reports” filed against them. According to the academy’s website, anyone from IMSA students to alumni and visitors can file on-the-record or anonymous reports alleging incidents of “bias” committed by other IMSA community members. The reports are then investigated by school staff such as the chief human resources/equity officer and/or the director of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).
IMSA students who participated in the Dec. 8 demonstration, however, are demanding the university take its leftist policies even further. Included in their list of demands are requests for the school to publicize a list of “possible consequences for students following a bias incident report,” including “detentions, removal from leadership positions, suspensions, expulsions, and notification to parents.”
But the students who chanted “Silence is complacence!” and “Why are our pronouns not used?” during the Dec. 8 demonstration didn’t stop there. They also want the university to notify any “potential future colleges” that offending students may consider transferring to or attending in the future, after they are presumably expelled for their supposed transgressions. In essence, the demonstrators want to destroy possible offenders’ future educational and career prospects based on potentially-anonymous reporting of “incidents” like not using a person’s preferred pronouns.
The list also includes a demand that possible consequences for offending faculty members be publicized, recommending punishments that “include, but go beyond only educational conversations and required training.”
Students at the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy (IMSA) — the top STEM school in the state — staged a sit-in and walkout last week over grievances related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
Meanwhile, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, a far-left Democrat, announced plans this week to cripple the city’s “high-achieving selective-enrollment schools” in the name of so-called “equity.” During his mayoral campaign earlier this year, Johnson explicitly promised city residents his administration “would not end selective enrollment” at Chicago public schools.
According to The Daily Mail, the proposal put forward by Johnson’s education board would effectively “stop gifted children from lower income backgrounds from academically competing to get into high-performing schools.” Some of these schools are among the nation’s highest ranking high schools and offer children who grow up in difficult circumstances opportunities to further their academic careers.
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
After months of left-wing frustration with Sen. John Fetterman’s, D-Penn., over his pro-Israel stance, the lawmaker officially declared he does not align with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
In an interview with NBC News, the freshman U.S. senator said, “I’m not a progressive,” and explained how he differs with leftists in the party on the subjects of Israel and illegal immigration.
“I just think I’m a Democrat that is very committed to choice and other things. But with Israel, I’m going to be on the right side of that. And immigration is something near and dear to me, and I think we do have to effectively address it as well,” Fetterman said.
During a recent interview with NBC News, Sen. John Fetterman, D-Penn., declared he’s “not a progressive.” (Photographer: Nathan Howard/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Fetterman’s words come after weeks of him taking notably non-leftist positions on hot topics of the day. Where many in the party have sympathized with the Palestinian’s struggles amid the Israel-Hamas War and have called for a “cease-fire” in the conflict, Fetterman has openly supported Israel’s right to defend itself, and has even mocked progressive protesters demanding he speak out against Israel’s war effort. That’s earned the ire of some of the far-left voices in the party and even former staffers who say they feel betrayed.
Separating from Democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., on the issue, NBC noted, “Fetterman’s fierce and unwavering support for Israel breaks sharply with demands by Sanders to withdraw U.S. military aid and has drawn searing criticism from the left as the Palestinian death toll soars amid the Israeli government’s bombing campaign in retaliation for the Oct. 7 Hamas attack.”
He also has freely criticized his party for not pushing out Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., who was federally indicted for alleged involvement in a bribery scheme, in addition to bucking the party on calls for stronger border security. Ripping Menendez, he told NBC, “He needs to go. I don’t understand why he can be here, having expelled [George] Santos. But I’m sure there might be a very innocent explanation of having gold bars in your mattress and overstuffed envelopes of cash.”
Sen. John Fetterman has broken with the far left in his party by denouncing pro-Palestinian protesters on multiple occasions. (Getty Images // Fox News Digital)
The outlet also mentioned his unique stance on immigration.
“Fetterman insisted he can be pro-immigration while also favoring policies to restrict the flow of migration to manageable levels, disagreeing with progressives who oppose new limits on asylum and bash some of the ideas in the negotiations as cruel,” NBC reported.
He told NBC, “It’s a reasonable conversation — until somebody can say there’s an explanation on what we can do when 270,000 people are being encountered on the border, not including the ones, of course, that we don’t know about.”
“To put that in reference, that is essentially the size of Pittsburgh, the second-largest city in Pennsylvania,” he added.
He continues to vote with President Biden’s policies the vast majority of the time, however.
Fetterman was elected last year after a difficult 2022 race made more complicated by a stroke that nearly killed him and continues to make it difficult for him to process conversations. He also suffered from depression as a result and had to check into a hospital shortly after taking office this year.
Left-wing outlet The New Republic wrote Friday that Fetterman had “officially divorced himself from the progressive movement.”
However, his chief of staff Adam Jentleson said he’s “always had” these positions.
1. The four creators of the Charlie Brown Christmas special were veterans of the U.S. military.
Charles Schulz, the creator of Charlie Brown and the writer of the script for the Christmas special, was a U.S. Army combat veteran of World War II. The show’s producer, Lee Mendelson, served in the United States Air Force. Vince Guaraldi, who composed the music for the special, was a U.S. Army veteran, as was the program’s director and animator, Bill Melendez. When an interviewer asked Schulz what his proudest accomplishment was, Schulz pointed to a framed military award he kept on his studio wall — his Combat Infantryman’s Badge, which is awarded to infantrymen who have fought in active ground combat.
2. CBS executives were dismayed when they first screened ‘A Charlie Brown Christmas’
The executives were shocked by the animation’s poor quality and by the show’s amateur voice talent. They were dismayed by the use of jazz music in a Christmas special and by the absence of a laugh track (something Schulz had refused to insert). The executives were particularly put off by the show’s overt religiosity (“The Bible thing scares us!”). They concluded by pointedly telling Lee Mendelson, the show’s producer, that they would not be ordering any more specials from him or Schulz.
3. Neil Reagan, President Ronald Reagan’s older brother, played a role in the special’s production.
In 1965 Neil Reagan, the younger brother of the future president, was plotting his brother’s first run for political office. Neil was also the West Coast manager of Coca-Cola’s advertising firm. When the TV special was in the pre-production stage, the adman was shown the storyboards for the holiday program and a rough version of the animation.
Reagan was aghast at the show’s slow plodding. He told Schulz and Mendelson, the show’s producer, that if he gave his honest opinion of the program to his superiors back in New York City, they would shut down the production immediately. Mendelson pleaded that the show would be much better once it had a soundtrack and when color was added to the animation. Reagan pondered for a long time before responding, “OK, it might cost me my job, but I’m not going to say anything.”
“A Charlie Brown Christmas” has become an iconic part of every Christmas season. (Photo by ABC Photo Archives/Disney General Entertainment Content via Getty Images)
4. The Peanuts characters were very difficult to animate
Charles Schulz’s “Peanuts” characters were incredibly difficult to render in animation. They had large round heads, making it difficult to gather them together in a scene without their oversized skulls banging into one another. Their arms couldn’t reach the top of their heads, restricting certain movements, and their short stubby legs made walking look awkward.
Ironically, the minimalism of Schulz’s drawing also made them more difficult to animate. Because there were so few reference points on their faces, if an eye were a little too far to the left or right, the character would look disfigured.
5. The special contains many continuity errors
For example, when Lucy approaches her psychiatric booth it has no snow on it, but when she arrives, she has to wipe away snow before sitting down to consult with Charlie Brown. In the same scene, her sign sometimes says “The Doctor is Real In” while at other times it says “The Doctor is In.”
In a later scene, Charlie Brown’s nose disappears when he is addressing Lucy and discussing the need for a Christmas tree. Also, at times, the sad Christmas tree has three branches, while at other times it has six or more.
6. In the climactic scene of ‘A Charlie Brown Christmas,’ Linus’s blanket plays a key but little-noticed role
During the special’s climactic scene, when Linus recites from the Gospel of Luke, he drops his security blanket at the exact moment he utters the words “fear not.” The moment is handled subtly, but it is rich with significance, both in the context of the character and the words being spoken.
Linus had been clinging to the blanket since its introduction into the comic strip on June 1, 1954. The words “fear not” or “be not afraid” are reportedly the most common phrases in the Bible, found 365 times in Scripture.
7. A Mexican immigrant directed and animated the special
Jose Cuauhtemoc “Bill” Melendez immigrated to Arizona with his mother and siblings as a young boy before relocating to Los Angeles. An excellent student, Melendez mistakenly thought that since he was not a U.S. citizen, he could not attend college at UCLA, so he went to work at a lumberyard.
His talent for drawing led him to the animation training program at Disney in the 1930s. Melendez was drafted into the Army during World War II where he was sworn in as a U.S. citizen. Melendez first animated the “Peanuts” characters for Ford commercials in the 1950s. He quickly developed a close friendship with Schulz and became the only person Schulz would ever entrust to animate his cartoon characters.
The cover of Michael Keane’s book, “Charlie Brown’s Christmas Miracle: The Inspiring, Untold Story of the Making of a Holiday Classic.”
8. The Golden Gate Bridge played an important role in the special’s soundtrack
In 1963, Mendelson was working on a documentary about Schulz and was desperately in need of finding music for the show’s soundtrack. While driving across the Golden Gate Bridge and listening to his car’s radio, he heard a captivating tune — “Cast Your Fate to the Wind” by jazz musician Vince Guaraldi.
Mendelson reached out to Guaraldi and asked him to compose the music for the documentary. Just a few days later, while Guaraldi himself was driving across the Golden Gate Bridge, inspiration would strike the musician. He rushed home and sat down at his piano and played the tune that had entered his head. The melody became known as “Linus and Lucy” and is the signature song of the Peanuts franchise.
9. Schulz insisted on keeping Linus’s recitation from Scripture in the special, against objections
When Schulz proposed having Linus recite from the Gospel of Luke in the Christmas special, he was met with objections by both the producer, Mendelson, and the show’s director, Melendez. “We can’t do this, it’s too religious,” said Melendez. Mendelson agreed, arguing that religion didn’t belong in a cartoon.
Ironically, the minimalism of Schulz’s drawing also made them more difficult to animate. Because there were so few reference points on their faces, if an eye were a little too far to the left or right, the character would look disfigured.
Schulz’s proposed scene would expose the special to attacks from both religious and non-religious viewers. Churchgoers might object that animating from the Bible and having its sacred verses spoken by cartoon characters was sacrilegious. Those who were less religious might be turned off by what they perceived to be preachy moralizing. Schulz, however, was insistent. “If we don’t do it, who will?” he asked.
10. Some of the child actors were too young to read their scripts
Some of the children who were the voice talent for the special, when handed their scripts with their lines of dialogue, stared back at Melendez, the special’s director, in stunned silence. They had not yet learned how to read.
