Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for March, 2024

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report


Friday, March 29, 2024

Top Stories
Cardinal Says Joe Biden is a “Nominal” Catholic, Should be Excommunicated for Supporting Abortion
Tucker Carlson: Joe Biden Putting Christians in Prison for Praying Tells You Who He’s Working For
Woman Says Abortion Pill Almost Killed Her: “I Was Covered in a Pool of Blood Wondering if I Was Going to Survive”
Dick Durbin Lied About Abortion to Defend Abortions Up to Birth

More Pro-Life News
Abortion Pill Almost Kills Woman After Pro-Life Law Protecting Women is Defeated
Baby River Was Born at 24 Weeks and Doctors Didn’t Expect Her to Survive, Now She’s Going Home
Supreme Court Hearing Largely Ignored How Abortion Hurts Women
Woman Nearly Dies After Taking Abortion Pill Without a Doctor’s Visit
Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

Cardinal Says Joe Biden is a “Nominal” Catholic, Should be Excommunicated for Supporting Abortion

Tucker Carlson: Joe Biden Putting Christians in Prison for Praying Tells You Who He’s Working For

Woman Says Abortion Pill Almost Killed Her: “I Was Covered in a Pool of Blood Wondering if I Was Going to Survive”

Dick Durbin Lied About Abortion to Defend Abortions Up to Birth


 

Abortion Pill Almost Kills Woman After Pro-Life Law Protecting Women is Defeated

 

Baby River Was Born at 24 Weeks and Doctors Didn’t Expect Her to Survive, Now She’s Going Home

Supreme Court Hearing Largely Ignored How Abortion Hurts Women

Woman Nearly Dies After Taking Abortion Pill Without a Doctor’s Visit

MORE PRO-LIFE NEWS FROM TODAY

Walgreens and CVS are Now Abortion Businesses

Pray for Women Who Regret Their Abortions and Need Hope in Christ

Mississippi City Installs State’s 4th Safe Haven Baby Box to Save Babies From Infanticide

90% of Babies in the UK Diagnosed With Down Syndrome Were Killed in Abortions

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.

Sarah Regretted Taking the Abortion Pill and Quickly Saved Her Baby From the Abortion

Pro-Life Advocates Will Hold Good Friday Prayer Vigils at 70+ Abortion Centers to Save Babies

Mom Changes Her Mind in the Middle of Abortion and Saves Little Baby Michael

OBGYN: I Know Abortion Hurts Women Because I’ve Treated Women Injured by Abortions

Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.

SUMMING UP POLITICALLY INCORRECT CARTOONS FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 29, 2024


Federal judge orders release of Jan. 6 defendant while condemning DOJ for ‘fact-free approach’


By: CHRIS ENLOE | MARCH 28, 2024

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/federal-judge-orders-release-of-jan-6-defendant-while-condemning-doj-for-fact-free-approach-2667628743.html/

A judge has ordered that Jan. 6 defendant Kevin Seefried be released from prison pending the appeal of his conviction. Last year, Seefried was sentenced to serve three years in federal prison for his role in Jan. 6 after being found guilty on five criminal charges, one felony and four misdemeanors.

Then, last December, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Fischer v. United States, a case concerning the proper application of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), a felony statute that federal prosecutors are using against Jan. 6 for “obstruction of an official proceeding.” If the Supreme Court rules the statute cannot be applied to Jan. 6 defendants, then Seefried and hundreds of others would have their felony convictions vacated, resulting in substantially lighter sentences. In light of the Supreme Court agreeing to hear the case, Seefried asked a judge to release him from prison pending appeal.

On Jan. 8, U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves asked a judge not to release Seefried. Graves argued:

Seefried cannot establish by clear and convincing evidence that he does not pose a danger to the community/is not a flight risk; nor can he show that … it is likely that the outcome in Fischer will result in a reduced sentence to a term of imprisonment less than the total of the time already served plus the expected duration of the appeal process.

But U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden strongly disagrees with the government.

“The riot on January 6th was the culmination of a unique — indeed, never-before-seen — confluence of events. The Government provides the Court no evidence suggesting that any of the events that led to that riot are reasonably likely to recur. Nor does it point to any evidence that Seefried would participate in another riot if they did,” the judge wrote in his order on Tuesday.

“Instead, the Government invokes general atmospherics about a ‘fiercely contested presidential election’ and a ‘political maelstrom.’ It then leaves the Court to speculate that this ‘maelstrom’ will ultimately result in Seefried reoffending,” he explained.

McFadden described the government’s argument a “fact-free approach.”

“Ultimately, none of the Government’s arguments involve any facts specific to Seefried. Instead, they are purely class-based,” he condemned. “People who have already gone to prison, as a class, cannot be released. January 6th defendants, as a class, cannot be released during an election year.”

“In the end, if specific facts about Seefried lead the Government to believe that he is imminently likely to engage in criminal conduct, options remain open to the Government. But without those facts, the Court cannot deprive a citizen of his liberty based on guesswork alone,” McFadden explained. “Because the Government has presented no reason to believe that its previous concession about Seefried’s flight risk is no longer valid, the Court reaffirms its previous finding.”

“By clear and convincing evidence, Seefried is not likely to flee the jurisdiction or pose a harm to the community during his release,” McFadden declared.

McFadden ordered Seefried released from prison one year to the date of his surrender, which was May 31, 2023. That means he will be released in two months.

Easter Is the World’s Most Historically Verified Holiday


BY: SCOTT S. POWELL | MARCH 29, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/29/easter-is-the-worlds-most-historically-verified-holiday/

empty garden tomb entrance

Author Scott S. Powell profile

SCOTT S. POWELL

MORE ARTICLES

From the beginning of recorded history, people have turned to religion as a way to find refuge, solace, and meaning. Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, and most other religions point to their own prophets and teachers, but among those world religions, only Christianity has a founder who professed to be the Messiah — the Son of God. Easter is the historical account and conclusive evidence of that Messiah.

Easter weekend starts with Good Friday, the day of the crucifixion when God sacrificed His only Son, Jesus Christ, to fulfill His plan to provide salvation from sin for all who believe in Christ, the Savior. Easter Sunday is the celebration of Christ’s resurrection, the third day from His death by crucifixion, and the completion of God’s plan for the world to know who Jesus was.

Every other religious founder in history came into the world to live. The death of other religious leaders — such as Abraham, Moses, Buddha, and Mohammad — brought an anticlimactic end to their lives and their work. But Christ came into the world to die, and His sacrifice was the ultimate climax of His life, done for the benefit of all mankind — opening the way to eternal life and a full relationship with God.

Christ was also unique being the only figure in recorded history who was widely pre-announced starting 1,000 years before He was born, with more than 100 prophetic accounts from 18 different prophets from the Old Testament between the 10th and the fourth centuries B.C. — predicting the specifics of His coming birth, life, and death. Hundreds of years later, the details of Christ’s birth, life, betrayal, and death validated those prophecies in astonishingly accurate and minute detail. In fact, 1,000 years before Christ, David prophetically wrote about the crucifixion of Jesus at a time when crucifixion had not yet been invented as a means of execution.

Additionally, among the other world religions built on personalities, only Christianity claims its founder is still alive, having overcome death through resurrection. No Jew has believed that after Abraham died and was interred, his tomb ever became empty. After Buddha died, no disciple claimed he or she saw or spoke to him again. As for Mohammed, the founder of Islam, there is no trace of his appearing to his disciples or followers after he died. His occupied tomb is in Medina and is visited by tens of thousands of devout Muslim pilgrims every year.

The Living Proof

The resurrection was central to God’s providence because it provided “seeing is believing” evidence of God bringing Jesus the Savior back from being dead in a tomb to being alive — resurrected — for 40 days, so people would have irrefutable living proof of who He was.

The New Testament provides accounts from multiple sources who witnessed Jesus firsthand after the resurrection. Jesus made at least 10 separate appearances to His disciples between the resurrection and his ascension into Heaven, over a period of 40 days. Some of those appearances were to individual disciples, some were to several disciples, and one was to some 500 at one time.

Particularly noteworthy is that there were no accounts of witnesses who came forth and disputed these appearances or called it a “hoax.” Not a single one. Nor do we find any historical record of any witness accounts that were contradictory.

While there are skeptics of the biblical Jesus, there’s far more reliable historical evidence for His life, teachings, miracles, death, and resurrection than for other leading historical figures of ancient times, such as literary greats Virgil and Horace and military kings like Alexander the Great. The veracity of ancient history revolves around three things: the number of eyewitness accounts, the lapse of time between the eyewitness events and the written record, and the number of surviving manuscripts of that record.

No one doubts Virgil and Horace lived and originated great poetic masterpieces a few decades before Christ, although the written manuscripts of their works were recorded more than 400 years after they had died. No one doubts the life and accomplishments of Alexander the Great in the fourth century B.C., even though there are only two original biographers of his life, Arrian and Plutarch, who wrote their accounts some 400 years after Alexander died.

The eyewitness accounts of Jesus were recorded in writing within a generation of his life. And there are about 1,000 times more manuscripts that preserve the deeds and teachings of Jesus in the New Testament (about 25,000 total) than there are preserving other classical ancient works of historic figures who lived at the same time, with the exception of Homer, whose Iliad is backed by 1,800 manuscripts. But that is still less than one-tenth the number of ancient manuscripts that back the authenticity of the New Testament.

The Apostles’ Witness

We know the historical Jesus through four different accounts known as the gospels — Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John — not written hundreds of years later but within a generation or two of Jesus’ life. Apostles Matthew and John provide eyewitness accounts from their years of walking with Jesus as disciples. Mark also had eyewitness experience, although he was only a teenager when Jesus began his public ministry. Luke, the doctor, learned about Jesus from his friend Paul, the apostle who wrote the most letters in the New Testament.

Because of their experience with the resurrected Jesus, the apostles were in a unique position, knowing with certainty that Jesus was truly the Son of God. They had been present for the life, ministry, miracles, death, and resurrection of Jesus. If the claims about Jesus were a lie, the apostles would have known it. That is why their commitment to their testimony was so powerful and compelling.

Additionally, the apostles’ willingness to die for their claims has tremendous evidential value, also confirming the truth of the resurrection. No one will die for something he invented or believes to be false.

Seeing, talking to, and touching the risen Jesus transformed the apostles, who then committed the rest of their lives to educate and advocate for the truth about the message of salvation through Christ. Eleven of the 12 apostles, including Matthias who replaced Judas, the betrayer of Jesus, died as martyrs for their beliefs in the divinity of Christ. The twelfth, John, was exiled to Patmos Island, where he recorded the book of Revelation.

It turns out that Easter, which has its ultimate meaning in the resurrection, is one of ancient history’s most scrutinized and best-attested events.

While the mind can recognize the truth of the story of Jesus, God’s course from the cross through the resurrection and beyond is the transformation of the human heart, captured in John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” 

Easter is the commemoration and celebration of the single event — God’s loving sacrifice for us — that has more power to transform the human heart for good and love than anything else.


Scott Powell is senior fellow at Discovery Institute and a member of the Committee on the Present Danger-China. His recent book, “Rediscovering America,” was the No. 1 Amazon New Release in the history genre for eight weeks. Reach him at scottp@discovery.org.