This necessitated Melendez having to recite the lines to his young talent, and then having each actor repeat the words back. At times, a single word had to be broken down into bite-sized syllables, even for the actors who could read. The end result was that much of the dialogue in the special has an uneven, choppy cadence to it.
Rep. Victoria Spartz, R-Ind., told Newsmax on Friday that Republicans must make it clear that they “will hold the ground on border security” when it comes to passing additional aid for Ukraine. Spartz, the first native Ukrainian to serve in U.S. Congress, told “Newsline” in an interview that there’s “no doubt” that negotiations on a deal on border security and Ukraine aid haven’t progressed as far as some would hope.
She said that Republicans must ensure that “Democrats understand … that we will hold the ground on border security because if we don’t protect our country there is no hope for anyone else in the world.”
Spartz went on to accuse President Joe Biden of “slow-walking aid to Ukraine” and allowing Russian President Vladimir Putin “to advance that far and fortify … which costs a lot of money and a lot of lives for Ukrainians.”
She continued, “I think we need to be tougher, but we have to have … [an] agreement on border security and [Biden] needs to understand we will hold the ground.”
The congresswoman said Biden is “getting better” when it comes to policies for asylum seekers, “but he’s not willing to … tighten the parole that he’s been abusing.”
About NEWSMAX TV:
NEWSMAX is the fastest-growing cable news channel in America!
Find Newsmax channel in your home via cable and satellite systems – More Info Here
Watch Newsmax+ on your home TV app or smartphone and watch it anywhere! Try it for FREE — See More Here: NewsmaxPlus.com
The House must send the Senate a solid, airtight case for impeaching President Joe Biden, and even then, the “bar is real high” about whether the charges against him will be impeachable, Sen. Markwayne Mullin said on Newsmax Friday.
And, the Oklahoma Republican told Newsmax’s “Wake Up America” that five moderate Democrats — who he refused to name — would “definitely be looking to convict” the president if a “convictable offense” can be proven, even though the Senate is under majority control by Biden’s party.
Even with the five Democrats being willing to convict Biden if there is a proven case, that would not be enough to convict Biden, because the Constitution requires two-thirds of the body to make that happen.
“What’s interesting about the Senate versus the House is senators have a lot bigger area, a lot bigger state to cover, so they cover blue parts of the state plus red parts,” he said. “When you talk to some more moderate-leaning senators, they will tell you that if the House sends over an airtight case that completely points to the president, breaking the law, treason, misdemeanors, high crimes, they would try it just like they would any other case.”
The five senators who have said they’ll vote to convict are “senators that I’ve had some relationship with, but we usually vote opposite on most things,” said Mullin.
He said that it will take a solid case before those senators will vote against Biden.
“One thing that we’ve asked for during this impeachment inquiry that that the House will send us a solid case,” Mullin said. “Listen, an inquiry doesn’t mean that they’re going to impeach the president. All that means is they have access to the records the White House and the Biden family haven’t been giving us.”
He pointed out that when the investigation into Biden and his family members, the White Houe was saying that the family did nothing wrong, but those claims have changed.
“Now they’re starting to say that Joe Biden didn’t do anything wrong,” he said. “They’re saying that the Hunter Biden’s business deals aren’t attached to President Biden when we know there were over 50 shell companies, and there are numerous bank records that we’ve been able to get from Hunter Biden.”
However, he said that when Republicans try getting something from the White House about the president, the Department of Justice, “which is run by obviously, Joe Biden” has said that without an impeachment inquiry, they’re not obligated to give it to us.”
This means that the House must give the Senate a case that’s “convictable and the bar is real high,” said Mullin.
Further, alleged acts involving misdemeanors, high crimes, or treason must be proven to have been committed when Biden was president, not when he was vice president or a private citizen, the senator said, because “What he did in between the two may not be impeachable.”
It would be an impeachable offense, though, if as president, Biden “used his office to benefit him, to gain favor of other countries while they’re paying him,” Mullin said. “Then we absolutely should convict him.”
Sandy Fitzgerald has more than three decades in journalism and serves as a general assignment writer for Newsmax covering news, media, and politics.
As I have written before, I sincerely wish the Republicans would drop all discussions about impeachment. This mess has been going back and forth since Clinton. It’s time to stop the cycle and focus on this economy, the border, regulations, and the general business climate.
A study discredits the claim that climate change is largely responsible for mass migration, suggesting that the Biden administration is using it to distract from its open-border immigration policies. Pictured: A woman walks down a street in Gardi Sugdub, Panama, on Oct. 11. (Photo: Adri Salido/Getty Images)
Simon Hankinson, a former foreign service officer with the State Department, is a senior research fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center.
The BorderLine is a weekly Daily Signal feature examining everything from the unprecedented illegal immigration crisis at the border to immigration’s impact on cities and states throughout the land. We will also shed light on other critical border-related issues like human trafficking, drug smuggling, terrorism, and more.
———————————————————
To avoid admitting that President Joe Biden’s own policies are responsible for mass illegal migration, his administration is keen to implicate “climate change” as the root cause instead. Biden has done everything in his power to facilitate unlimited immigration, from setting up overseas “Safe Mobility Offices” to encouraging asylum claims to inventing “lawful pathways” that are really unlawful, using mass immigration parole to bypass requiring a visa for entry into the country. Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas has shifted all available resources from deterring illegal aliens to instead bringing them into the country.
By releasing thousands of illegal aliens at the border daily and fostering nearly unlimited asylum applications, the Biden administration adds to court backlogs already so long that aliens have de facto amnesty. The small percentage of asylum cases that eventually qualify have been buried by fraudulent and spurious ones. This is all by design. But the Biden administration is hoping to distract from this dismal record by blaming the whole thing on climate change.
The White House’s “Report on the Impact of Climate Change on Migration” declares “the United States will need to strengthen the application of existing protection frameworks, adjust U.S. protection mechanisms to better accommodate people fleeing the impacts of climate change, and evaluate the need for additional legal protections for those who have no alternative but to migrate.”
That word salad could mean more bogus immigration parole programs and including climate change in the criteria for granting asylum. But blaming illegal mass migration on warmer weather is politics, not science. Linking small changes in annual planetary average temperatures to specific weather patterns is difficult. Blaming weather for individual decisions to illegally come to the United States—often through several safe countries on the way—is not credible.
A recent Migration Policy Institute report notes that “[e]nvironmental issues are generally minor factors in people’s migration decisions, typically far behind economic imperatives, even in highly climate-affected countries.” A report by the Dialogue cites “political crises, economic insecurity, violence, weak social protection systems, COVID-19 contagion, low vaccination rates, and natural disasters” as “factors explaining current migration.” It concludes that “overall, aspirational or poor material conditions in the homeland is an important common denominator.”
A lack of affordable and reliable energy is associated with a lack of access to clean water, adequate medical care, affordable transportation, and economic opportunities, all of which stall human advancement, especially in the most vulnerable countries. Energy, in all its diverse forms, should be harnessed by all societies—because high-income societies are also high-energy societies.
(The Daily Signal is Heritage’s news and commentary outlet.)
In other words, when illegal aliens select the U.S. as their destination, their main reason is to leave poverty and look for a better life either through finding a job or relying on America’s social safety net.
Under U.S. immigration law, being poor or wanting a better job don’t qualify an alien for asylum. To be eligible, applicants have to prove that if returned home, they would be persecuted on the basis of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. The “particular social group” category, already too broad, was expanded beyond reason by Biden administration guidance to the government staff who decide asylum cases. With the system already overburdened, activists now want to expand the asylum criteria even further.
The New York Times recently reported on the Miskito people of Honduras. Historically poor, subject to hurricanes, and now beset by drug cartels, some of them picked up and left. They didn’t relocate within Honduras or go to the nearest safe countries—Mexico or Guatemala—but trekked 2,500 miles north to the United States. Drawn by Biden’s open border, they now plan to claim asylum based on “extreme weather wrought by climate change,” helped by the National Immigration Project.
But the reality is that America is not to blame for their plight. U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have been falling. This is not because of Biden’s massive subsidies to renewable energy and electric vehicles; it’s the fruit of improved technology and investment by the private sector, as well as the conversion to cleaner natural gas.
In Europe, Germany and Britain are crippling their economies and sticking their populations with huge increases in energy costs in the pursuit of lower emissions. Meanwhile, China is building a coal-fired power plant every two weeks and continues to increase emissions year over year. India isn’t far behind.
This doesn’t stop the global Left from using climate change as an irrefutable catchall cause for illegal immigration, for which they blame only the developed world. Beijing wins again as mass migration based on fraud only targets desirable countries like the U.S. Other than maybe North Koreans, no one is lining up to get into China.
The plight of the Miskito, and of hundreds of millions of people across this crowded planet, can inspire our sympathy and aid, but it is not grounds for asylum. If we wish to remain a stable and prosperous society in an uncertain world, it can never be grounds for asylum.
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims that “[p]rojected population displacements by 2050 in Central and South America, sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia due to climate change, rang[e] from 31 million to 143 million people.” To call that range “ballpark” would be generous, but there is no doubt that millions will continue to migrate, for various reasons, in the future. That doesn’t make it the duty of every desirable country on earth to surrender control over its borders, identity, and destiny in response.
Who comes to the United States, how many, and where from is a decision for American voters, not for globalist climate crusaders. The U.S. should offer our expertise and example to help countries overcome the challenges of a changing planet, but we can’t be the world’s default refuge.
Our current asylum system was designed for the 1950s, with the fresh memory of Jews fleeing Nazi extermination and dissidents fleeing communist tyranny. This humanitarian program was not intended for, and it has been destroyed by, mass migration for largely economic reasons. The result is engendering political pushback across the developed world. The U.S. needs to rethink the Refugee Act of 1980, which defines who qualifies for asylum. Climate change should be explicitly excluded, and the “particular social group” category eliminated or, at the very least, tightly restricted.
Under the Biden administration, it doesn’t really matter to the Miskito or other asylum claimants how unsound the basis of their claim is. They’ll be allowed to remain in the United States and work while they wait out a many-years-long court process. That’s ridiculous, and it’s why, in May of this year, the House of Representatives passed needed reform of the asylum criteria that would require people to wait for their asylum decision outside the U.S.
In the national interest, the Senate and Biden should accept these necessary reforms and abandon the canard that climate change justifies the president’s failed immigration policies.
Hunter Biden gives a statement to media outlets regarding the House Oversight and Accountability Committee investigation into his business interests outside of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 13, 2023. (Photo: Craig Hudson/The Washington Post/Getty Images)
Hunter Biden defied a congressional subpoena on Wednesday, an action his father has previously said should be prosecuted. President Joe Bidensaid in October 2021 that individuals who defy subpoenas from the January 6 House Select Committee should be prosecuted, and the Justice Department indicted Steve Bannon for doing so in November 2021. Legal experts said the president’s son could be, but for various reasons may not be, likewise prosecuted by the Biden Justice Department for his choice to hold a press conference on Capitol Hill instead of sitting his deposition before the House Oversight Committee.
Criminal defense attorney and legal analyst Philip Holloway told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the law “must be applied equally or it has no meaning.”
“Hunter Biden needs to be held to the same standard as other recent people who have thumbed their noses at congressional subpoenas,” Holloway said. “In this case, however, Hunter went so far as to show up on Capitol grounds and hold a press conference, thereby figuratively giving the middle finger to the House of Representatives. It is imperative that he be cited for contempt and that he be prosecuted by the U.S. attorney just as was the case recently with Bannon.”
Holloway called dodging a valid subpoena “just stupid,” noting Hunter could have “invoked the Fifth Amendment” at his deposition.
“I scratch my head wondering why Hunter’s lawyer—who stood with him at the presser—would subject his client to additional criminal charges,” he said. “I would never have advised someone to dodge a subpoena.”
George Washington University Law professor Jonathan Turley made a similar point Thursday, writing that Republicans initiating contempt of Congress proceedings could “force the hand of Attorney General Merrick Garland” and calling Hunter’s refusal to appear an “unenforced error.” Garland said in 2021 that the prosecution of Bannon was in pursuit of “equal justice under the law.”
“Since my first day in office, I have promised Justice Department employees that together we would show the American people by word and deed that the department adheres to the rule of law, follows the facts and the law and pursues equal justice under the law,” said Garland in a statement at the time. “Today’s charges reflect the department’s steadfast commitment to these principles.”
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan said in a statement Wednesday that they intend to initiate contempt of Congress proceedings.
Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy wrote Wednesday that the younger Biden knows he won’t be prosecuted by the Justice Department.
“Similarly, Hunter Biden knows that, while the House could hold him in contempt, the Biden Justice Department is not going to prosecute him for criminal contempt for [sic] three reasons,” he wrote. “(1) he’s the president’s son; (2) there’s already tension with the White House because prosecutors botched the sweetheart plea deal and have now indicted Hunter twice (putting the president in the politically compromising position of having to pardon him at some point); and (3) the Justice Department is part of an administration whose story is that the impeachment inquiry is an illegitimate political hit job forced by MAGA Republicans so they can orchestrate proceedings hyped as ‘Biden impeachment’ in parallel with the criminal proceedings Trump faces in court, which Democrats are hyping.”
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Hunter Biden parses his words unwisely, trying to avoid connecting his father to any of his business dealings.
One Word Hunter Biden Used During Statement at DC Presser Tore Up Joe Biden’s Defense of Corruption Allegations (VIDEO)
By Cristina Laila
Hunter Biden on Wednesday arrived in DC and gave a press conference on Capitol Hill where he revealed he will only answer questions under his own rules despite a congressional subpoena.
Congressional Republicans subpoenaed Hunter Biden for a closed-door deposition related to his influence-peddling and family corruption.
Hunter Biden on Wednesday said he will only testify “at a public hearing.”
The first son also made a damning statement that tore up Joe Biden’s corruption defense. One word Hunter Biden used caught the attention of Republican lawmakers and reporters. READ MORE…
Top Stories • Wisconsin Abortion Ban Has Saved at Least 4,500 Babies From Abortions • Joe Biden Says Killing Babies in Abortions is “Health Care” • University Faces Investigation for Illegally Doing Research With Aborted Baby Parts • They Told Us Our Baby Had Trisomy 18 and Suggested Abortion, My Healthy Son is Now 20
More Pro-Life News • Planned Parenthood Admits Unborn Babies Have Beating Hearts • Country Star RaeLynn Says Her Mom Almost Had an Abortion, That’s Why She’s Pro-Life • There is No Reason to Kill Disabled Babies in Abortions • The Media Complains Abortion Bans are Saving Babies, But I’m Glad They’re Alive • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2023 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved. For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.
President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, is relying on Second Amendment arguments that his father once slammed as “deeply” troubling to escape conviction on gun crimes.
On Monday, attorneys for the president’s son filed a series of motions to dismiss federal charges handed down by Special Counsel David Weiss. Among the charges Biden’s attorneys want thrown out are firearm charges that were filed on the basis of Hunter Biden purchasing a gun as a drug addict. Hunter Biden’s initial sweetheart plea agreement — which was derailed this summer after it fell apart in court — would have forgiven the felony firearm conviction if Hunter maintained 24 months of sobriety.
“Hunter Biden asserts that the gun charges fail as a matter of constitutional law because Congress could not criminalize the possession of a gun by an addict,” explained Federalist Legal Correspondent Margot Cleveland. “And since Congress could not criminalize possession by an addict, it also could not make lying about being an addict a crime. Therefore, Hunter Biden argues the three gun charges fail.”
Hunter Biden’s attorneys cited United States v. Daniels, a 5th Circuit decision in August that reversed the firearm conviction of a non-violent drug user.
“In short, our history and tradition may support some limits on an intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon, but it does not justify disarming a sober citizen based exclusively on his past drug usage,” the court ruled. “Nor do more generalized traditions of disarming dangerous persons support this restriction on nonviolent drug users.”
“The prosecution charges that Mr. Biden violated a rarely used statute that it claims prevented him from owning a firearm as an unlawful user of a controlled substance,” Hunter Biden’s lawyers wrote in their Monday motion. “But that statute’s status-based prohibition on gun ownership recently was struck down as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.”
The Daniels decision followed the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, a landmark ruling in 2022 that broadly upheld the right to carry a handgun in public.
In another gun rights case that followed Bruen, attorneys for an Oklahoma man who was pulled over with a gun and marijuana in his car “argued the portion of federal firearms law focused on drug users or addicts was not consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, echoing what the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled last year” in Bruen.
Attorneys for Hunter Biden cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen 19 times in their motion filed on Monday. And yet, when the court handed down the landmark case in June 2022, President Biden said the “ruling contradicts both common sense and the Constitution and should deeply trouble us all.”
Now, Hunter’s case may further strengthen the Second Amendment protections his father disparaged.
Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist and the author of Social Justice Redux, a conservative newsletter on culture, health, and wellness. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com. Sign up for Tristan’s email newsletter here.
Christmas is supposed to be a season for love, comfort, and joy, but the arrival of the holidays means the grinches, scrooges, and corrupt politicians of the world are lurking. This year, unfortunately, yielded an abundance of bureaucrats, brands, and buffoons who blew their shot to make the nice list when they sacrificed common sense and dignity for partisanship and radicalism.
Merry Christmas to everyone except these naughty no-gooders!
1. Jack Smith
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s association with the corrupt Department of Justice alone was enough to land him in Santa’s bad graces. Smith further solidified his place on the naughty list when he brought two “legally flawed and politically shady” cases against former President Donald Trump over classified documents and the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.
Smith also demanded the court gag Trump from criticizing him, President Joe Biden, and other deep-state bureaucrats for their hyperpartisan prosecution of his First Amendment right to claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen, which D.C. District Judge Tanya Chutkan eagerly agreed to do.
2. Letitia James
James is on the naughty list for following through on her campaign promise to sue Trump, his children, and the Trump Organization for allegedly “grossly” inflating their assets in financial statements by billions of dollars.
Despite bringing a case with “no merit” and “no evidence,” James continues to work with Arthur Engoron, a judge of the Supreme Court 1st Judicial District in New York, to silence Trump and keep him from conducting business in the state of New York.
3. David Weiss
Every time a bell rings, a corrupt Department of Justice official like Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss gets named special counsel.
Weiss and the DOJ deliberately choked the IRS’s tax crime investigation and charging recommendations for Hunter Biden because they didn’t want to damage the elder Biden’s presidential chances.
After a federal judge denied Hunter’s initial sweetheart plea deal, the Biden son was eventually charged with several tax-related felonies and misdemeanors, but Weiss failed to indict him for any foreign influence-peddling or registered foreign agent violations.
House investigators warned the tax charges would never have happened without the testimonies of IRS whistleblowers the DOJ tried to silence.
4. Joe Biden
Biden may not technically have a stocking since his family was publicly shamed into ditching the tradition after leaving their seventh grandchild out of last year’s display, but he’s for sure getting coal for Christmas (for the second year in a row!) for repeatedly denying his role in the Biden family influence-peddling scheme.
Senate Republicans certainly don’t deserve presents this year. They may not even deserve your votes.
Their gravest 2023 mistake by far was working to take down one of their own, Sen. Tommy Tuberville, for daring to hold the Department of Defense accountable for its embrace of Biden’s radical abortion agenda. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer later thanked the GOP senators forcurbing Tuberville’s protest of the Pentagon’s baby-killing activism.
The upper chamber GOP didn’t stop there. They were also indefensibly silent on Biden family corruption and impeachment, ignored their constituents’ feelings about taxpayer-funded abortion, and spent a majority of the year simping for Ukraine. It was only when it was no longer politically beneficial to put a foreign country over their own — a move many Americans have long opposed — that they started to pivot.
6. Elite Universities
Presidents from three of the nation’s top universities refused to admit that student calls for Jewish genocide following Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel violate their schools’ codes of conduct. Backlash ensued, prompting both University of Pennsylvania President M. Elizabeth Magill, who faces a forced resignation, and Harvard President Claudine Gay to issue apologies days after the hearing.
In an interview with the student newspaper The Crimson, Gay blamed her delayed condemnation of antisemitism on a failure to “return to my guiding truth.” As one clever X user noted, Harvard’s slogan is “veritas,” not “veritas mae.”
7. Los Angeles Dodgers
Who doesn’t love a good baseball game? There are rowdy fans, Cracker Jacks, and — drag queens? Well, at least at Los Angeles Dodgers’ games there are.
Instead of focusing solely on the sport — which is what any real fan cares about — the Dodgers decided to honor an anti-Christian drag group during this year’s “pride night” game. Known as the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, this group’s members mock Christians by dressing up as so-called “queer and trans nuns” and performing highly offensive acts on biblical symbols, including the cross.
While initially disinviting the group after public backlash, the Dodgers caved to the leftist mob by apologizing to the Sisters and begging them to attend the “pride” event.
If that’s not worthy of coal this Christmas, I don’t know what is.
8. Bud Light
What better way to make the Yuletide gay than by chugging down a cold can of Bud Light?
After partnering with woman-pretender and TikTok influencer Dylan Mulvaney this year, the Anheuser-Busch brand’s sales tanked, with drinkers abandoning the beer quicker than Hunter Biden left town when he found out the stripper he had sex with was pregnant.