Scientists Refute Olympic Committee’s Misguided Policies On ‘Fairness’ And Testosterone Levels


BY: GEORGE M. PERRY | MARCH 29, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/29/scientists-rebut-the-olympic-committees-misguided-policies-on-testosterone-levels/

women running race around track

Author George M. Perry profile

GEORGE M. PERRY

MORE ARTICLES

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) developed its 2021 framework on sex and “gender” around the concepts of fairness, inclusion, and non-discrimination. This framework leaves it to each sport’s governing body “to determine how an athlete may be at a disproportionate advantage against their peers.” However, they admonish sports organizations against “targeted testing … aimed at determining [athletes’] sex, gender identity and/or sex variations.” Instead, it’s up to each sport to “[provide] confidence that no athlete within a category has an unfair and disproportionate competitive advantage.”

The IOC’s sophistic gymnastics to deny sex-based categories in sport prompted 26 researchers from around the world to rebut the IOC’s framework. Their paper, published last week in the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, is the latest peer-reviewed study providing evidence of the obvious about sex in sports. The researchers reviewed studies from “evolutionary and developmental biology, zoology, physiology, endocrinology, medicine, sport and exercise science, [and] athletic performance results within male and female sport” to refute the IOC’s position that male athletes warrant “no presumption of advantage” over female athletes based on “biological or physiological characteristics.”

That statement “is ridiculous on its face,” says Kim Jones, co-founder of the Independent Council on Women’s Sports (ICONS). “This is the basic knowledge we all understand and see play out in front of our eyes every day. [This new] paper is brilliant at laying out how clear the differences are between men and women. There are thousands of differences between male and female development in humans across the entire maturity path that result in these huge performance gaps.”

John Armstrong, a mathematician at King’s College London who was not affiliated with this research, highlights this “central flaw” of the IOC’s framework. “To say we should not presume male advantage in a sport unless we have specific data for that sport is like saying that just because most of the apples in a tree have fallen to the ground, one shouldn’t presume the remaining apples are also subject to gravity,” he said.

“There is overwhelming evidence of male advantage from across different sports and there is little to be gained from demonstrating this again and again, sport by sport,” Armstrong noted.

The Illusion of Testosterone Suppression

But even sports that have copious research into sex differences in performance have permitted males to compete in the female category at all levels of competition and age. One path has been through misguided policies based on testosterone levels.

Over the last decade, various sports governing bodies — including the IOC and USA Boxing — have attempted to define females through testosterone levels. Those organizations relied heavily on a publication by Joanna Harper, a trans-identifying male medical physicist. The paper consisted of eight self-reports by trans-identifying male recreational runners who had suppressed their testosterone pharmacologically and recalled that they ran slower after doing so. Harper excluded the one respondent who said he ran faster and then concluded that males who were suppressing their testosterone could compete fairly in the female category.

Last week’s paper builds on research by lead authors Tommy Lundberg, Emma Hilton, and others who demonstrate the persistence of male advantage after testosterone suppression.

While testosterone suppression decreases various measures of anatomy, physiology, and physical performance, those changes are a small fraction of the differences between men and women on these metrics. A testosterone-suppressed male will have less muscle mass than his former self, but as a category, testosterone-suppressed men remain larger and stronger than women. Further, testosterone suppression does not change attributes like height, bone length, or hip and shoulder width.

Even before puberty, though, males outperform females in athletic competitions. Greg Brown is an exercise physiologist at the University of Nebraska at Kearney and was a co-author on the Lundberg paper. Brown recently published research based on national youth track and field championships. He found that by age 8, the boys ran faster in their final rounds than the girls did in theirs, at race distances from 100 meters to 1,500 meters.

When ‘Obvious’ Sex Differences Are Not Enough

Brown’s article came out a few months after John Armstrong (mentioned above), sociologist Alice Sullivan of University College London, and I published a paper on the role of sex versus gender expression in distance running. Having been on the receiving end of many tweets and articles saying, “Duh, obvious, did we need research to prove this?” I asked Brown if we really needed quantitative research to prove that boys run faster than girls.

“Some court cases regarding transgender athletes competing in girls’ sports said there’s no evidence of prepubescent sex-based differences. This kind of work does matter to inform policy. Moreover, it can be useful to evaluate the obvious because some of the things we take for granted as truth, maybe they’re not,” Brown said.

The obvious question in response to this accumulation of “obvious” data is: What will it take to restore and enforce sex-based categories in sports at all levels? Even if the International Olympic Committee aligned its policies with the Lundberg paper, the IOC is not binding on youth sports, grassroots sports, or even the NCAA.

Brown is optimistic about “the grassroots level, where girls and women’s sports will start being limited to female athletes. Some school districts and other local organizations are making female-only sports policies when state or higher-level organizations won’t.”

Brown noted the lawsuit against the NCAA by female athletes will “make those in charge of sports have second thoughts about their transgender inclusion policies. Before there was a fear of lawsuits from transgender activists, but now the shoe is on the other foot.”

He also called on “scholarly journals, sports science organizations, and sports scientists to speak out and keep the reality of sex-based differences in sports performance in the news to counteract the 20-year head start the transgender activists have.”

ICONS is funding the lawsuit that Brown mentioned. “We need people to realize there can be no fear and no shame in standing up for women. It’s a basic message that we all have the responsibility to communicate clearly,” said ICONS co-founder Kim Jones. “The stories of women and girls being robbed of fair sport, or even facing injury, are the path of change. It shouldn’t take women and girls being hurt, but everyone has the clear evidence.”

Jon Pike, a sports philosopher and a co-author of the Lundberg paper, advises sports organizations to look to the evidence and not to the IOC.

“They are training and developing athletes who aspire to international competition. They owe female athletes the same level playing field that they will get at the international level. Female athletes at all levels are entitled to fair sport,” he said.

Objective empirical data that accord with everyday experience and observation are the most powerful counters to the emotion, rhetoric, and threats that often accompany attempts to deny the validity of female-only spaces and categories.

The value of studies like those of Lundberg, Brown, Armstrong, and their respective colleagues will play out in board rooms and courtrooms, not to mention the living rooms where so many grassroots sports decisions are made. The more decision-makers can rely on research rather than earnest but shallow plaints of “But it’s obvious!” the more women and girls will flourish in fair and competitive sports.


George M. Perry is a sports performance coach, sports businessman, and writer. Before going into the sports industry, he was a submarine warfare officer in the United States Navy and briefly attended law school.

Biden Ad Tries Wooing Haley Support: ‘Trump Doesn’t Want Your Vote’


Friday, 29 March 2024 04:09 PM EDT

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/politics/biden-haley-trump/2024/03/29/id/1159168/

President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign is appealing directly to supporters of former Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley, who was the last major opponent to Donald Trump before she withdrew from the race earlier this month.

“Nikki Haley voters, Donald Trump doesn’t want your vote,” Biden said in a social media post on Friday that included a link to a new ad from his campaign. “I want to be clear: There is a place for you in my campaign.”

The ad shows video clips of Trump blasting Haley as a “birdbrain” and dismissing her candidacy. “She’s gone crazy, she’s a very angry person,” Trump said in one video clip of his former ambassador to the United Nations.

A source close to Haley said neither the Biden nor Trump campaigns had reached out to her about gaining the support of the people who voted for her.

A Trump representative did not respond to a request for comment.

Haley stuck with her presidential race when other Trump challengers had dropped out, promising policies that appealed to Republicans who had rejected Trump. Almost 570,000 voters in three key battleground states – Nevada, North Carolina, and Michigan – voted for Haley in the Republican nominating contest, a small but potentially significant group in races that have been decided by tiny margins in recent elections. Many Haley voters have wondered if they still have a place in the Republican Party, which has coalesced around Trump.

Biden, 81, will need as much support as he can muster. He has faced concerns about his age and fitness for a second four-year term. Recent Reuters/Ipsos polls show his approval rating at 40% and in a tight race with Trump, 77, ahead of the Nov. 5 election. 

© 2024 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.

A Masterful Dissection of Lenin’s Evil Legacy


By: Tony Kinnett @TheTonus / March 28, 2024

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/03/28/why-to-watch-soviets-empire-of-terror-with-bill-whittle/

Historian and commentator Bill Whittle sat down recently with The Daily Signal to discuss the latest season of “What We Saw,” a critically acclaimed documentary series from The Daily Wire. In the new season, called “Empire of Terror,” Whittle picks apart the largely unknown history of the rise of the Soviet Union and how it translates to today. He unearths critical pieces of information that shatter any case for communism. Although many claim that Vladimir Lenin’s vision for communism was pure, a will of the people that was only corrupted later by Josef Stalin’s ruthless regime, Whittle illustrates a severely different picture.

“I didn’t finish with Lenin until the end of episode six—it’s hardly about Stalin at all, and the reason is because [the Soviets’ empire of terror] is not Stalin’s creation. It’s Lenin’s creation,” he said, adding:

Lenin wrote the manual and Stalin followed the instructions. The defenders of communism would like to say that Lenin had created this ‘workers’ paradise,’ died of an early stroke, and this monster Stalin came in and ruined everything. Their argument is that [the Soviets] just didn’t do [communism] right.

Look what communism did in the Soviet Union, killed 20 million people. [Soviet communists] didn’t do it the wrong way, and they didn’t do it the right way. They did it the only way.

Lenin created a state where the only person who could succeed him would be the most ruthless murderer in the bunch.

Whittle’s masterful outline doesn’t end in the 1940s, where season two of “What We Saw” picks up at the end of World War II. 

He connects crucially important historical data and family trees to the leaders and attitudes on today’s world stage, including Russian President Vladimir Putin and modern cancel culture in the West.

Putin’s grandfather was Spiridon Putin, the personal cook much beloved by Lenin and Stalin, whose inspiration pushed a young Vladimir to attempt enlisting with the Soviets before he turned 18.

“You’ve got to think about what kind of stories young Vladimir must have heard on the knee of his grandfather talking about the Soviet Union,” Whittle said.

“It must have been effective, because then Putin went on to become a KGB agent in Dresden of all places,” I agreed in our exchange.

Whittle and I discussed the change in dark Russian humor over the 20th century, ultimately aiding in the USSR’s downfall, and connected the demonization of laughter and mirth to cancel culture in modern Western societies.

“We’re seeing so many of the same mechanisms that governed the Soviet Union being employed in the United States,” Whittle said, adding:

I didn’t say the outcomes, I said the mechanisms. The refusal to hear a differing opinion, just the absolute silencing of critics, the shaming and the destruction of people who are against the official opinion of whatever that might happen to be. And especially, most especially, the one thing that these systems require; the communists required it, the Nazis required it, and the progressives require it.

They require an enemy who is responsible for their own failures.

In an era of uncertainty when the authoritarian mechanisms from the age of fascism and communism again are rearing their ugly heads, Whittle’s outline of the rise of the Soviet Union’s “Empire of Terror” is an essential piece of historical commentary to recognize the elements of danger and the keys to their defeat.