Sales got so bad that retailers could hardly even give Bud Light away for free. But that didn’t stop the beer giant from doubling down on its LGBT obsession by sponsoring various “pride” events throughout the country.
9. Target
Target and the naughty list go way back, but the company’s partnership with a Satan supporter who called for the eradication of critics of transgenderism, and its “pride month” displays featuring “light binding effect” tops and “tuck-friendly” bottoms, angered millions of Americans.
Miss Americana Taylor Swift may have won Time’s Person of the Year, but that doesn’t mean she won over everyone’s hearts. The pop star’s presence at boyfriend Mr. Pfizer’s — er, Travis Kelce’s — NFL games stole the TV cameras, sports announcers, and fantasy football apps away from America’s favorite Sunday evening pastime.
Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx. Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
Constitutional law expert Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax on Thursday that the Jan. 6 case the Supreme Court has agreed to take up “probably” applies to former President Donald Trump, in addition to a number of other Jan. 6 defendants, including his client.
“Look, these were not obstructions of justice,” Dershowitz said during an appearance on “National Report.” “These were attempts to exercise First Amendment rights to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Some of the people went too far and destroyed property, but those people who just tried to influence the congressional hearings were exercising their constitutional right.
“They’re entitled to do it, and I think the court will render a ruling in which it says that the indictments of many of the people went too far by charging obstruction of justice.”
“It doesn’t apply to everybody, but I think it probably does apply to President Trump,” he continued. “He, too, as a citizen, had the right to petition his government for what he believed was a redress of grievances.
“He was wrong, in my view, but that doesn’t affect his legal claim of acting under the First Amendment. So, I think the Supreme Court may very well render a ruling that helps former President Trump, helps my client and helps many others who were swept up in this.
“It’s very important that everybody be treated as individuals. If you did something, if you went in there and you destroyed property deliberately, that’s one thing. But if you simply objected to the way in which the votes were counted, even if you were wrong, that’s a complete defense under the Constitution.”
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court agreed to decide if a man involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol Building can be charged with obstructing an official proceeding. Defendant Joseph Fischer, who was indicted on seven charges following the Jan. 6 protest, is 1 of at least 325 people facing that charge for their alleged roles in the incident. The charge has also been brought against Trump in the federal case charging him with trying to overturn the 2020 election results.
In agreeing to take up the case, the justices made no mention of the Trump prosecution, but legal experts say Trump’s lawyers could argue that the court’s move should delay the start of the trial, slated to begin in March.
Dershowitz said everything, for both Trump and the Department of Justice, comes down to “timing,” given next year’s November presidential election.
“The prosecutors want a down and dirty conviction to affect the election, before the election, knowing that they very well may be reversed on appeal, but that will be too late to affect the election,” he said. “And so both sides are playing the timing game and timing is always up to the judges themselves — how quickly they put the case on, how quickly they decide the case. There’s very little anybody can do to affect the timing of judges.”
“But it really affects all of us because there are many Americans who won’t vote for somebody who has been convicted of a serious felony, whether it be on the Democratic side or the Republican side,” he continued. “So, the criminal justice system has been weaponized by both sides to try to influence the election and the losers are the American public.
“We’re not getting fair justice on either side. We’re getting politicized, weaponized, partisan justice.”
Nicole Wells, a Newsmax general assignment reporter covers news, politics, and culture. She is a National Newspaper Association award-winning journalist.
The U.S. Senate is expected to delay the start of its holiday break as bipartisan talks on border security and providing more aid to Ukraine and Israel continue, multiple senators said on Thursday.
“We’re making progress and the White House is engaged, which is good. Everything’s encouraging,” Sen. John Thune, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, told reporters, cautioning that “right now, they’re still talking concepts.”
Lawmakers said the Senate would return on Monday, delaying the start of its holiday break.
President Joe Biden has been urging lawmakers to pass a supplemental aid package to provide $50 billion in new security to Ukraine as it fights off Russian invasion, as well as $14 billion for Israel as it wages war against Hamas in Gaza.
Republican House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson, as well as Republicans in the Democrat-majority Senate, have repeatedly said they will only vote for that aid if it is paired with new controls for the U.S.-Mexico border.
Any deal reached in the Senate, which Democrats control by a 51-49 majority, would also need to win the approval of the House, which Republicans control 221-213, before passing into law.
House lawmakers left Washington as scheduled on Thursday to begin their holiday recess.
“There is too much on the line for Ukraine, for America, for Western democracy to throw in the towel right now. We must keep talking, we must keep working,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, said in a floor speech on Thursday morning.
What if some of the antagonism around labor unions in the United States could be reduced by eliminating laws that force workers and unions alike to do things against their will? A new bill in Congress would do that. Pictured: Employees of The Washington Post walk a picket line as they stage a 24-hour strike outside The Washington Post building Dec. 7. (Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
What if some of the antagonism around labor unions in the United States could be reduced by eliminating laws that force workers and unions alike to do things against their will?
That’s what the Worker’s Choice Act, introduced Wednesday by Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.), would do.
Current law forces workers in unionized workplaces to be represented by a union even if they do not join the union and it forces unions to represent workers who do not pay union fees. The Worker’s Choice Act would allow workers who do not pay union fees to choose their own representation, and it would free unions from having to represent so-called free riders who do not pay union fees.
Under the Worker’s Choice Act, employees who live in the 26 “right to work” states that do not require workers to pay union fees as a condition of employment would no longer be forced to accept union representation that they do not want. Instead, they could negotiate directly with their employer, or choose their own outside representation. This change would apply to the 4.2 million workers in right-to-work states who are currently represented by unions. Among them, nearly 800,000 currently nonpaying workers would no longer be represented by unions unless they chose to begin paying for representation.
The proposed law would not change anything for the 11.8 million workers in unionized workplaces in forced unionism states where the law requires workers to pay for union representation even if they do not join the union.
This freedom from union representation would be particularly helpful to workers who do not believe the union represents their interests. They may think this for any number of reasons. A worker may want to be compensated and promoted based on her performance instead of the union’s rigid seniority-based system; a worker may feel ignored and ostracized by the union that is supposed to represent him; a worker may have caregiving duties that could be alleviated through a different schedule than the union dictates; and a young worker struggling to start a family and buy a home might be better served by bigger paychecks rather than the union’s Cadillac benefits plan.
Yet the bill does not only help workers. It would also free unions of their “free rider” problem. No longer would unions have to represent workers who don’t pay for representation. This would enable unions to focus their efforts on the interests of their paying members. Without the costs of representing nonpaying members, unions could lower their fees for those who want union representation. Moreover, some unions’ membership may even increase as non-members may choose to become dues-paying members to maintain their representation. Workers’ voices cannot truly be heard if workers are prevented from speaking for themselves and prevented from choosing who gets to speak for them. A 2016 Heritage Foundation analysis found that 94% of workers represented by unions did not vote for their representation.
Ending forced representation would benefit workers and unions alike by freeing workers to choose their representation and freeing unions to focus their time and resources only on workers who want and are willing to pay for their representation. An upshot of this shift could be growth in alternative types of labor organizations that allow more workers to band together and benefit from their shared interests and pursuits.
For example, as more workers are pursuing independent work that allows them to be their own bosses, professional organizations like the Association of Independent Doctors and the Freelancers Union can provide a collective voice and pooled resources to offer lower-cost products and services such as insurance, education, and advocacy.
Labor unions could also offer more targeted representation services that allow individuals to represent themselves, in order to appeal to more workers. For example, the Major League Baseball Players Association sets minimum salary requirements and provides individual representation services but also allows individuals to negotiate their compensation directly with their employer.
Exclusive representation muffles the voices and denies the rights of at least a minority of workers, and imposes undue burdens on unions. Prioritizing workers’ choices and reducing government barriers to work pursuits are crucial to elevating workers’ voices, improving their well-being, and expanding their opportunities.
Police tape surrounds a crime scene where a suspect rammed into the San Francisco Chinese Consulate on Oct. 9, 2023. (Photo: Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
Nihilism is the religion of the Left. Anarchy is now at the core of the new Democratic Party.
If the Left wished radically to alter the demography of the U.S., it could have expanded legal immigration through legislation or the courts. Instead, it simply erased the border and dynamited federal immigration law.
By fiat, nihilists ended the wall, and stopped detaining and deporting illegal aliens altogether. Or was it worse than that when candidate Joe Biden in September 2019 urged would-be illegal aliens to “surge” the border?
As a result, through laxity and entitlement incentives, 8 million illegal entrants have swarmed the southern border under the Biden administration. They are swamping border towns, bankrupting big-city budgets, and infuriating even Democratic constituencies. The same nihilism applies to crime.
In the old days liberals gave light sentences to criminals or reduced bail. But today leftist prosecutors do not even seek bail. They hardly prosecute theft or random assaults. Criminals are arrested and released the same day. Is the nihilist plan to destroy the entire body of American jurisprudence, and to ensure “equity” in being victimized?
Is the woke idea that all Americans—inclusive of diverse Beverly Hills elites, Hollywood celebrities, or members of Congress alike—must share victim equity, and thus experience firsthand street robbery, car-jacking, smash-and-grab, and home invasion?
The United States can produce annually more natural gas and oil than any nation on earth. It once pioneered nuclear power. It has vast coal reserves and sophisticated hydroelectric plants. The old idea was to use these unmatched resources to transition gradually to other cleaner fuels such as hydrogen, fusion power, solar, and wind. That way consumers would still enjoy affordable energy. And the United States could remain independent of coercion by the oil-producing Middle East.
But that was not the nihilist way. Instead, the Left deliberately cut back on pipelines, new energy leases, and fracking. It bragged of an upcoming ban on fossil fuels. In drought-stricken, energy-short California, the state is blowing up, not building new dams.
Is the nihilist agenda to punish with bankruptcy the energy-using middle class? Is the hope that Americans will have to beg the Saudis, Iranians, Venezuelans, and Russians to pump more of the hated goo for our benefit so we would not have to dirty ourselves helping ourselves?
When Biden entered office in January 2021 the U.S. was naturally rebounding from more than a year of COVID-19-enforced lockdowns. Overtaxed supply chains were still fragile. Pent-up demand was soaring. Consumers were flush with government cash. Trillions of dollars had been printed and infused into the economy to ward off a feared recession. All economists advised not to increase the deficit, spike further consumer demand, and expand entitlements. Instead, the Left did just the opposite.
Four-trillion dollars were printed and distributed. In no time, Americans, recovering from COVID-19, next experienced the worst, but entirely preventable, inflation in 40 years. Three years later prices on staples remain 30%-40% higher than when Biden took office. Mortgage rates tripled.
Abroad the nihilism is even more inexplicable and terrifying. All nations suffer military setbacks. But none in memory have shamefully hightailed out of a theater as we did from Afghanistan. Few countries could even imagine discarding billions of dollars of weapons and hardware into the hands of the terrorist Taliban, or abandoning a $1 billion new embassy, and a huge, remodeled air base.
Why did the administration simply allow a huge Chinese spy balloon to float and photograph leisurely over the continental U.S.? Naive countries might endure two or three attacks on their overseas bases without serious retaliation. But how could the U.S. military permit 135 rocket barrages by Iranian-supplied terrorists on American soldiers without a major and sustained response?
Is the point to humiliate our own troops? To destroy what is left of U.S. deterrence?
Popular culture is especially captive to leftist nihilism. It is not enough to object to a statue or artwork. Instead, without deliberation or public input, they must be defaced or destroyed, all the better stealthily and by night.
After the massacres of Oct. 7—but well before Israel had even responded to the barbaric invasion—thousands of students swarmed their elite universities cheering on the violence. And what so exhilarated them? The nihilist, ghoulish beheading, torture, mutilation, mass rape, dismemberment, and necrophilia of unarmed, civilian Israeli elderly, women, children, and infants.
In sum, we are witnessing an epidemic of leftist nihilism similar to the 16th-century European mad wave of iconoclastic destruction of religious art.
Or is the better parallel the suicidal insanity that Mao Zedong unleashed during his cultural revolution of the 1960s?
The old politics of Right versus Left, and Republican opposed to Democrat have now given way to a new existential struggle: Americans must choose between civilization—or its destroyers.
The Atlantic’s Tim Alberta wrote a book to argue that Trump-supporting Christians are apostates and enemies of democracy, Tim Graham says. (Photo: Jose A. Bernat Bacete/Getty Images)
In a previous epoch, Tim Alberta was a reporter for National Review, one of too many NR cubs who later joined the liberal-media zoo. Alberta is now at The Atlantic, one of America’s most intense producers of frothing leftist drivel.
It seems like every leftist network has welcomed Alberta to trash conservative Christians through his latest book, “The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism.” It’s touted as Alberta’s “deeply personal examination of the divisions that threaten to destroy the American evangelical movement. Evangelical Christians are perhaps the most polarizing—and least understood— people living in America today.”
Wait. No one in these interviews asks about the polarizing cultural extreme on the libertine Left. That extreme is the leftist media’s address, at the corner of GLAAD Street and Planned Parenthood Avenue.
Interviewers loved Alberta’s funeral story. On the “PBS NewsHour,” anchor Geoff Bennett began: “I asked Tim about a searing moment he describes, when, at his own father’s funeral, a church elder admonished him for not fully embracing Donald Trump as God’s chosen leader.”
Is this an exact quote? Alberta answered: “Once I was able to process it, because it was a surreal moment, having just buried my father—you’re in this state of mourning and of shock, and not sure, is this even real? … If I could be treated this way, if I could be regarded as a member of the deep state, as an enemy of the church, as an apostate—if I could be treated that way, then how are we treating those outside the church?”
On NPR’s “Fresh Air,” host Terry Gross also loved the funeral tale: “Let me back up and say that Rush Limbaugh started quoting you and assailing you on his radio show. What was he saying about you?”
Alberta said, “Rush Limbaugh was on his show describing some of my unflattering characterizations of Donald Trump and of the evangelical movement. Trump himself was tweeting about my book. I was getting a lot of threats, a lot of nasty email, a lot of criticism from right-wing media.” So “people were asking me if I was really still a Christian, if I was on the right side of good versus evil … and all the while, of course, my dad is in a box 100 feet away.”
Gross then asked, “If they saw that in you, the son of their pastor, you, who many of them had known your entire life, that—what about people who they don’t know? How easy is it to dehumanize them and just make them into the enemy?”
Funerals shouldn’t be a setting for political combat, which is why they love this funhouse portrait of conservative Christians. But Alberta wrote this book to argue that Trump-supporting Christians are apostates and enemies of democracy. PBS and NPR and the rest “dehumanize” conservatives routinely.
Alberta was bitterly angry at his pastor father for voting for Trump in 2016. So, what kind of Christian is a Hillary Clinton backer? Why is his pro-abortion “division” of evangelicalism not “threatening to destroy” it?
Alberta and his media helpers can’t seem to find the cultural context of our times. The arrival of “same-sex marriage,” naturally followed by twerking drag queen performances for children, and graphically sexual books in school libraries, and “gender-affirming care” for minors aren’t reasons for Christians to feel something is slipping away?
Is nothing “extremist” about that? Do Alberta’s model Christians offer any remedy or resistance to these trends? No one asked.
Obama, Biden, and the Democrats could write the book on being a Fascist/Communist style dictator in America yet they, along with the corporate media, are trying to label Trump as a dictator?
Delusional Cheney Claims Trump Will Be A Dictator, Warns Trump’s Comments Must Be Taken ‘Literally And Seriously’
By Alicia Powe
As former Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo. promotes her soon-to-be-flopped new book, she continues to wail over former President Donald Trump’s lingering control over the Republican Party.
In an interview slated to air Sunday on ABC News‘ “This Week,” Cheney echoed the Deep State’s attempt to silence Trump and institute speech crimes, warning Americans cannot brush off Trump’s comments, but must take his words “literally and seriously.
“I think we have to take everything that Donald Trump says literally and seriously,” the former lawmaker said. “And I think that we saw, frankly, what he was willing to do already after the 2020 election in the lead up to Jan. 6, after Jan 6,” she continued. “People need to remember that when Donald Trump woke up on the morning of Jan. 6, he thought he was going to – READ MORE…
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
Top Stories • Supreme Court Will Hear Case to Ban Mail-Order Abortions, Save Babies From Dangerous Abortion Pills • OBGYN Says Abortion Pill Injures 20% of Women Who Take it, Some Women Have Died • Texas Supreme Court Rebukes Judge Who Authorized Abortion in Violation of State Law • Pro-Abortion Groups Exploit Kate Cox to Push Abortions Up to Birth
More Pro-Life News • Mom Fights in Court After State Denies Adoption Due To Her Christian Beliefs • Marco Rubio Introduces Bill Requiring Biological Fathers to Pay Pregnancy Expenses • Society Needs to Stop Victimizing and Killing Disabled People • Supreme Court Review of Abortion Pill Could Save Babies From Abortion, Protect Women • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2023 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved. For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.
The board of Harvard unanimously voted to retain the university’s president Claudine Gay despite her public refusal to say that calls for genocide of Jewish students would contradict Harvard’s code of conduct — and subsequent allegations of past plagiarism.
“Our extensive deliberations affirm our confidence that President Gay is the right leader to help our community heal and to address the very serious societal issues we are facing,” the Harvard Corporation announced in a statement on Tuesday.
Gay kept her position despite both credible allegations of plagiarism and an abysmal performance alongside other university presidents before the House Education and the Workforce Committee. On Capitol Hill last week, Gay along with the presidents of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Pennsylvania refused to testify that calls for Jewish genocide violate student codes of conduct — despite their schools’ histories of punishing students for conservative speech.
“We embrace a commitment to free expression even of views that are objectionable, offensive, hateful,” Gay said. “It’s when that speech crosses into conduct that violates our policies against bullying, harassment, intimidation.”
Gay’s peers offered lawmakers similar answers when it came to confronting students who called for the genocide of Jews at their respective schools. University of Pennsylvania President M. Elizabeth Magill resigned from her role on Saturday after donors responded to her disastrous testimony by pulling contributions. Ross Stevens, a hedge fund manager who graduated from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton Business School, threatened to withdraw a $100 million donation from his alma mater — and he was only one donor to threaten to pull funding.
Investor and Harvard alumnus Bill Ackman claimed that Gay’s poor performance had cost Harvard more than a billion dollars. But somehow Gay survived both poor reactions from donors and allegations of plagiarism, a chief sin in academia — and it was likely not a coincidence.
Gay is the first black woman to run the university that is one of the nation’s oldest and most prestigious institutions in higher education.
“She assumed leadership with high expectations, but her tenure, which began this summer, has been mired in scandal,” Chris Rufo reported Monday in City Journal. “As dean and then as president, Gay has been accused of bullying colleagues, suppressing free speech, overseeing a racist admissions program, and, following the Hamas terror campaign against Israel, failing to stand up to rampant anti-Semitism on campus.” She landed the top job at Harvard despite having only authored 11 peer-reviewed articles, four of which have now come under allegations of plagiarism.
Gay, however, is among one of the most protected classes according to the left’s hierarchy of victimhood. Firing not just a woman but a black woman would be blasphemous against the religion of identity politics.
“A white male would probably already be gone,” observed Carol Swain, a retired professor from Vanderbilt and Princeton whose work was apparently plagiarized by Gay.
Swain, who is black, told Fox News that “obviously” Harvard “did not have the courage to fire its first black president.”
The New York Post reported Monday night that Harvard University even threatened the paper months ago over the Post’s own probe into Gay’s allegations of plagiarism. Yet, as dean, Gay reportedly forced “dozens” of students to leave campus over violations of academic integrity codes.
So-called diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives such as the programs endorsed by Gay, however, have begun to replace merit-based standards in academia, government, and business, with physical characteristics becoming a factor in employment eligibility. The vice president and a Supreme Court justice were both explicitly chosen based on their sex and skin color.
In the Soviet Union, residents needed a party card to guarantee their employment and other benefits unavailable to the rest of the country. In America today, special perks are now afforded to those who meet the criteria of preferred classes, from race to sexual orientation.
DEI is welfare for idiots who are unemployable in the absence of identity politics. In the Soviet Union, the party card was a guarantee of employment and perks unavailable to the unwashed masses. In America in 2023, identity politics serves the same purpose. With the right skin…
Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist and the author of Social Justice Redux, a conservative newsletter on culture, health, and wellness. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com. Sign up for Tristan’s email newsletter here.
Should universities punish students who chant genocidal slogans aimed at Jews or sign petitions blaming women and children for their own murders? It’s a worthwhile debate about open discourse. But don’t let it obscure a more relevant fact: There is no free speech on campus. Not really. Not in any way that matters. And certainly not for those who would dissent against the quackery of identitarianism, intersectionality, and “anti-colonialism” — and a host of other pseudointellectual “-isms” that currently infect education.
If American campuses actually housed robust, open discourse, these “elite” schools wouldn’t be churning out so many moral imbeciles and credentialed ignoramuses who detest the country and civilization that makes “protest” possible. The near uniformity in outlook speaks to the fact that dumb ideas go unchallenged in these hermetically sealed institutions.