Say It Ain’t So, Joe: The House Formally Invites President Biden to Testify in Impeachment Inquiry


JonathanTurley.org | March 29, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/03/29/say-it-aint-so-joe-the-house-formally-invites-president-biden-to-testify-in-impeachment-inquiry/

House Oversight Committee chairman James Comer has sent a seven-page letter (below) to invite President Joe Biden to testify in the Republican impeachment inquiry. The letter is the latest, and best, reduction of the glaring contradictions in the President’s past statements on his family’s well-documented influence peddling operation. President Biden is not expected to testify. However, the media should be interested in his answering the questions presented by the Committee. It is now clear that the President lied during his campaign and during his presidency on his lack of knowledge of his son’s business activities as well as his denial of any money gained from China. Yet, the White House responded, again, with mockery — a sense of impunity that only exists due to an enabling media.

Chairman Comer reduces the past testimony and evidence acquired by the Committee in the corruption scandal. In the last hearing, Democratic members simply refused to acknowledge that evidence. There was a bizarre disconnect as members mocked the witnesses for not supplying evidence of the President’s knowledge or involvement. They then did so and the members declared that there was no evidence.

Various members also misrepresented my earlier testimony during the hearing on the basis for the impeachment inquiry. Members like Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) stated that I joined other witnesses in stating there was nothing that could remotely be impeachable in these allegations. That is demonstrably untrue. My testimony stated the opposite. I refused to pre-judge the evidence, but stated that there was ample basis for the inquiry and laid out various impeachable offenses that could be brought if ultimately supported by evidence. I also discussed those potential offenses in columns. The purpose of the hearing was not to declare an impeachment on the first day of the inquiry. Unlike the two prior impeachments by many of these same Democratic members, this impeachment inquiry sought to create a record of evidence and testimony to support any action that the House might take.

Now, the Committee has laid out the considerable evidence showing that the President had lied, knowingly and repeatedly.

Interspersed with specific evidentiary findings, the Committee presents ten questions that the President should be able to answer directly and unequivocally:

  1. Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Jonathan Li of Bohai Industrial Fund and/or Bohai Harvest Rosemont?
  2. Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Ye Jianming of CEFC?
  3. Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Henry Zhao of the Harvest Fund?
  4. Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Vadym Pozharskyi of Burisma Holdings?
  5. Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Mykola Zlochevsky of Burisma Holdings?
  6. Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Kenes Rakishev of Novatus Holding?
  7. Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Yelena Baturina?
  8. Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Yuriy Luzhkov?
  9. Did you ever ask your brother James Biden about the source of the funds he used to pay or repay you?
  10. Did Eric Schwerin have insight into all your bank accounts until December 2017?

In response, the White House Counsel’s office again responded with mockery and taunting. I have previously discussed (including in my testimony in the Biden hearing) how the role of the White House staff in these denials can raise serious questions under the impeachment inquiry.

That has not deterred White House Counsel spokesperson Ian Sams, who has been previously accused of misrepresenting facts and engaging in heavy-handed treatment of the media. Sams responded to the letter:

“LOL. Comer knows 20+ witnesses have testified that POTUS did nothing wrong. He knows that the hundreds of thousands of pages of records he’s received have refuted his false allegations. This is a sad stunt at the end of a dead impeachment. Call it a day, pal.”

The involvement of a member of the White House Counsel’s staff issuing such a disrespectful and taunting message would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. Yet, the media has enabled such denial and deflection by showing no interest in the answers to any of these questions. It is part of the genius of the Biden management of this scandal. The White House quickly got reporters to buy into the illusion, making any later recognition impossible for these reporters. It is Houdini’s disappearing elephant trick applied to politics.

Even if most of the media refuses to demand answers, the public has a right to hear directly from the President on these specific questions. President Biden can still deny all of this countervailing evidence and “say it ain’t so,” but he should say something.

Here is the letter: 2024-03-28-CJC-letter-to-JRB

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Benedicts

A.F. BRANCO | on March 29, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-benedicts/

RINO Betrayed
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

Republicans In Name Only (RINOs) have betrayed the country once again by voting the opposite of what they campaigned on, especially on border security and the budget.

Revenge Of The Swamp: DC RINOs Attempt to Sabotage President Trump’s Re-Election With Retirements, Insurrection Legislation – President Trump Must Work On Counter-Strategy Before It’s Too Late

By Paul Ingrassia – March 28, 2024

The Uniparty is quietly scheming (again) to rig the system and prevent President Trump from ever becoming President.  This scheme involves a two-part strategy: using a combination of strategically planned retirements of Republican House members, coupled with the passage of carefully tailored legislation to remove President Trump from the ballot on bogus Insurrection grounds that would likely pass muster with moderate justices on the Supreme Court, like John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett, who prefer to avoid deciding on “controversial” legal questions and risk being seen in a bad light by their liberal peers. READ MORE…

DONATE to A.F. Branco Cartoons – Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

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

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report


Thursday, March 28, 2024

Top Stories
90% of Babies in the UK Diagnosed With Down Syndrome Were Killed in Abortions
Democrats are Campaigning on Abortions Up to Birth, America Must Reject This
Joy Reid Thinks Pro-Life People are White Supremacists
Sarah Regretted Taking the Abortion Pill and Quickly Saved Her Baby From the Abortion

More Pro-Life News
Pro-Life Advocates Will Hold Good Friday Prayer Vigils at 70+ Abortion Centers to Save Babies
Mom Changes Her Mind in the Middle of Abortion and Saves Little Baby Michael
OBGYN: I Know Abortion Hurts Women Because I’ve Treated Women Injured by Abortions
Studies Show Parents Who Reject Abortion of Terminally Ill Babies Cope Better Emotionally
Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

90% of Babies in the UK Diagnosed With Down Syndrome Were Killed in Abortions

Democrats are Campaigning on Abortions Up to Birth, America Must Reject This

Joy Reid Thinks Pro-Life People are White Supremacists

Sarah Regretted Taking the Abortion Pill and Quickly Saved Her Baby From the Abortion


 

Pro-Life Advocates Will Hold Good Friday Prayer Vigils at 70+ Abortion Centers to Save Babies

 

Mom Changes Her Mind in the Middle of Abortion and Saves Little Baby Michael

OBGYN: I Know Abortion Hurts Women Because I’ve Treated Women Injured by Abortions

Studies Show Parents Who Reject Abortion of Terminally Ill Babies Cope Better Emotionally

MORE PRO-LIFE NEWS FROM TODAY

Oregon Sets New Record for Assisted Suicide Deaths as More People Pushed to Kill Themselves

Alabama Democrat Only Beat Republican Because the Republican Didn’t Campaign on Pro-Life

EU Considers a Right to Kill Babies in Abortions in Its Charter of Fundamental Rights

America Has a Massive Baby Bust, What Can be Done to Fix It?

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.

Pro-Life Groups Hold Own Event After Being Barred at UN

Seventh Annual Pro-Life “March on the Arch” Brings Hundreds of Pro-Lifers to Downtown St. Louis

Oregon Residents are Killing Themselves in Assisted Suicides Because They Can’t Afford Health Care

Americans Protest at 78 Walgreens, CVS Stores to Condemn Abortion Drug Sales

Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2024 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.
For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.

Holy Week and Easter Sunday offer a message like no other. And it can change your life


The Rev. Dr. Russell Levenson, Jr.  By The Rev. Dr. Russell Levenson, Jr. Fox News | Published March 28, 2024 2:00am EDT

Read more at https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/holy-week-easter-sunday-offer-message-change-life

What does Easter offer us in the year 2024? The same thing it has offered since the first Easter. A name as synonymous with the Christian faith as any other ancient teacher, Augustine of Hippo, (d. 430 A.D.) wrote, “”There is an insatiable hunger in each of us, that God alone can satisfy.”

Fast forward to our own day, and we are given wise words from author Douglas Coupland who coined the phrase, “Gen X,” — “Now – here is my secret:
I tell it to you with an openness of heart that I doubt I shall ever achieve again, so I pray that you are in a quiet room as you hear these words. My secret is that I need God—that I am sick and can no longer make it alone. I need God to help me give, because I no longer seem to be capable of giving; to help me be kind, as I no longer seem capable of kindness; to help me love, as I seem beyond being able to love.”

What do these two men separated by nearly 2,000 years have in common that may speak to this present moment in history? Put simply, we need God.

EASTER REMINDS CHRISTIANS HOW RESURRECTION RESONATES IN OUR PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE

This week, Holy Week and Easter Sunday offer a message like no other. No amount of power, wealth, notoriety or success will keep any of us from facing a final day.  We will all – all of us, breathe our last.  At face value, that could be at the very least daunting, at its worst terrifying. But the days around this week’s Holy season for those who seek to have that insatiable hunger filled, and who know deep down, they need God – are a potent reminder that in God’s great economy, He has the final word.

A cross
If you are a believer, take a moment in these Holy Days to thank God for the faith He has bestowed on you to believe.  (iStockphoto)

Why? How? The most ancient and perhaps some of the most amazing words ever spoken, shed light on the fact that, “He is not here, He is risen,” These are the words spoken by an angel to the two Marys who had gone to visit the grave of their dead Rabbi, (Matthew 28:6). And these words changed history – the door that opened between B.C. and A.D. was confirmed by the realized promise of resurrection.

Here is what Christians believe in – not a resuscitated Jesus, not a reincarnated Jesus, but a resurrected Jesus.  No zombie here – a reminder, from the God who feeds our hunger and meets our needs, that in the hands of the Resurrected One, there are no dead ends.

Here is what Christians believe in – not a resuscitated Jesus, not a reincarnated Jesus, but a resurrected Jesus.  

A troubled marriage does not have to end in divorce.  A divorce does not mean the end of love.  Job loss does not mean one has no purpose and no future.  A wayward child does not mean a child lost forever. Cancer does not have to mean death and even death, when it comes, does not mean the end.

Video

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

This is why so many are not just drawn to the Christian faith and its resurrection hope, but also why their lives have been transformed by it.  In the last few years, studies consistently show a growing number of Easter-believers.  This Sunday more than 2.3 billion people on planet earth with gather to worship this risen Jesus not in fumbling and hesitant hope, but in expectation and faith – that is, by the way, more than tuned into the Super Bowl, the Oscars or the most watched news story of the year.

cross
In the hands of the Resurrected One, there are no dead ends. (iStock)

If you are a believer – take a moment in these Holy Days to thank God for the faith He has bestowed on you to believe. 

If you are not… bear with me, bear with this pastor – even historians find a hard time denying this central truth of the Christian faith. Jesus’s resurrection did not happen in secret. The whole of ancient Palestine knew it, and in time — whole of the Roman Empire. There are at least a dozen historical references to Jesus meeting people, touching people, talking with people.  

At one point, the Risen Jesus spoke to some 500 people, and He even cooked breakfast for a few of them! After His resurrection, the Apostles who had scattered to the wind, when Jesus was brought to trial and crucified – re-engaged and they were re-commissioned, such that all but two of His original Apostles, gave their lives as martyrs not for his moral or ethical insights, but because when He rose from the grave – it validated the incomparable truth that everything else he said – was, true.

the cross on a hill
At one point, the Risen Jesus spoke to some 500 people, and He even cooked breakfast for a few of them! (iStock)

So if you doubt – this day… let me ask you to do just one thing. Turn over your hand, and look at your fingerprints – the only set like them that has ever existed on planet Earth.  Those lines on the tips of your fingers tell a story – that there is no one like you in all of history, in all of the universe – they tell you that you were uniquely created.  And if you were uniquely created, surely that was done by a loving Creator. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

I could go on, but you get the point – even your fingers testify to what Augustine, and Coupland – and the Angels tell us – in the hands of the One Who lovingly created you, all the things that you think could be dead and lost, can, in fact, be raised to new life. 