It also goes without saying that if Harvard students were signing statements blaming black Americans for the existence of white supremacy or calling for an international Intifada against gay populations, we would already be awash in an overwrought national conversation about the limits of free expression.
Everyone knows, of course, that no such thing would ever happen in the first place. Defending free expression when one side can monopolize debate is worse than an empty gesture.
But even nominally controversial right-of-center ideas barely have a place in these schools. Academic freedom is a myth. Elite schools don’t explicitly prohibit dissenting views. They have merely expelled, neutralized, grandfathered out, and replaced those ideas. Outside of STEM programs and perhaps a few other fields, academia is now dominated by extremists and quacks.
Years ago, I can recall Colorado University making a big show of searching for a professor of “conservative thought” — or some such thing — by which it meant they were looking for a person to teach a set of ideas that would, in any healthy university setting, already be embedded in an array of disciplines. Even when schools ostensibly try to do the right thing, conservatism is treated as a set of exotic notions — something akin to Zoroastrianism.
And it is quite humorous watching donors act like this all somehow snuck up on society. God and Man at Yale: The Superstitions of “Academic Freedom,” the bestselling book that made William Buckley famous, was published in 1951. The opening line of the 1987 bestselling Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students, by Harold Bloom, reads, “There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.”
Malleable truths lead academics to believe in malleable morals, science, and history, which then compels them to contextualize things like genocide. That’s where we’re at.
Now, we can’t bore into the souls of those suddenly and passionately interested in defending the values of free expression. But we do know most of them are nowhere to be found when the state is setting up Ministries of Truth or conservative speakers are being chased from campuses — or, rather, never invited to speak, much less teach.
Indeed, free speech is treated very much like plagiarism at places like Harvard. There are different sets of rules for different people. When a Cornell professor tells a crowd that the wanton murder of Jewish babies is an “exhilarating and energizing” event, he has an incontrovertible right to free speech without consequence. When the conservative Parkland survivor’s invitation to attend Harvard gets rescinded over slurs sent in private texts written when he was 16, not so much. This is a microcosm of the modern-day college experience.
Now, none of this would matter very much if credentialed extremists — armed with an impenetrable emotional certitude about the world but little else — weren’t populating our institutions of journalism, government, and academia. The biggest problem with our rotting universities is that they still matter.
It is debatable whether the hipster-Yasser Arafat cosplayers who bully and harass Jewish kids until they lock themselves in a library are engaging in any legitimate form of expression. Fortunately, no one in the real world has any responsibility to hire them. Freedom of association also matters.
Still, the answer to this kind of bigotry isn’t to give Jewish students special DEI coverage to protect them from ugly speech. Rather, and there is no panacea, universities should be ridding themselves of all DEI protections so everyone has the same opportunities to speak. Not only Jewish students but students who hold other heterodox views — say, a belief in God or a belief that skin color doesn’t define a person or a belief that the American founding was a windfall for humankind. They just need the same freedoms the pro-terrorist crowd already enjoys.
Or, to put in language a Harvard president might understand, let them all speak their “truth.”
A recently released Hamas hostage’s revelation of sexual violence against her fellow captives appears to refute anti-Israel progressives who tend to downplay or dismiss terrorists’ atrocities. Chen Goldstein-Almog, 48, was held hostage by Hamas with three of her children for 51 days following the Palestinian terrorist group’s Oct. 7 attack on Israelis. Her husband and eldest daughter were murdered by Palestinian terrorists during the attack.
Chen Goldstein-Almog, 48, was held hostage with three of her children by Hamas for 51 days following the Palestinian terrorist group’s Oct. 7 attack on innocent Israelis. (Israel Defense Forces via AP)
Goldstein-Almog and her children were released by the terror group, and the wife and mother gave an interview with the Israeli press on Dec. 11 about her time as a hostage. During her interview, Goldstein-Almog revealed she heard firsthand accounts of sexual violence from other female hostages by their Hamas captors.
“I heard the testimony directly from girls and heard things second hand,” Goldstein-Almog said. “Some of the sexual violence happened well into our time in Gaza, not in the first week.”
“But the way their bodies were desecrated, they don’t know how they will deal with that. It happened weeks into their time in Gaza,” she said.
“If they were released earlier, they would’ve been saved from experiencing sexual violence,” Goldstein-Almog added.
Goldstein-Almog said they “heard three stories firsthand of women saying they were sexually abused and we heard an additional story.” She added that “presumably, there are more instances” of sexual violence by Hamas.
Briahna Joy Gray, a former spokesperson for Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, tweeted, “‘Believe all women’ was always an absurd overreach: woman should be heard, claims should be investigated, but evidence is required.” (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)
The former hostage also said she “was threatened once when they thought I was wandering around and looking free” in the first apartment they were taken to and that “there was a threat that” she would “be handcuffed, but it didn’t happen.”
“I said I have kids and nothing happened to me,” Goldstein-Almog said. “It was the only time I felt under threat [of sexual violence].”
A spokesperson for the Biden administration State Department noted earlier this month that one of the reasons Hamas does not want to release women hostages is because “they don’t want those women to be able to talk about what happened to them.”
Many American progressives have been largely silent on Hamas’ sexual violence against Israelis, while some have downplayed or dismissed the reports of sexual assault.
Briahna Joy Gray, a former national press secretary for Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, tweeted earlier this month, “‘Believe all women’ was always an absurd overreach: woman should be heard, claims should be investigated, but evidence is required.”
“The same is true of the allegations out of Israel,” Gray wrote in a Dec. 4 tweet. “But also, this isn’t a ‘believe women’ scenario bc no female victims have offered testimony.”
“Believe all women” was always an absurd overreach: woman should be heard, claims should be investigated, but evidence is required. The same is true of the allegations out of Israel.
But also, this isn’t a “believe women” scenario bc no female victims have offered testimony. https://t.co/a3Ku6gzY8L
“Zionists are asking that we believe the uncorroborated eyewitness account of *men* who describe alleged rape victims in odd, fetishistic terms,” Gray continued in a subsequent tweet.
“Shame on Israel for not seriously investigating claims of rape and collecting rape kits,” she added.
Zionists are asking that we believe the uncorroborated eyewitness account of *men* who describe alleged rape victims in odd, fetishistic terms.
Shame on Israel for not seriously investigating claims of rape and collecting rape kits. pic.twitter.com/zbHfduQnev
Progressive Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., was torched after she clashed with CNN’s Dana Bash over the lack of widespread condemnation of Hamas’ use of sexual violence against Israeli women during the Oct. 7 attacks. The Washington state Democrat suggested that wasn’t true and claimed she had already condemned Hamas’ treatment of women, before quickly turning the conversation back to Israel.
“But I think we have to remember Israel is a democracy. That is why they’re a strong ally of ours. And if they do not comply with international humanitarian law, they are bringing themselves to a place that makes it much more difficult strategically for them to be able to build allies, to keep public opinion with them, and frankly, morally, we cannot say that one war crime deserves another. That is not what international humanitarian law says,” Jayapal said.
“With respect, I was just asking about the women, and you turned it back to Israel. I’m asking you about Hamas,” Bash said.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal was torched after she clashed with CNN’s Dana Bash over the lack of widespread condemnation of Hamas’ use of sexual violence against Israeli women during the Oct. 7 attacks. (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
The lawmaker said she had already answered the question and added, “We have to be balanced about bringing in the outrages against Palestinians. Fifteen thousand Palestinians have been killed in Israeli airstrikes, three-quarters of whom are women and children.”
“And it’s horrible,” Bash said. “But you don’t see Israeli soldiers raping Palestinian women.”
“I don’t want this to be the hierarchies of oppressions,” Jayapal said.
Jayapal has since issued a statement“unequivocally” condemning “Hamas’ use of rape and sexual violence as an act of war.”
“This is horrific and across the world, we must stand with our sisters, families, and survivors of rape and sexual assault everywhere to condemn this violence and hold perpetrators accountable,” Jayapal said.
Neither Jayapal nor Gray immediately responded to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.
Fox News Digital’s Hanna Panreck contributed reporting.
Houston Keene is a politics writer for Fox News Digital. Story tips can be sent to Houston.Keene@Fox.com and on Twitter: @HoustonKeene
Hunter Biden is facing intense backlash after holding a Capitol Hill press conference on Wednesday in which he refused to sit for a deposition before Congress, and declared his father, President Biden, was never “financially involved” in his business dealings. Calls to hold Hunter in contempt of Congress began almost immediately following the end of the press conference, while other critics pointed to the claims concerning his father’s relationship to his business dealings as “goalpost shifting.”
“They belittled my recovery, and they have tried to dehumanize me, all to embarrass my father, who has devoted his entire life to public service,” Hunter said. “For six years I have been a target of the unrelenting Trump attack team. ‘Where’s Hunter?’ Well, here’s my answer. I am here.”
He added that “my father was not financially involved in my business,” saying the elder Biden was not involved in his dealings with Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings, or his Chinese investments and others in the United States.
A recent column from New York Times columnist Frank Bruni claimed that the media and Biden allies ignoring the Hunter Biden scandal and other Biden administration corruption are being “dishonest” and “dangerous.” (ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images)
“We have moved from Joe Biden saying he never discussed business with Hunter to a new argument of Joe Biden wasn’t financially involved at all with Hunter’s business & most media haven’t covered the changing stories. Hold Hunter in contempt & impeach Joe,” OutKick founder and Fox News contributor Clay Travis wrote on X.
We have moved from Joe Biden saying he never discussed business with Hunter to a new argument of Joe Biden wasn’t financially involved at all with Hunter’s business & most media haven’t covered the changing stories. Hold Hunter in contempt & impeach Joe: pic.twitter.com/Mpnmohweld
Hunter Biden refuses to comply with @JamesComer's subpoena to be deposed behind closed doors and demands a public hearing so he can tell sob stories on TV.
Reminder that Don Jr. testified behind closed doors for over 40 hours about the Russia hoax.
“Hunter Biden refuses to comply with [Rep. James Comer’s, R-Ky.] subpoena to be deposed behind closed doors and demands a public hearing so he can tell sob stories on TV. Reminder that Don Jr. testified behind closed doors for over 40 hours about the Russia hoax. Hold him in contempt!” conservative commentator Greg Price wrote.
Republicans on the House Oversight Committee quickly reacted on social media, pushing back against Hunter’s “stunt.” Reps. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., and Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., both echoed those calls to hold Hunter in contempt, accusing him of mocking Congress with a “stunt” and calling his refusal an “obstruction of justice.”
“Hunter Biden, this ain’t Burger King. You can’t Have It Your Way when it comes to congressional subpoenas. Quit the stunts, make your way to the deposition room, and let’s talk,” Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., wrote.
Donalds also responded to Hunter’s claim he was being targeted by “MAGA Republicans,” declaring, “‘MAGA Republicans’ did not impugn Hunter Biden’s character. Hunter Biden did that to himself.”
“What’s Hunter Biden so afraid of?” wrote Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C.
“This is one HELL of a new qualifier from Hunter Biden. Hunter now says, “My father was not financially involved in my business” FLASHBACK: Joe Biden used to say he has never talked about business with his family. This is a major shift from the Bidens,” GOP communications strategist Steve Guest wrote.
So we've gone from Joe Biden claiming he never even discussed business with Hunter to Hunter claiming Joe was never *financially* involved in his business.
Big goalpost shifting and lots of lies from the Bidens.
Abigail Jackson, the communications director for Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., echoed Guest, noting that “we’ve gone from Joe Biden claiming he never even discussed business with Hunter to Hunter claiming Joe was never *financially* involved in his business. Big goalpost shifting and lots of lies from the Bidens.”
Hunter Biden, the son of President Biden, is seen after making a statement during a news conference outside the U.S. Capitol about testifying publicly to the House Oversight and Accountability Committee on Wednesday. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
“First, Joe Biden had no knowledge, then he had no involvement, and now he has no ‘financial’ involvement. Time to explain ‘10 held by H for the big guy,’ the reported bank records showing a money trail to Joe Biden, and Hunter’s messages saying Joe Biden financially benefited,” Republican National Committee strategic communications director Tommy Pigott wrote.
Fox News’ Brooke Singman contributed to this report.
Brandon Gillespie is an associate editor at Fox News. Follow him on X at @BGillespieAL
The Law of Unintended Consequences is a public policy constant. Few lawmakers, politicians or academics are wise enough to look beyond their own biases or the next election to grasp the potential follow-on effects of their actions. But in President Biden’s complete surrender of control on our southern border to Mexican drug and human trafficking cartels, we can see political consequences unfolding in real time.
On Dec. 7, Fox News’s Bill Melugin reported that the day before saw a record 12,000 migrant encounters on the southern border with more than 10,200 Border Patrol apprehensions of illegal immigrants.
The recent trends observed in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley, historically a Democratic stronghold, indicate a significant shift toward the Republican Party.
Fox’s Griff Jenkins added that Customs and Border Patrol reported that they had more than 535,000 since Oct. 1 with “more than 65,000 Known Gotaways – that’s nearly 1000/day – no idea who they are, where they’re from or why they’re here.”
Separately, John Rogers, a pollster with Cygnal, authored an opinion piece for the Dallas Morning News on Dec. 7 that contained findings from a poll of Hispanic voters. The key takeaway from the poll was a continued shift Hispanic voters to the Republican Party in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley.
What caused that shift? According to Rogers, it was “…the Democratic Party’s embrace of progressive stances on immigration, the economy, crime and foreign policy.”
The implications for Texas are striking. The Rio Grande Valley contributes a bit more than 3% of the vote in Texas, with about 90% of region’s 1.4 million people being Hispanic – specifically, Tejanos.
Contrary to Democrats’ desire to see Hispanics as a monolithic voting bloc, Tejanos have their own priorities, with 67% holding a favorable view of the U.S. Border Patrol and 61% wanting an “enforcement-based approach” to immigration laws – compared to only 28% who prefer an “amnesty-centered approach.”
But immigration takes second place to the economy, and views on Biden’s economy fare better, with 43% trusting the Democratic Party’s policy prescriptions over 40% for the Republican Party. So, if Bidenflation doesn’t rear its ugly head in the form of higher gas and food prices over the next 11 months, Biden may have a chance with this contingent.
As Rogers notes, “The Democratic Party is increasingly urban and progressive, with an activist base focused on electorally niche issues like gender identity and an economic message that income inequality has killed the American dream.”
But, Rogers concludes, “69% of Hispanic voters in the Valley believe the American dream remains achievable,” leaving South Texas Hispanics “…open to the GOP.”
The shifting political landscape in the Rio Grande Valley, particularly among Hispanic voters, presents a complex picture that reflects broader national trends in immigration policy and political affiliation.
The recent trends observed in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley, historically a Democratic stronghold, indicate a significant shift toward the Republican Party, particularly in the context of the 2024 presidential election.
The larger political question is what might happen in other Hispanic communities across America as the Democrats’ White and woke intellectual elite continues its long march to the left.
Chuck DeVore is a vice president with the Texas Public Policy Foundation, was elected to the California legislature, is a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, and the author of the new book, “Crisis of the House Never United.”
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether a man involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol assault can be charged with obstructing an official proceeding, a case with potential implications for the prosecution of Donald Trump.
The man is one of at least 325 people facing that charge for their alleged roles in the attack, which has also been brought against the Republican former president in the federal case charging him with trying to overturn his 2020 election defeat by Democrat President Joe Biden.
The justices said nothing about the Trump prosecution in agreeing to take up the case, but legal experts said Trump’s lawyers could argue that the court’s move should delay the start of his Washington trial on election subversion charges, currently due to begin in March.
Trump, the front-runner for the 2024 Republican nomination to challenge Biden, is facing four concurrent criminal prosecutions. But the Washington case brought by U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith is scheduled to begin first and is seen as the likeliest to be resolved before the Nov. 5 election.
The case taken up Wednesday by the justices involves defendant Joseph Fischer, who was indicted on seven charges following the Jan. 6 riot. Among his charges is one count under a provision of federal criminal law for anyone who “corruptly … obstructs, influences and impedes any official proceeding.”
The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in the case in the coming months and issue a ruling by the end of June.
It was not immediately clear how the Supreme Court’s action on Wednesday might affect Trump’s case. His lawyer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Typically, the Supreme Court agreeing to review an issue in one case would not be a basis for pausing a separate case that raises the same issue, said Barbara McQuade, a law professor at the University of Michigan and former top federal prosecutor appointed by then-President Barack Obama. Still, McQuade said she expects Trump’s legal team to make the argument because delay “has been his strategy throughout all of these cases.”
LIMITED FOCUS FOR CHARGE?
U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, granted Fischer’s pretrial motion to dismiss his obstruction charges, ruling that the statute applied only in cases in which a defendant had taken “some action with respect to a document, record or other object.”
Federal prosecutors appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. A divided three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit in April reversed Nichols’ ruling, saying the statute was not limited to documents and records, but instead “applies to all forms of corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding.”
The charge carries a maximum sentence of up to 20 years in prison with a conviction.
Fischer is awaiting trial on his other criminal charges, including one count of assaulting, resisting or impeding officers and one count of civil disorder, among other charges.
After the election, Trump and his allies made claims that it had been stolen from him through widespread voting fraud. On Jan. 6, 2021, when Congress met to certify Biden’s victory, protesters stormed the Capitol, broke through barricades, attacked police officers, and vandalized the building, prompting lawmakers and others to flee for safety.
In federal charges brought by Special Counsel Smith, Trump faces four counts related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results: conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; conspiracy to defraud the United States; and conspiracy to deprive citizens of their voting rights.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to his election-related charges, as well as charges stemming from three other ongoing state or federal criminal prosecutions.
Conservative women pushed back vehemently on Wednesday against the idea that Republicans must embrace pro-contraception messaging to win back the White House in 2024. Pictured: Kellyanne Conway, then-senior advisor to President Donald Trump, addresses the media in the press briefing room at the White House on Jan. 10, 2020. (Photo: Jahi Chikwendiu, The Washington Post/Getty Images)
Conservative women are pushing back vehemently against the idea that Republicans must embrace pro-contraception messaging to win back the White House in 2024.
POLITICO reported Wednesday morning that “Kellyanne Conway is going to Capitol Hill on Wednesday with a message for Republicans: Promote contraception or risk defeat in 2024.” Conway reportedly believes the Republican Party can persuade voters that they are not anti-woman by pushing pro-contraceptive messaging.
“This is a mistaken strategy,” warned Alexandra DeSanctis Marr, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. “Statistics actually suggest that increased access to birth control increases the abortion rate because it leads to more unplanned pregnancies.”
“[Kowtowing] to the Left by promoting abortifacients isn’t a winning GOP strategy,” tweeted Lauren Baldwin, government relations coordinator at the Conservative Policy Institute. “American women deserve better than this.”
This is a mistaken strategy. Statistics actually suggest that increased access to birth control *increases* the abortion rate because it leads to more unplanned pregnancies. See the excellent work of @Michael_J_New for more on this. https://t.co/A0VPNYWXzN
Pro-life groups have previously argued that to counteract the Left’s messaging on abortion—namely, that Republicans are extremist and are pushing pro-life policy because they want to control women—the GOP should focus on the joy of adoption, the lifesaving work of pro-life pregnancy centers, and the unique strengths of women and mothers.
Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, for example, pushes Republicans not to “ostrich” it by ducking their heads into the sand when they are asked about abortion but instead to highlight their Democratic opponent’s extremism (given that Democrat politicians will often not name a single restriction on abortion that they will support).
Some, like “EWTN Pro-Life Weekly” host Prudence Robertson, fear that Conway’s strategy will only cause more harm to women and further embattle the GOP. Robertson called the idea a “damaging strategy” in a Wednesday tweet.
“Women will be caught in the crossfire for the sake of political wins,” she predicted. “Studies show skyrocketing rates of depression for women on birth control (73%). Not to mention this flies in the face of her [Conway’s] Catholic faith.”
Emma Waters, a research associate in The Heritage Foundation’s DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family, pointed to Griswold v. Connecticut, the landmark Supreme Court case that struck down state laws outlawing birth control, even for married couples, pointing out that this case was decided only eight years before Roe v. Wade “wrongly allowed abortion.”
“Casual sex = unplanned pregnancies = more abortion,” she said, above a screenshot of the POLITICO story. “This is NOT the pro-life answer.”
It's funny that the same Republicans who support more contraception as a winning issue, also support more access to IVF, a treatment that routinely tests, freezes, and destroys unwanted embryos. @KellyannePolls Does life begin at conception, or not?
National Review writer Madeleine Kearns warned that “a culture that treats unborn children as disposable begins by treating sexual partners as disposable.”
“You can’t curb the former by encouraging the latter,” she added.
EWTN News contributor Catherine Hadro slammed the strategy in a tweet citing the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute’s numbers on contraception.
“You want to focus in on it?” she asked. “OK. Here’s @Guttmacher’s own numbers, which reveal half of U.S. abortion patients used contraception the month they became pregnant. This is not a pro-life strategy.”
You want to focus in on it? Okay.
Here’s @Guttmacher’s own numbers which reveal half of U.S. abortion patients used contraception the month they became pregnant.