If you are holding onto that – be grateful.  If you are not – give it a try.  In the end, my hunch is you will find out why we Christian folk call our great story “The Good News.”

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM REV. DR. RUSSELL LEVENSON

The Rev. Dr. Russell J. Levenson Jr. is the rector of St. Martin’s Episcopal Church, in Houston, Texas, the largest Episcopal Church in the United States. He is the author of “Witness to Dignity: The Life and Faith of George H.W. and Barbara Bush” (Hachette, 2022) and the recently released “In God’s Grip: What Golf Can Teach Us About The Gospel,” (Insight Press, 2023).

Lee Greenwood to Newsmax: Rise Up This Easter Weekend


By Solange Reyner    |   Thursday, 28 March 2024 01:54 PM EDT

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/us/easter-lee-greenwood-trump/2024/03/28/id/1159007/

Country music artist Lee Greenwood said he is hopeful that the nation “rises up and understands with a little faith [and] following the pathway of our of our Lord, our Savior, we will be just fine,” this Easter weekend.

“I will have my family here. Two sons will be coming in from Chicago and Miami and spending the Easter holiday with us at home here in Nashville, Tenn., and we will be going to our church as well to also celebrate the Easter weekend and the fact that He has risen, and this nation needs to recognize that again like we always have,” Greenwood, best known for his song, “God Bless the U.S.A.,” said Wednesday during an appearance on Newsmax TV’s “Newsline.”

“And don’t forget, that’s how this country got started. They didn’t come here to discover America, to get away from religion. They came here to get away from the King of England who was telling them what religion to be in, so I’m just hopeful that this nation rises up and understands with a little faith, following the pathway of our Lord, our Savior, we will be just fine.”

Greenwood also discussed the backlash former President Donald Trump has received for selling a custom version of Greenwood’s “God Bless the USA Bible for $59.99, saying it likely came from “Trump haters.”

“I don’t even believe people on the left hate religion. I think this is just Trump haters is all,” Greenwood said.

“We’ve been promoting this Bible for over three years. … I mean, he could have used any Bible, but because this one has the documents of our Founding Fathers, I think that makes it unique. I’m so proud of the president for stepping forward and saying that he believes in God, he’s a Christian, and this nation still should be praying for our country. We certainly need it.”

Solange Reyner 

Solange Reyner is a writer and editor for Newsmax. She has more than 15 years in the journalism industry reporting and covering news, sports and politics.

How the Federal Reserve Created an American Caste System


By: EJ Antoni @RealEJAntoni / March 28, 2024

Read more at https://mrb562.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=89636&action=edit

Jerome Powell, an elderly man with grey hair and facial wrinkles, looks down from his glass
U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell attends a press conference in Washington, D.C., on March 20, 2024. The U.S. Federal Reserve on Wednesday left interest rates unchanged at a 22-year high of 5.25% to 5.5% as recent consumer data indicates continued inflation pressures. (Photo: Liu Jie/Xinhua via Getty Images)

In 1913, Woodrow Wilson and his progressives promised that the Federal Reserve would avert both depressions and inflation, while preventing the wealthy from controlling America’s financial markets at the expense of the poor.

More than a century later, it’s clear that was all a lie, and the Fed has helped create a permanent American underclass.

The Fed was designed to transfer wealth from the American people to the government, mostly through the hidden tax of inflation. But this process has prevented countless American families from being able to save and get ahead, because their savings are constantly losing value.

For two decades, the Fed kept interest rates artificially low to help finance massive government spending. When that spending reached unprecedented heights in 2020, the Fed intervened more drastically than ever, creating trillions of dollars and devaluing the currency.

Thus began an unparalleled transfer of wealth that continues to this day, and which has driven a wedge between different groups of Americans.

The painful inflation of the last three years has increased prices throughout the economy, distorting the signals that prices are supposed to convey to buyers and sellers. For example, the cost to own a median-price home today has doubled since January 2021, but it’s still the same house.

This phenomenon represents the monetization of housing, where a dwelling becomes a much better store of value than the currency, even if the real value of the house hasn’t improved.

Likewise, Americans’ earnings have increased substantially over the last three years, but not in the most meaningful sense — that is, what they can buy. Instead, the opposite has happened, and today’s larger incomes buy less.

What would have been a decent salary in 2019 is no longer enough to even get by in many places, and it’s certainly not enough to ever fulfill the American dream of homeownership.

A family earning the median household income can afford a median-price home in only a handful of major metropolitan areas in the entire country. In many cities, the cost to own a median price home exceeds the take-home pay from the median household income. Even if you didn’t spend a dime on other necessities such as food, you still wouldn’t have enough for your mortgage payment.

It’s truly a condemnation of the status quo when even those with seemingly high incomes cannot afford a typical house.

Worse, as prices continue marching upward, people can save less, making it harder to accrue a sufficient down payment. Even by the time a family reaches their goal, home prices have increased again, and they’re back on the hamster wheel, trying to save for an even larger down payment.

Meanwhile, inflation is steadily, though silently, taxing away the real value of the family’s savings as they sit in the bank.

This has left countless Americans as perpetual renters, with almost an entire generation of young people giving up on having the standard of living that their parents had. An artificial chasm has been constructed between those who already own capital, like housing, and the remaining Americans who can only borrow such assets, as they do by renting.

Similarly, many of those struggling to afford sharply increased rents are going deeply into debt to keep a roof over their head while those who locked in a mortgage with a fixed interest rate before both home prices and interest rates exploded have shielded themselves from one of the largest drivers behind the cost-of-living increases of the last three years.

Many homeowners could not afford to buy their same home today. The monthly mortgage payment on a median-price home has doubled since January 2021. Thus, even if two families have identical incomes, the one that bought a home three years ago has a nearly insurmountable advantage over the other family trying to do so today.

The Fed‘s monetary manipulations have financed trillions of dollars in federal budget deficits, but they’ve also created a permanent American underclass, something antithetical to the Founders’ vision for the country.

Class mobility is at the heart of the American dream, and the Fed has turned it into a nightmare.

First published on The Washington Times.

Mississippi Schools Push Radical Ideology, Often in Secret. A Parental Bill of Rights Would Remedy That.


By: Jonathan Butcher @JM_Butcher / March 28, 2024

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/03/28/mississippi-schools-push-radical-ideology-often-in-secret-a-parental-bill-of-rights-would-remedy-that/

The Mississippi state Capitol in downtown Jackson is seen here in April 2019. Reports from Jackson and elsewhere in Mississippi demonstrate why parents there are increasingly skeptical about K-12 education and why the state Legislature needs to enact a parental bill of rights. (Photo: C. Robertson/ iStock/Getty Images)

Some school officials in Mississippi seem determined to keep parents out of their child’s education. But state lawmakers have a chance to join about two dozen other states that have prevented that from happening.

Mississippi legislators are considering a proposal that would create a parental bill of rights, reinforcing parents’ authority even when a child is on school grounds. The proposal is simple, but powerful: Public employees, such as teachers and school administrators, cannot substantially burden a parent’s right to direct a child’s upbringing and health care.

What does this look like in practice?

  • When children start the school year, moms and dads typically have to sign forms stating a child’s allergies, directing the school to administer painkillers if a child is injured at recess, and consenting to basic medical treatment if a child is in need.
  • In today’s upside-down culture, however, school officials are allowing minor-age children to “change” their name and whether they want to be addressed as a boy or girl, regardless of his or her sex, while at school.
  • In some states, teachers do not have to tell parents that a child is making these choices during the school day.
  • What results is “social affirmation,” in which adults tell a child that yes, the child was born in the wrong body and should act as if they are someone they are not. That can foster a child’s desire to seek medical interventions, such as puberty blockers and hormone treatments and perhaps even surgeries that will damage their reproductive organs.

An exaggeration? Whistleblowers have exposed centers such as the St. Louis Children’s Hospital for prescribing children as young as 11 to take puberty-blocking drugs.

  • The results were horrific in some cases: Young women would return to the hospital bleeding through their clothes because testosterone treatments thin the vaginal wall, and the wall can then tear open. Some males experienced liver toxicity after taking drugs to make them appear more feminine.

Researchers continue to raise alarms as they find an overlap between mental illness or special needs such as autism and claims of sexual confusion among youth.

In the U.K., England’s National Health Service has recommended that doctors not encourage young people to assume a different “gender” because autism and anxiety and depression were often found in children expressing confusion over their sex. And research finds that this confusion resolves on its own as children progress into adulthood in 80% to 95% of cases, which means watchful waiting is far healthier for children than social affirmation. 

Yet some Mississippi educators are still pushing the dangerous “gender” agenda.

Parents Defending Education, an advocacy organization,

  • uncovered that a school in Jackson received a grant to promote gender ideology. Oxford School District officials surveyed students and asked children if they identified as queer or “trans.”
  • In Tupelo, teachers were trained to allow students to change their name and pronouns.
  • Educators were instructed to call the child by his or her given name and pronouns when talking to parents unless the child gave a teacher permission to tell parents that the child had assumed a different gender—a secretive technique that hides information from families.

When a child is confused about their sex, social affirmation can have lasting consequences. Some medical treatments are irreversible and can lead to sterility and other complications. For at least these reasons, school personnel should not be allowed to keep parents in the dark about what is happening to their young children in the classroom.

STERILIZING OUR CHILDREN

State legislators can help. For more than a decade, state lawmakers around the country have been adopting parental bills of rights similar to the proposal before Mississippi lawmakers. Legislators should state plainly that parents are a child’s primary caregivers and that public officials cannot burden, or obstruct, a parent’s role. Teachers have a responsibility to report abuse or neglect, but that does not mean educators should accept a child’s self-diagnosis that he or she needs drugs to alter their body chemistry.

The reports from Jackson, Tupelo, and elsewhere demonstrate why Americans are increasingly skeptical about K-12 education. Mississippi officials should increase academic transparency and strengthen parental rights, restoring a civic value in short supply today between local communities and their schools—specifically, public trust. 

Fifth Circuit Blocks Texas SB 4 and Rejects the Invasion Theory Under State War Clause


JonathanTurley.org | March 28, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/03/28/fifth-circuit-blocks-texas-sb-4-and-rejects-the-invasion-theory-under-state-war-clause/

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has blocked border enforcement by the state under Texas’s SB 4.  Many of us had predicted this result given the prior precedent of the Supreme Court on the federal preemption of state immigration laws. However, the opinion also rejected the invasion theory made by states under Article 1, Section 10 and the “State War Clause.” I also previously discussed how this interpretation would fail due to the text, intent, and history of the underlying constitutional provision.

The lawsuit had a good-faith basis in challenging the scope of federal preemption and seeking to regain some room for state officials to protect their border. Texas and other states have been reduced to passive observers as the Biden Administration maintains an effective open border. The state is then expected to deal with the massive burden of the influx. While I agree with the Fifth Circuit that it is largely locked into the existing precedent in cases like Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 399 (2012), finding “field preemption” of state immigration laws. The state can now seek a review with the Supreme Court itself.

In the 2-1 opinion, Chief Judge Priscilla Richman upheld the district court’s preliminary injunction, but it is effectively a ruling on the merits since it had to find a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits to rule in favor of the federal government. She found that that the detention and removal provisions conflict with federal laws and policies on granting access and asylum status for immigrants pending review. It is a bitter recognition for the state that the open border conditions are the product of federal laws and policies. The majority noted that:

“The Supreme Court in Arizona spent considerable time and ink in explaining how the removal procedures work under federal law. ‘Removal is a civil, not criminal, matter.’ The Texas and federal laws are not congruent on this score. The Supreme Court also explained that ‘[a] principal feature of the [federal] removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials.’”

Judge Andrew Oldham dissented and argued that “The people of Texas are entitled to the benefit of state law right up to the point where any particular application of it offends the Supremacy Clause. And Texas state officials should be trusted at least to try sorting those constitutional applications from any potentially unconstitutional ones.”

The rejection of the State War Clause argument is important for future cases in other states.  The panel declared:

“Texas has not identified any authority to support its proposition that the State War Clause allows it to enact and enforce state legislation regulating immigration otherwise preempted by federal law. One would expect a contemporary commentator to have noticed such a proposition. Instead, in The Federalist No. 44, James Madison glossed over the portion of the State War Clause at issue here by writing: ‘The remaining particulars of this clause fall within reasonings which are either so obvious, or have been so fully developed, that they may be passed over without remark…’

Thus, we cannot say Texas has persuaded us that the State War Clause demonstrates it is likely to succeed on the merits.”

The State War Clause provides:

“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep     Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

Texas insisted that the massive numbers coming over the border is an invasion, particularly given the role of cartel gangs in organizing the effort. As I previously wrote, Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution bars states from conducting foreign policy or performing other federal duties, including the power to “engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

That language was not the manifestation of a new deal with the states. It was largely taken from the much-maligned Articles of Confederation. Despite wanting to strengthen the powers of a federal government, the Framers incorporated the original recognition that a state can always act in self-defense in the face of an invasion. This argument is usually combined with the Guarantee Clause of Article IV of the Constitution that states that the federal government must protect the states “against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.” However, the reference to invasion was clearly used more narrowly to refer to the armed incursion of a state or nation.

In his Report of 1800, James Madison discussed the Guarantee Clause in relation to the enactment of the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. He noted that “[i]nvasion is an operation of war.” 

What constitutes an “invasion” in a colloquial sense is highly subjective. When Benedict Arnold took 1,600 men over the northern border into Canada in 1775, it was rightfully called an invasion. Yet when millions pour over the southern border, it is called lax enforcement. The legal difference is obvious. One was an organized national force seeking to take over a country. The other is a collection of people from various nations seeking to join this country. Yet, for border states, the distinction easily can be lost in the costs and the crime associated with runaway illegal immigration.

It is clear that the Constitution’s references to “invasion” meant an organized foreign army. When the Constitution was ratified, the federal government had only a small regular army, and border states were legitimately concerned about an invasion by hostile foreign powers or their surrogates.

The failure at our border is a problem of competency rather than the Constitution. If “invasion” can be defined this broadly, any lack of border security could be defined as an invasion, from illegal drug imports to illegal gang activity. The theory has been rejected by various trial and appellate courts. This issue will again be before the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Abbott, in an en banc review in April.

Mom Of Boy Killed By Illegal Border Crosser Speaks Out: ‘His Life Was Taken Way Too Early By Someone Who Shouldn’t Be Here’


BY: JORDAN BOYD | MARCH 28, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/28/mom-of-boy-killed-by-illegal-border-crosser-speaks-out-his-life-was-taken-way-too-early-by-someone-who-shouldnt-be-here/

Alex Wise Jr. holds his little sister

Author Jordan Boyd profile

JORDAN BOYD

VISIT ON TWITTER@JORDANBOYDTX

MORE ARTICLES

MIDLAND, Texas — Alex Wise Jr. would have turned 11 years old in May, but he won’t be at his birthday party this year. Instead of celebrating another trip around the sun for Wise, his extended family will gather without him to honor his 10 short years on Earth.

“I wish he was here. I really do wish I had him here. But unfortunately, his life was taken way too early by someone who wasn’t even supposed to be in the country,” Sykia Benson, Wise’s mom, told The Federalist.

Wise became one of the many victims of the ongoing border invasion in February, shortly after he was struck and killed by an illegal border crosser as he headed home from school. The elementary school student used to ride the bus, but after his family moved apartments, he was asked to walk.

Thursday, February 8 was Wise’s first and last day to walk his new after-school route. Before the 10-year-old could even make it to the stop sign where someone was waiting to meet him, Wise was hit by a truck driven by an illegal border crosser.

“Everybody else let [Wise] cross the street but this car was so impatient that it went around. And he was almost on the grass, like a step away from being on the grass when he got hit,” Benson said.

Rogelio Ortiz Olivas, a 50-year-old Mexico native who re-crossed President Joe Biden’s open border after facing deportation at least five times previously, was registered as intoxicated at the time of the crash. He fled the scene but was later arrested after an officer at a traffic stop noticed his damaged truck hood bearing an “impression of a skull.”

Ortiz Olivas faces a third-degree felony of “hit and run, accident causing death” charge for “driver negligence” and failing to stop and render aid. Local arrest records confirm that, to this day, the Midland County Sheriff’s Office is holding Ortiz for “collision involving serious bodily injury,” “driving while intoxicated,” and an immigration detainer.

Benson says police told her Ortiz Olivas had a New Mexico driver’s license and the vehicle he drove was in his name.

“Somebody helped him get identification,” Benson said. “Somebody helped him in New Mexico get an ID.”

The Midland Police Department did not immediately respond to The Federalist’s questions about this alleged driver’s license and whether it was still valid at the time of the incident. It wouldn’t be impossible, however, for an illegal border crosser like Ortiz Olivas to have obtained a standard license at some point under New Mexico’s lax ID laws.

‘The Sweetest Kid’

Benson received the devastating call that her son was injured and would be life-flighted to the nearby city of Lubbock for medical care as she was picking up her father from the local airport. By the next day, Benson’s “sweet,” “helpful,” and “friendly” boy was gone.

“He was a kid. He got into things,” Benson recalled. “But he was still just a sweet, sweet person.”

Wise wasn’t just sweet, he was also smart, making mostly A’s and B’s in school. When he wasn’t learning math, his favorite subject, Wise was playing sports with friends

“He loved football, basketball, soccer. He loved it all. He was about to start playing football. He already played basketball and soccer,” Benson said.

Wise also loved playing with his one-year-old sister. Benson said her daughter doesn’t quite understand Wise’s absence but she recognizes it.

“I don’t think she knows too much now but you can definitely see a void where she’s used to running to him, running in his room,” Benson said.

As for Benson, she’s taking things “day by day.”

“I feel like I’m at a standstill because it’s surreal that he’s gone,” Benson said through tears.

A Preventable Death

Since Wise’s passing, Benson and her family have received an outpouring of support from their church, friends, and Wise’s school, which promised to erect a park bench in her son’s name. But not even the most heartfelt gestures can take away the pain she feels when she wakes up early to take her son to school only to remember he’s not there.

“It’s been hard. Trying to get used to him not being here, it’s been really, really difficult,” Benson said.

One of the most unexpected parts of her grieving process, Benson said, is her concern that a tragedy like the one her son endured could happen again. She said her son’s death could have been prevented if the United States had better deportation enforcement and border security.

“There should be laws put in place where if you’re deported one time and you get caught a second time, it should be mandatory automatic jail time. So you keep sending them back and they keep coming over and they’re getting over some kind of way. It’s no control over the border,” Benson said.

Currently, Benson does not know when legal justice against her son’s alleged killer will be served.

“I actually haven’t heard anything from anyone,” Benson. “Nobody’s been informing me about anything. I’ve been going to them, and they still don’t know too much.”

The Midland County District Attorney’s Office confirmed to The Federalist on Wednesday that there are no scheduled court dates for Ortiz Olivas.

No matter how long the wait, Benson hopes justice will come for “the sweetest kid ever.”


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.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT CARTOON BY A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – The Torchbearer

A.F. BRANCO | on March 28, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-torchbearer/

Biden Scorched Earth
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

Biden has been exercising the Obama-Democrat scorched earth policies since January 2021. However, because of Trump’s recent high poll numbers, many on the left are looking at passing the torch. No matter what Democrat holds that torch, they’ll continue on with Obama’s fourth term with the plan of burning this country to the ground in order to transform America into their a socialist utopia.

PANIC? Obama Has Reportedly Had Meetings With Biden to Talk About the Election

By Mike LaChance  March 22, 2024

Obama has reportedly had at least two meetings with Joe Biden over the last year to discuss the election. One has to wonder if Obama is concerned about old Joe’s chances in 2024. Why else would he take time away from his life of leisure to meet with Joe?

He has probably seen the internal polling… READ MORE

DONATE to A.F. Branco Cartoons – Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

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.

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report


Wednesday, March 27, 2024

Top Stories
Americans Protest at 78 Walgreens, CVS Stores to Condemn Abortion Drug Sales
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Says Comstock Act Should Ban Mail-Order Abortions Nationwide
Senator Blasts Biden’s Abortion Travel Funding: Killing Babies Doesn’t Help the Military
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr’s Running Mate is a Radical Pro-Abortion Leftist

More Pro-Life News
The Supreme Court Building Says “Equal Justice Under Law.” That’s What Unborn Babies Deserve
Pro-Life Congresswoman Introduces Bill to Save Babies From Abortion Pills
Supreme Court Should Protect Women From Dangerous Abortion Drugs Since the FDA Refuses
FDA’s Attorney Admits It Doesn’t Care if Women are Injured by Abortion
Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

Americans Protest at 78 Walgreens, CVS Stores to Condemn Abortion Drug Sales

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Says Comstock Act Should Ban Mail-Order Abortions Nationwide

Senator Blasts Biden’s Abortion Travel Funding: Killing Babies Doesn’t Help the Military

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr’s Running Mate is a Radical Pro-Abortion Leftist


 

The Supreme Court Building Says “Equal Justice Under Law.” That’s What Unborn Babies Deserve

 

Pro-Life Congresswoman Introduces Bill to Save Babies From Abortion Pills

Supreme Court Should Protect Women From Dangerous Abortion Drugs Since the FDA Refuses

FDA’s Attorney Admits It Doesn’t Care if Women are Injured by Abortion

MORE PRO-LIFE NEWS FROM TODAY

Abortion Pill Almost Kills Woman With Undiagnosed Ectopic Pregnancy

When Abortion Drugs Fail, Doctors are Forced to Remove Parts of the Baby’s Body

Woman’s Husband Poisoned Her Seven Times With Abortion Pills to Kill Their Baby, But He Failed

Supreme Court Hearing Confirms They’re Pro-Abortion, Not Pro-Woman

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.

Supreme Court Hears How Women Suffered From Abortion Pill After FDA Abandoned Them

Marco Rubio: Investigate Planned Parenthood for Selling Aborted Baby Parts

The Abortion Drug Mifepristone is Harming Women, Here’s Proof

Poll Shows Republicans More Excited About Voting for Trump Than Democrats About Voting for Biden

Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2024 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.
For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.