Multiple female conservative professionals also pointed out that public sentiment on birth control is rapidly evolving given the high number of side effects that the drugs have on women’s bodies.
“This makes the GOP look even more out of touch,” tweeted National Review’s Caroline Downey, highlight that there is “a growing Gen-Z [Generation Z] movement” to get off the pill.
“The list of potential risks for the pill is longer than a CVS receipt,” Downey added. “Blood clots, stroke, depression, low libido & more. And, birth control is big business, like abortion.”
NCAA athlete Macy Petty, who advocates for fairness in women’s sports, argued that women deserve better than birth control, saying: “Girls are told the answer to acne, painful periods, unplanned pregnancy is attacking our bodies with birth control chemicals that lead to infertility, mental illness, and more. I could list horror stories, including my own.”
Patricia Patnode, research fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, tweeted a clip of a comedian joking with women about how drastically their lives changed after they got off birth control, building off viral accounts of women breaking up with their boyfriends once they got off the pill.
“Conservatives should feel safe to attack the health impacts & coercive nature of birth control & the emergency contraceptive market like we do with abortion,” she said. “It’s bad. The culture is broadly on the side of science here.”
Conservatives should feel safe to attack the health impacts & coercive nature of birth control & the emergency contraceptive market like we do with abortion. It’s bad.
The culture is broadly on the side of science here. This clip is a good example⤵️ pic.twitter.com/GfHEXm40bA
Carmel Richardson, an editor at The American Conservative, remarked that she finds it “wild” to see “older ‘conservative’ women still pushing birth control.”
“So many young women of my generation, regardless of their politics, have rejected the pill in favor of holistic health and natural cycles,” she said. “Hormonal drugs are not the way.”
And Sarah Wilder, a reporter for The Daily Caller, accused Conway of ignoring the dangers of birth control for political gain.
“Ironic that Republicans seeking to appear more pro-woman would do so by pushing a synthetic hormone that causes gut issues, heart attacks, depression, infertility, and a myriad of other side effects,” Wilder said. “Stop lying to women for political gain, Kellyanne.”
Ironic that Republicans seeking to appear more pro-woman would do so by pushing a synthetic hormone that causes gut issues, heart attacks, depression, infertility, and a myriad of other side-effects.
Vivek Ramaswamy was on fire Trump style, at the last debate, eviscerating Nikki Haley on corruption and ties to the Military-industrial complex.
“The Only Person More Fascist than the Biden Regime Now, Is Nikki Haley” – Vivek Levels Nikki Haley in Frothy GOP Debate (VIDEO)
By Jim Hoft
The third or fourth GOP presidential primary debate for second place was held Wednesday night on News Nation. The Republican leader Donald Trump is now leading by 48 points – 7 points higher than when the debates started. Donald Trump has wisely passed on the Republican sideshow. SEE and READ MORE…
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
Top Stories • Radical Pro-Abortion Groups Got $2 Billion of Our Tax Dollars, Getting More Under Biden • Kate Cox Should Give Her Disabled Baby a Chance at Life Instead of Having Abortion • Texas Supreme Court Explains Why It Protected a Disabled Baby From an Abortion • Doctor Who Specializes in Treating Children With Trisomy 18 Says 90% of His Patients Survive
More Pro-Life News • Big Abortion Gets $592 Million in Taxpayer Funding Every Year, It’s Time to Defund Planned Parenthood • Pro-Life Advocate Will Run Ads on NBC Exposing Horror of How Abortions Kill Babies • Children Have Worth Even if They are Disabled • Congress Should Vote Against Defense Bill That Makes Americans Fund Abortion Travel • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2023 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved. For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.
Several elite American universities have recently been involved in increasingly dramatic debates over the meaning and value of free speech and intellectual diversity. Two weeks ago, the University of Virginia, my current home institution, was the site of an event sponsored by the state’s Department of Education called the “Higher Education Summit on Free Speech and Intellectual Diversity.” The summit generated pledges by the presidents of every state university in Virginia (and some private universities) to create “action plans” to advance the goals of free speech and intellectual diversity.
Last week, the presidents of Penn, Harvard, and MIT provided plenty of evidence on how they view these goals. They explained to Congress how their understanding of free speech and intellectual diversity did not allow them to protect their Jewish students from a range of actions taken in recent days by students and faculty on their campuses. The university presidents repeatedly hid behind the right to free speech, saying that the Constitution would not allow them to do more to suppress antisemitic advocacy on campus. Outraged by Penn President Liz Magill’s failure to more clearly and forcefully condemn antisemitism on its campus, several mega-donors to Penn announced they would not be giving any more money unless Magill was fired, and after one such donor effectively withdrew $100 million that had already been donated, Magill resigned this past weekend.
At the congressional hearing, Republican members of Congress such as Harvard alumna Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York asked the university administrators why it was unconstitutional for them to protect threatened Jewish students against antisemitic actions — including not just advocacy of intifada and Jewish genocide but targeted threats of violence, and in many cases the crimes of menacing and assault — but perfectly legal for them to have suppressed university professors’ views critical of affirmative action or transgenderism.
This question has an answer, but it is one that the testifying university presidents did not and perhaps could not provide. The answer is this: Free speech and intellectual diversity are inconsistent with the dominant ideology within the vast majority of contemporary American universities. This dominant ideology consists of a set of paired beliefs about the world and what should be done to change it. These beliefs, which I will call the progressive university party line, entail the even more significant and overarching belief that any disagreement with and dissent from core beliefs is a form of violence that must be suppressed.
Core Beliefs of Leftist Universities
The core beliefs of the progressive university party line include at least the following:
1. A system of oppression called systemic racism still permeates the United States. To redress such oppression, some number of people should be hired as faculty and staff and admitted as students because they belong to what are considered oppressed groups. And some such people should be given their positions even if they would be unqualified were they not members of the oppressed group.
2. Beyond its borders, the United States — like other developed countries, such as Israel — has waged a war of imperialist, colonial oppression against so-called people of color, a war in which a primary weapon has been the intellectual framework of the enlightenment, a framework whose purported objective search for truth is simply a façade used to devalue the alternative intellectual perspectives of oppressed people.
3. Without immediate and massive government intervention to stop fossil fuel producers from continuing their carbon emissions and to subsidize the development of wind and solar power, the Earth will suffer catastrophically harmful climate change.
4. The violent crime problem in America is due mostly to widespread legal gun ownership, so violent crime can be at least substantially reduced by severely restricting Americans from possessing firearms.
5. Any government restriction prohibiting a woman from aborting her child at any point after conception is an immoral, patriarchal infringement of her individual rights and liberty. Similarly, an individual’s freedom to use recreational drugs should not be restricted by the government.
6. The prevention of disease and illness justifies virtually any infringement of individual liberty ordered by the state or university.
It would be hard to argue that any of the beliefs listed are not part of the contemporary radical leftist university ideology. Huge and growing university bureaucracies — such as offices of so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and sustainability — exist to pursue these policy goals and to ensure that only those people who support these beliefs are hired as faculty and staff.
Danger of Dissent
Paramount among the core beliefs is one that follows directly from those listed: that dissent from any of the core beliefs represents a form of violent oppression that cannot be tolerated within the university.
This danger of dissent is a logical and ineluctable consequence of the listed core beliefs. The danger of dissent holds that to critique any of the core beliefs and espouse a contrary, dissenting view is to inflict harm upon members of the university community. This cannot be overemphasized: Dissent from any of the core beliefs is violence.
To see why this is true, consider just two of the core beliefs. If one opposes government regulations and orders restricting individual liberty to prevent the spread of illness or disease, then obviously one supports the spread of illness and disease. If one opposes gun control measures, then since guns cause violent crime, opposition to gun control causes harm. And so on with all of the core beliefs.
If one holds to the danger of dissent, one cannot justify steps to allow true intellectual diversity and freedom of expression. To hire faculty or admit students who challenge any of the core beliefs is to include in the community people who are prepared to cause harm. And to let them express their dissenting views is to let them harm the community.
This explains why universities are so intolerant of dissent. From their point of view, Ohio Northern University law professor and legal historian Scott Gerber had to be physically removed by police from his classroom because he had publicly questioned that university’s DEI mandate. And Penn Law professor Amy Wax, who has for years publicly and repeatedly questioned whether affirmative action in law school admissions has actually helped the students it is supposed to be helping, must be banned from teaching first years and charged with “major infractions” of university standards — charges which if confirmed by a faculty senate hearing board would trigger “major sanctions” and may include Wax’s termination as a tenured professor of law.
Stopping Oppressors
However, removing dissenting voices from universities does not explain why voices of antisemitic hate, intolerance, and even imminently threatened violence must be tolerated and encouraged. To understand this, we need only to reflect on the core beliefs. Each of these posits that an oppressor group — white males, fossil fuel companies, religious opponents of abortion, gun manufacturers, colonial states such as Israel — is at this moment actively harming people in the oppressed group.
The oppressors are causing harm, and they must be stopped. There is no need to be worried about identifying precisely which oppressors are causing harm, for in the leftist view, responsibility and guilt are collective, not individual. There is also no halfway between opposing and supporting group oppression — one is either all in, working to expel and punish oppressors, or all out, effectively supporting oppression.
Given that it has defined itself around a set of core beliefs positing oppressor and oppressed classes, the contemporary leftist American university defines itself as a leader in a political and cultural war to stop ongoing harm and avenge wrongs suffered by oppressed groups. These universities are commanders in wars against racism, climate change, colonial oppression, and patriarchy. With this understanding, antisemitism is an attack on oppressors, and that is what the progressive university is all about.
Encouraging Analysis and Skepticism
These universities are not wrong in their belief that there is much that is evil and unjust in the world. But the goal of the university should not be to support highly politicized notions of precisely which problems are the most pressing and which policies should be adopted to address them. Instead, the university’s role is to guide students in acquiring the knowledge and analytical tools necessary to form their own beliefs about the world’s problems and potential solutions. Students should be encouraged to be skeptical of all accepted wisdom and to have the confidence and skills to independently advance the frontiers of knowledge.
The American university system is still the best in the world, and across our country, there remain many faculty and staff committed to the goals of guiding students in their acquisition of skills and knowledge. By jettisoning their political agenda, American universities will not only be able to see and respond to the present resurgence of antisemitism on campus, but they will also be able to realize their enormous potential for actually educating students for the future.
Jason Scott Johnston is a law professor at the University of Virginia.
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Opinion
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
You Version
Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more
Political
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Spiritual
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Bible Gateway
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
By 
By 
.jpg)
By 
Criminal defense attorney and legal analyst Philip Holloway told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the law “must be applied equally or it has no meaning.”
By 
By 
By 
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.