Boston clergy urge ‘white churches’ to ‘atone’ for slavery ties with millions in reparations


By Jon Brown, Christian Post Reporter | Tuesday, March 26, 2024

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/boston-clergy-urge-white-churches-to-atone-for-slavery-ties.html/

The Rev. Kevin Peterson of the Boston People’s Reparations Commission speaks during a press conference in Boston, Massachusetts, on March 23, 2024. | Screenshot: WHDH

A group of activist clergy is demanding that white churches in Boston with historical ties to slavery “publicly atone” by paying millions in reparations to the city’s black residents.

The grassroots Boston People’s Reparations Commission held a press event at Resurrection Lutheran Church in the Roxbury neighborhood on Saturday. Multiple clergy members suggested that some of Boston’s churches should “confess to their complicity” in slavery and pay up, according to WHDH.

The group fired off a letter signed by 16 black and white clergy to churches they believed should be held financially responsible for centuries of discrimination in the wake of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

The Rev. John Gibbons, a Unitarian who pastors Arlington Street Church in Boston, claimed that since the beginning of the 17th century, “all of our colonial churches were founded on the profits of slavery.”

“Colonial ministers were among the most likely to have enslaved servants,” he noted.

Edwin Sumpter of the commission described the money black Bostonians should be getting as “incalculable,” according to WCVB.

“It is impossible to put any dollar number on what African Americans have gone through in this country,” he said.

The Rev. Kevin Peterson, who founded the commission and also heads the New Democracy Coalition, said that “any of the well-known white churches in downtown Boston are connected to the slave trade and the proliferation of what was a ‘slavetocracy’ in our city.”

“We call sincerely and with a heart filled with faith and Christian love for our white churches to join us and not be silent around this issue of racism and slavery and commit to reparations,” he said.

“We point to them in Christian love to publicly atone for the sins of slavery, and we ask them to publicly commit to a process of reparations where they will extend their great wealth — tens of millions of dollars among some of those churches — into the Black community,” he added.

Peterson previously called for Boston to rename its famous Faneuil Hall Marketplace because of merchant Peter Faneuil’s ties to slavery in the 1700s, as noted by The Daily Mail.

He was also successful in eliciting an apology from the City of Boston for its complicity with slavery, leading to the formation of its 10-member Boston Reparations Task Force in 2022.

The task force was enjoined to study the historical impact of slavery on the city, receive feedback from residents and provide recommendations for “reparative justice solutions for Black residents,” according to The Boston Herald.

“Even after Massachusetts outlawed slavery, our region continued to benefit from the labor of enslaved people,” Democratic Boston Mayor Michelle Wu said last year. “That legacy formed deep, painful and lasting systems of exclusion and inequity that persist to this day.”

The commission called on Boston to pay out $15 billion in reparations to black residents, including $5 billion in immediate cash payments, according to The Boston Herald. The activists also demanded $5 billion for education and anti-crime initiatives and another $5 billion for economic development.

Jon Brown is a reporter for The Christian Post. Send news tips to jon.brown@christianpost.com

Leftists Bragged About ‘Fortifying’ The 2020 Election. Now They’re Flaunting Plans To Do It Again In 2024


BY: BRIANNA LYMAN | MARCH 27, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/27/leftists-bragged-about-fortifying-the-2020-election-now-theyre-flaunting-plans-to-do-it-again-in-2024/

President Joe Biden at his inaugural address

Author Brianna Lyman profile

BRIANNA LYMAN

VISIT ON TWITTER@BRIANNALYMAN2

MORE ARTICLES

Leftists bragged about how they “fortified” the 2020 election against Trump. Now the same “democracy is at stake” shills are flaunting their plans for 2024, and they sound awfully familiar.

Democrats are already sowing seeds of distrust — and perhaps projection — with an unnamed source whispering to Rolling Stone that Biden “has been worried … that Donald Trump is going to try to steal the election.”

“Biden and his inner circle have been drawing up meticulous plans and creating a large legal network focused on wargaming a close election finish,” wrote Rolling Stone’s Asawin Suebsaeng and Adam Rawnsley, citing undisclosed Democratic operatives who fret about a contested 2024 election. “Team Biden has been conducting war games, crafting complex legal strategies, and devoting extensive resources to prepare for, as one former senior Biden administration official puts it, ‘all-hell-breaks-loose’ scenarios.”

Biden’s legal team is reportedly “preparing legal strategies for scenarios involving recounts that would make, in the words of one Biden official, ‘make Florida in 2000 look like child’s play.’”

Biden’s team has partnered with a “vast network of liberal attorneys and legal groups” that have already drafted pleadings and motions for any kind of election-related fight. Biden’s team is also reportedly working with local law firms to “actively monitor what is happening on the ground” in key swing states like Georgia, Arizona, and Pennsylvania — all of which Biden narrowly won just four years ago, and all of which saw their elections plagued by chaos, scandal, and a lack of transparency in 2020.

A representative for the Democratic National Committee told Rolling Stone the party has also set aside “tens of millions of dollars in a robust voter protection program to safeguard the rights of voters.”

Rolling Stone all but dismisses the possibility that Trump could defeat Biden outright in 2024 — making the bizarre claim that winning would be “almost irrelevant” to the Trump team’s goals — and instead treats a razor-thin Biden victory as the assumed scenario. Noticeably absent from the article is a discussion of what happens if Trump wins narrowly. Would Biden graciously concede? Rolling Stone appears to be telegraphing that he has no plans to.

Campaign Strategy: Bidenbucks and Lawfare

The Biden administration has been working overtime to tilt the balance of the electorate since taking office. One way they’ve done this is by funneling taxpayer dollars into initiatives meant to increase voter turnout — specifically voters who will likely vote blue.

Soon after taking office, Biden issued Executive Order 14019, which directs federal agencies to use taxpayer funds to interfere in elections, including by voter outreach targeted at likely-Democrat voters. The Department of Education, for example, recently released a “toolkit” that gives guidance to K-12 institutions recommending schools “determine if [their] state allows pre-registration for individuals under 18 years old and, if so, identify opportunities for high school students to do so.”

[READ NEXT: 2024 Is Shaping Up To Be The ‘We Were Right About Everything’ Election]

Meanwhile the Department of Health and Human Services’ Indian Health Service began collaborating with left-wing groups like the ACLU and Demos to register new voters, according to a report from The Daily Signal. As my colleague Shawn Fleetwood has noted, “voter registration efforts are almost always a partisan venture.”

Perhaps the cherry on top is Democrats’ use of lawfare to weaponize the justice system against Trump.

Both Trump and Biden have been accused of mishandling classified documents. The former, who can make an argument for having presidential power to declassify documents, has been dragged into court by the Biden Justice Department, which has the goal of putting him in prison at worst and draining his campaign of time and money at best. The latter, who apparently mishandled classified documents while senator and vice president, was allowed to skate after a special counsel declined to prosecute because “It would be difficult to convince a jury” to convict the memory-challenged Biden of “a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”

Déjà Vu All Over Again

Rolling Stone’s glowing feature of the “superstructure” Biden is amassing to control the 2024 election aftermath should sound familiar. During the months leading up to the 2020 election, corporate media, Democrat lawmakers, and left-wing operatives conspired to influence the election, as Time Magazine’s national political correspondent Molly Ball glowingly acknowledged afterward.

There’s every reason to expect the same, and more, in 2024.

Ball acknowledged that when Trump pointed out the 2020 election was rife with election integrity issues, he “was right” that “there was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes.” She described the collusion as “a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.” But, as my colleague Joy Pullmann pointed out, Trump was lambasted for raising these exact same points. A smear campaign continues to this day by Democrats who seek to use the nonsense pejorative of “election denier” to forestall Trump’s ability to call out their election rigging.

[READ NEXT: Democrats Deployed Their Top Election Riggers To Tip The Scales In 2024]

As Ball approvingly noted, members of the “conspiracy” “got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding” — e.g., hundreds of millions of dollars from billionaire Mark Zuckerberg that were funneled into election offices by left-wing groups. They “recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time,” Ball bragged.

But the mass mail-in balloting scheme was rife with risks that even the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) acknowledged. CISA warned of “major challenges” associated with mail-in voting including the “process of mailing and returning ballots,” “high numbers of improperly completed ballots,” and “the shortage of personnel to process ballots in a prompt manner.”

Then there was Big Tech actively working to stifle negative coverage of Biden, most infamously by censoring the bombshell Hunter Biden laptop story just weeks before Election Day. One study found some Democrat voters in key swing states would not have voted for Biden had they had access to the story alleging Biden’s involvement with his son’s corrupt business dealings.

Ball seemed to applaud this effort, writing how the conspiracy “successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears.”

Meanwhile Big Tech companies like Meta — the parent company of Facebook — are discussing ways to “protect” the electoral system by manipulating algorithms, newsfeeds, and recommendations to users. In 2020, Facebook throttled circulation of the Hunter Biden laptop story.

In addition to peddling lies about Trump and blacking out the bombshell evidence implicating Biden that was discovered on his son’s laptop, corporate media also played a role by being a conduit for Democrat operatives’ narrative that election results should not be expected on election night. Privately, Biden’s operatives had polling data suggesting mainstream polls were not reflecting Trump’s true support amongst voters — indicating that Trump would be decisively winning on Election Day. A top “conspiracy” leader reportedly warned “everyone he knew that polls were underestimating Trump’s support,” Ball explained.

The unnamed individual reportedly went to corporate media networks and got them to push the narrative that election results should be expected to be delayed, which conveniently laid the groundwork for a “surge” of mail-in ballots counted late at night and after Election Day to push Biden over the edge.

“Election night began with many Democrats despairing,” Ball wrote. “Trump was running ahead of pre-election polling, winning Florida, Ohio and Texas easily and keeping Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania too close to call.”

But Ball said the “conspiracy” leader was unphased about the nail-biter results: “he could tell that as long as all the votes were counted, Trump would lose.”

As Pullmann wrote, “Amazing projection skills, right?”


Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist.

The Resurrection of Jesus Is the Most Important Event in History


By: Tyler O’Neil @Tyler2ONeil / March 26, 2024

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/03/26/easter-resurrection-jesus-most-important-event-history/

Three crosses on Golgatha and an empty tomb with a shroud and a rock pulled across the tomb entrance
The Resurrection of Jesus is the most important event in world history, because if the disciples didn’t believe Jesus rose from the dead, Christianity wouldn’t have changed the world. (Photo: Getty Images)

Christians around the world will commemorate the most important event in our faith’s history this Sunday, but the Resurrection of Jesus isn’t just important to those who believe a Nazarene who walked the earth 2,000 years ago is the Son of God. The secular world’s history also turns on this pivotal event, which inspired so much progress that we take for granted today.

Christianity turned the values of the Pagan Roman world upside-down. The Romans considered the early Christians subversives—many called them “atheists” because they didn’t worship any pagan gods—and put them to death for refusing to worship the emperor. After some emperors adopted the faith, Emperor Julian attempted to revive paganism, but lamented that the Christian ethic had transformed the empire.

“It is their benevolence to strangers, their care for the graves of the dead, and the pretended holiness of their lives that have done most to increase atheism,” Julian wrote to a pagan priest of Galatia in 362 A.D. Those who believed in the Resurrection established the first hospitals, and Christianity spread rapidly during Roman plagues, as pagans fled the cities, but Christians stayed and tended to the sick, risking death but saving souls.

Rodney Stark, a now-deceased social sciences professor at Baylor University and author of the book “The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success,” told PJ Media in 2017 that without the Resurrection, “we would still be in a world of mystery and probably in a world of repressive empires.”

“Remember, at the dawn of history, people didn’t live in really tiny countries. They lived under huge, huge empires, nasty ones,” the professor added. He argued that Christianity historically has been the driving force behind limited government, science, capitalism, the abolition of slavery, medicine, organized charities, and more—and that Christianity would have been impossible without the belief in the Resurrection.

According to the four Gospel narratives, Jesus’ followers were quick to abandon their rabbi after his excruciating and humiliating death at Golgatha. Something convinced the same Peter who denied Jesus three times to later go to his own painful death saying that Jesus is the Messiah. In I Corinthians 15:17, the Apostle Paul wrote, “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile, and you are still in your sins.”

1. Universities and Science

While many consider faith and science to be inherently incompatible, Stark noted that Christianity provides the worldview that makes science comprehensible.

“In the rest of the world, it’s thought that the universe is far too mystical to be worth thinking about,” much less experimenting on, Stark explained. But “in the West, the universe was created by a rational God, and consequently it runs by rules and, therefore, it makes sense to try to understand and discover the rules.”

Christians believe that a rational God created an ordered cosmos and created human beings in his image, enabling them to think his thoughts after him.

Modern universities grew out of the cathedral schools of the Middle Ages, and a bishop near the university at Paris made a surprising move in 1277. The bishop condemned certain ideas as anathema, among them the idea that the universe is eternal and could not have been different. These ideas, promulgated by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (whom both the Muslim world and the university students held in extremely high regard), discouraged experimentation. If mere deductive reasoning could reveal the full truth of the cosmos, then there was no need to examine the world to test different hypotheses.

By condemning this idea, the bishop paradoxically helped free science from the shackles of Aristotelian thought.

2. Free Markets

It is hard to overstate just how wealthy modern Americans are in comparison to most human beings throughout history. Inflation is rising and it is increasingly difficult to afford a home, but Americans still enjoy the conveniences of indoor plumbing, heating and cooling, rapid transportation, refrigerators and microwave ovens, and endless options for learning and entertainment via the internet and electronic devices.

The term capitalism may be controversial, but the free market complexity that unleashed this jaw-dropping prosperity and innovation deserves respect and protection. While the German sociologist Max Weber famously traced capitalism back to the “Protestant work ethic,” Stark found an earlier source—the Catholic monasteries in the Middle Ages.

Catholic monasteries set up a complex network of lending at interest, and they also changed the narrative on commerce. “In almost all known societies at that time, commerce was degraded. It was thought to be nothing a gentleman would have any connection to,” Stark explained. Yet “Christian theologians, who had taken vows of poverty, nonetheless worked out that commerce was legitimate.”

The growth of complex markets took centuries, and some of it did tie in to darker chapters of world history.

3. The Abolition of Slavery

In one form or another, slavery appears in almost every human society, and if slaves ever succeed in overthrowing their masters, they often turn their former masters into slaves.

“It was only in the West that a society has ever overcome slavery, except when it’s forced by outside forces,” Stark said. Christianity inspired the “only civilization that has ever discovered within itself that slavery is immoral and gotten rid of it.”

Medieval Europe first eliminated slavery, often in fits and starts, and occasionally returning to the practice through trade. Slavery and the slave trade returned in force during the Age of Exploration, but in the 1800s, abolitionists such as William Wilberforce and Harriet Beecher Stowe (and John Newton, the author of “Amazing Grace”) led Britain and America in abolishing chattel slavery outright.

Abolitionists like them drew deep inspiration from the Christian belief that all humans are made in the image of God, and they deeply believed in the Resurrection of Jesus.

The New Testament does not require Christians to outlaw slavery, but outlawing slavery is the logical conclusion of key Christian doctrines. The Apostle Paul urged Philemon to free his former slave Onesimus. Paul also wrote to the Galatians that, when it comes to the grace of God in salvation, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

4. Limited Government

Most Americans today have no concept of how united religion and government have been in world history. In ancient Egypt, Pharaohs claimed to be gods on Earth, and in ancient Mesopotamia, kings built large temples to their gods in part to maintain their legitimacy. The three-generation Kim family in control of North Korea perpetuates the idea that the supreme ruler is god.

Christianity wrested ultimate power away from political rulers, teaching that God held the ultimate authority. St. Augustine divided the world into the “City of Man” and the “City of God,” emphasizing the independence of the life of faith and service from the concerns of power and everyday life.

Civil society grew and flourished because Christians believed both in helping the poor and in working together outside of government institutions. According to David Brooks’ 2007 book “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism,” conservatives in strong families who attend church and earn their own paychecks are most likely to give to charity.

While Jesus famously told his disciples to pay taxes to the government, he also drew an enormously important distinction. “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12:17) didn’t just mean “pay your taxes.” It also meant that Christians—who are made in God’s image as coins were made in Caesar’s image—owe their ultimate loyalty to God, not to the state.

The early settlers to America and the Founders employed these principles in government. The Declaration of Independence grounds Americans’ right to revolt from Britain in “the laws of nature and nature’s God.” The First Amendment forbids Congress from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion or abridging the free exercise thereof,” not because religion is unimportant, but because religion is far more important than the government.

This separation marks Christian civilization apart from the despotisms of the ancient world and from the communist and fascist totalitarianisms of the 20th century. Civil societies exist in other parts of the world as well, but Christianity provides a unique justification for subordinating state power to other concerns.

Does All This Suggest the Resurrection Is True?

These and other benefits of Christian civilization extend far beyond those who believe in Jesus’ Resurrection, and these benefits do not erase the many sins and deceptions perpetrated in the name of Christianity over the centuries. However, they do illustrate the side-effects of faith in Jesus, which calls Christians to become the “salt of the Earth” and the “light of the world.”

If the Holy Spirit is working in Christian churches, the blessings of this faith will spill over to those who do not accept the Gospel.

These blessings are exactly what we should look for, supposing the Resurrection is true.

The Gag and the Goad: Trump Should Appeal Latest Gag Order


JONATHN TURLEY.ORG | March 27, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/03/27/the-gag-and-the-goad-trump-should-appeal-latest-gag-order/

New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan this week became the latest court to impose a gag order on former president Donald Trump with a stinging order that found a history of Trump attacks that threatened the administration of justice. The order will bar public criticism of figures who are at the center of the public debate over this trial and the allegation of the weaponization of the legal system for political purposes, including former Trump counsel Michael Cohen, former stripper Stormy Daniels, and lead prosecutor Matthew Colangelo. Trump is still able to criticize Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Merchan himself.  What is most striking is the protection of Cohen who continues to goad Trump in public attacks.

While many of us have criticized past attacks by the former president of judges and staff associated with cases, these gag orders raise very serious free speech questions in my view. Prosecutors like Special Counsel Jack Smith and Bragg have pushed for a trial before the election. (Recently, Smith even stated that he may force Trump into a trial running up to or even through the election).

After these charges were delayed until just before an election, they have maintained that it is essential to try Trump before November.  The timing of charges and proposed trial dates were the choice of these prosecutors. If judges are inclined to facilitate the effort for a pre-election trial, they should show some recognition of the unique context for such prosecution. Yet, judges like federal District Judge Tanya Chutkan have stated that she will not make any accommodation for the fact that Trump is the leading candidate for the presidency.

I was previously highly critical of the efforts of Smith to gag Trump before the election. In my view, the order issued by Judge Chutkan was unconstitutional. I have opposed gag orders in many cases for decades as inimical to constitutional free speech rights.

The barring of Trump from criticizing jurors or court staff (or family members) is largely uncontroversial. However, Cohen and Daniels have long been part of the political campaigns going back to 2016. Indeed, I was highly critical of Cohen when he was still the thuggish lawyer for Trump. He is now one of the loudest critics of his former client and has made continual media appearances, including on his expected appearance in this case. Cohen’s appearance on the stand will only add to the lawfare claims given the recent view of a judge that he is a serial perjurer who appears to be continuing to game the legal system.

Cohen ironically went public to criticize Trump and celebrate the gagging of him:

“I want to thank Judge Merchan for imposing the gag order as I have been under relentless assault from Donald’s MAGA supporters. Nevertheless, knowing Donald as well as I do, he will seek to defy the gag order by employing others within his circle to do his bidding, regardless of consequence.”

Many Americans view the Bragg case as a raw political effort and many experts (including myself) view the case as legally flawed. Some polls show that a majority now believe the Trump prosecutions generally are “politically motivated.” This election could well turn on the allegation of lawfare. However, Merchan has now largely bagged the leading candidate (and alleged target of this weaponization) from being able to criticize key figures behind the effort.

The inclusion of Colangelo in the order is equally problematic. Trump has campaigned on his involvement in a variety of cases targeting him in his federal and state systems. His movement between cases is viewed by many as evidence of a “get Trump” campaign of prosecutors. He is currently the most talked about figure that many, including Trump, view as showing coordination between these cases and investigations.

My opposition to past gag orders was based on the constitutional right of defendants to criticize their prosecutions. Courts have gradually expanded both the scope and use of such orders. It has gone from being relatively rare to commonplace.  However, the use to gag the leading candidate for the presidency in the final months of the campaign only magnifies those concerns.

There is a division on courts in dealing with such challenges involving politicians. For example, a court struggled with those issues in the corruption trial of Rep. Harold E. Ford Sr. (D–Tenn.). The district court barred Ford from making any “extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication,” including criticism of the motives of the government or basis, merits, or evidence of the prosecution.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected the gag order as overbroad and stressed that any such limits on free speech should be treated as “presumptively void and may be upheld only on the basis of a clear showing that an exercise of First Amendment rights will interfere with the rights of the parties to a fair trial.”

This order allows for criticism of the case and both Merchan and Bragg. However, you have key figures like Cohen and Coangelo who are already central figures in this political campaign. In Cohen’s case, he has actively engaged in a campaign to block Trump politically and has done countless interviews on this case as part of the legal campaign.

While courts routinely rubber stamp such orders (and Trump’s history will reinforce the basis of the Merchan order), I would still try to appeal it.  The odds always run against challenging such orders and appellate courts are disinclined to even review such orders. However, there is a legitimate free speech concern raised by this order that should be reviewed by higher courts.

America’s Stunning Embrace Of Paganism Signals The End Of This Country As We Know It


BY: JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON | MARCH 27, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/27/americas-stunning-embrace-of-paganism-signals-the-end-of-this-country-as-we-know-it/

Pagan America

Author John Daniel Davidson profile

JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON

VISIT ON TWITTER@JOHNDDAVIDSON

MORE ARTICLES

The following essay is adapted from the author’s new book, Pagan America: The Decline of Christianity and the Dark Age to Come.

It’s hard to survey the state of our country and not conclude that something is very wrong in America. I don’t just mean with our economy or the border or rampant crime in our cities, but with our basic grasp on reality itself.

Our cultural and political elite now insist that men can become women, and vice versa, and that even children can consent to what they euphemistically call “gender-affirming care.” In a perfect inversion of reason and common sense, some Democratic lawmakers now want laws on the books forcing parents to affirm their child’s “gender identity” on the pain of having the child taken from them by the state for abuse.

Abortion, which was once reluctantly defended only on the basis that it should be “safe, legal, and rare,” is now championed as a positive good, even at later stages of pregnancy. Abortion advocates now insist the only difference between an unborn child with rights and one without them is the mother’s desire, or not, to carry the pregnancy to term.

But even less contentious issues are now up for grabs, like mass rape. After Hamas terrorists filmed themselves raping and murdering Israeli women on Oct. 7, boasting about their savagery to a watching world, vast swaths of the America left still cannot bring themselves to condemn Hamas. The same progressive college students who insist that the mere presence of a conservative speaker on campus makes them “unsafe” are unable to condemn one of the worst instances of mass rape in modern history. Some even declare openly that they stand in solidarity with the Hamas rapists.

Pagan America

What is happening? Put bluntly, America is becoming pagan. That doesn’t necessarily mean a sudden surge in people worshipping Zeus or Apollo (although modern forms of witchcraft are on the rise). Rather it means an embrace of a fundamentally pagan worldview that rejects both transcendent moral truth and objective reality, and insists instead that truth is relative and reality is what we will it to be.

Recall that ancient pagans ascribed sacred or divine status to the here and now, to things or activities, even to human beings if they were powerful enough (like a pharaoh or a Roman emperor). They rejected the notion of an omnipotent, transcendent God — and all that the existence of God would imply. Hasan i-Sabbah, the ninth-century Arab warlord whose group gave us the word “assassins,” summed up the pagan ethos in his famous last words: Nothing is true, everything is permitted.

In other words, the radical moral relativism we see everywhere today represents a thoroughly post-Christian worldview that is best understood as the return of paganism, which, as the Romans well understood, is fundamentally incompatible with the Christian faith. Christianity after all does not allow for such relativism but insists on hard definitions of truth and what is — and is not — sacred and divine.  

So if we have entered a post-Christian era in the West and are facing a return, in modern guises, of paganism, what does that mean for America? It means the end of America as we know it, and the emergence of something new and terrifying in its place. 

America was founded not just on certain ideals but on a certain kind of people, a predominantly Christian people, and it depends for its survival on their moral virtue, without which the entire experiment in self-government will unravel. As Christianity fades in America, so too will our system of government, our civil society, and all our rights and freedoms. Without a national culture shaped by the Christian faith, without a majority consensus in favor of traditional Christian morality, America as we know it will come to an end. Instead of free citizens in a republic, we will be slaves in a pagan empire.

Perhaps that sounds dramatic, but it is true nevertheless. There is no secular utopia waiting for us in the post-Christian, neopagan world now coming into being — no future in which we get to retain the advantages and benefits of Christendom without the faith from which they sprang. Western civilization and its accoutrements depend on Christianity, not just in the abstract but in practice. Liberalism relies on a source of vitality that does not originate from it and that it cannot replenish. That source is the Christian faith, in the absence of which we will revert to an older form of civilization, one in which power alone matters and the weak and the vulnerable count for nothing.

What awaits us on the other side of Christendom, in other words, is a pagan dark age. Here, in the third decade of the 21st century, we can say with some confidence that this dark age has begun.

T. S. Eliot made this point in a series of lectures he gave at Cambridge University in 1939 that would later be published as The Idea of a Christian Society. Eliot wrote, “[T]he choice before us is the creation of a new Christian culture, and the acceptance of a pagan one.” Writing on the eve of the Second World War, Eliot said, “To speak of ourselves as a Christian Society, in contrast to that of [National Socialist] Germany or [Communist] Russia, is an abuse of terms. We mean only that we have a society in which no one is penalised for the formal profession of Christianity; but we conceal from ourselves the unpleasant knowledge of the real values by which we live.” 

Those values, Eliot argued, did not belong to Christianity but to “modern paganism,” which he believed was ascendent in both Western democracies and totalitarian states alike. Western democracies held no positive principles aside from liberalism and tolerance, he argued. The result was a negative culture, lacking substance, that would eventually dissolve and be replaced by a pagan culture that espoused materialism, secularism, and moral relativism as positive principles. These principles would be enforced as a public or state morality, and those who dissented from them would be punished. 

Paganism, as Eliot saw it and as I argue in my new book, Pagan America, imposes a moral relativism in which power alone determines right. The principles Americans have always asserted against this kind of moral and political tyranny — freedom of speech, equal protection under the law, government by consent of the governed — depend for their sustenance on the Christian faith, alive and active among the people, shaping their private and family lives as much as the social and political life of the nation.

Dechristianization in America, then, heralds the end of all that once held it together and made it cohere. And the process of dechristianization is further along than most people realize, partly because it has been underway in the West for centuries, and in America since at least the middle of the last century. Only now, in our time, are the outlines of a post-Christian society coming clearly into view. 

What does it mean for America to be post-Christian? To be pagan? What will such a country be like? We don’t have to wait to find out because the pagan era has arrived. If we look closely and consider the evidence honestly, we can already see what kind of a place it will be. Put bluntly, America without Christianity will not be the sort of place where most Americans will want to live, Christian or not. The classical liberal order, so long protected and preserved by the Christian civilization from which it sprang, is already being systematically destroyed and replaced with something new.

This new society — call it pagan America — will be marked above all by oppression and violence, primarily against the weak and powerless, perpetrated by the wealthy and powerful. In pagan America, such violence will be officially sanctioned and carry the force of law. We will have a public or state morality, just as Rome had, which will be quite separate from whatever religion one happens to profess. It was, after all, Christianity that united morality and religion, and without it, they will be separated once more. What you believe won’t really matter to the state; what will matter is whether you adhere to the public morality — whether you offer the mandatory sacrifice to Caesar, so to speak. And if you don’t, there will be consequences.

We are not talking about the imminent return of pre-Christian polytheism as the state religion. The new paganism will not necessarily come with the outward trappings of the old, but it will be no less pagan for all that. It will be defined, as it always was, by the belief that nothing is true, everything is permitted. And that belief will produce, as it always has, a world defined almost entirely by power: the strong subjugating or discarding the weak, and the weak doing what they must to survive. That’s why nearly all pagan civilizations, especially the most “advanced” ones, were slave empires. The more advanced they were, the more brutal and violent they became.

The same thing will eventually happen in our time. The lionization of abortion, the rise of transgenderism, the normalization of euthanasia, the destruction of the family, the sexualization of children and mainstreaming of pedophilia, and the emergence of a materialist supernaturalism as a substitute for traditional religion are all happening right now as a result of Christianity’s decline.

We should understand all of these things as signs of paganism’s return, remembering that paganism was not just the ritual embodiment of sincere religious belief but an entire sociopolitical order. The mystery cults of pagan Rome and Babylon were not just theatrical or fanciful expressions of polytheistic urges in the populace, they were mechanisms of social control.

There was of course spiritual — demonic —power behind the pagan gods, but also real political power behind the pagan order. This order achieved its fullest expression in Rome, which eventually elevated emperors to the status of deities, embracing the diabolical idea that man himself creates the gods and therefore can become one. It is no accident that the worship of the Roman emperor as a god emerged at more or less the exact same historical moment as the Incarnation. Christianity, which proclaimed that God had become man, burst forth into a social world that was everywhere adopting the worship of a man-god, and its coming heralded the end of that world. 

The new paganism will likewise bring an entire sociopolitical order with its own mechanisms of amassing power and exerting social and political control. We can see these mechanisms at work everywhere today, from the therapeutic narcissism of social media to the spread of transgender and even transhumanist ideologies pushed by powerful corporations working in concert with the state.

We see it in the emergence of new technologies, above all artificial intelligence, whose architects talk openly in pagan terms about “creating the gods” and imbuing them with immense new powers over every aspect of our lives. The old gods are indeed returning, only we do not call them that because Christianity has made it impossible. Perhaps as the Christian faith subsides they will be called gods once more. 

But whatever we call them, the sociopolitical order they bring will not be liberal or tolerant. It will not be secular humanism divorced from the Christian morality that made humanism possible. All of that will be swept away, replaced by an oppressive and violent sociopolitical order predicated on raw power, not principle. The violence will be official — carried out by government bureaucrats, police, heath care workers, NGOs, public schools, and Big Tech. 

This is predictable, and was indeed predicted a long time ago. Edmund Burke said that if the Christian religion, “which has hitherto been our boast and comfort, and one great source of civilization,” were somehow overthrown, the void would be filled by “some uncouth, pernicious, and degrading superstition.” He was right. The prevalence of degrading superstition and the disfigurement of reason are hallmarks of the new pagan order, and today are everywhere visible in American society. 

We were warned about all this, warned that our survival as a free people depended on preserving the faith of our fathers. President Calvin Coolidge, speaking on the 150th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, called it “the product of the spiritual insight of the people.” America in 1926 was booming in every way, with great leaps forward not just in economic prosperity, but in science and technology. But all these material things, said Coolidge, came from the Declaration. “The things of the spirit come first,” he said, and then leveled a stark warning to his countrymen:

Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren sceptre in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped.

Nearly a century later, it’s clear we have failed to cultivate the reverence our fathers had for the things that are holy, and we have indeed sunk into a pagan materialism. What comes next is pagan slavery, which now looms over the republic like a great storm cloud, ready to break.

No Fear

When it breaks and the deluge comes, though, Christians at least need not fear. Christ Himself came into a pagan world that regarded His message with contempt and incomprehension. His followers endured centuries of persecution and martyrdom, and in those fires, a faith was forged that would topple the greatest pagan empire ever known, and amid its ruins build something greater yet.

In a television address in 1974, the Venerable Fulton J. Sheen, then nearly 80 years old, declared, “We are at the end of Christendom.” He defined Christendom as “economic, political, social life, as inspired by Christian principles. That is ending — we have seen it die. Look at the symptoms: the breakup of the family, divorce, abortion, immorality, general dishonesty. We live in it from day to day, and we do not see the decline.”

Half a century has passed since Sheen said this, which might not be long in the lifespan of a religion founded 2,000 years ago, but then it only takes the lifespan of a single generation for much to be lost. And much has been lost in the last half-century. The symptoms are much worse today than they were in 1974, in ways that Sheen himself might not have foreseen. But he was right that it’s hard to see the decline when you live in it day to day and hard to see where it’s heading.

The task for Americans today, Christian and non-Christian alike, is to see the decline, understand what it portends, and prepare accordingly. This is not a counsel of despair. For Christians familiar with their own history, nothing is ever really cause for despair — not even the loss, if it comes to that, of the American republic. History, as J. R. R. Tolkien said in one of his letters, is for Christians a “long defeat — though it contains (and in a legend may contain more clearly and movingly) some samples or glimpses of final victory.”

What he meant by this, in part, is that we cannot in the end vanquish or eradicate evil. Our world, like Tolkien’s Middle Earth, is a world in decline, marred by sin and corruption, embroiled in a rebellion against God. But as Christians, we repose our hope in a God who can, and indeed already has, conquered sin and death. So we await the dawn, and in the meantime, we fight the long defeat.  


John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. He is the author of Pagan America: the Decline of Christianity and the Dark Age to Come. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report


Tuesday, March 26, 2024

Top Stories
Supreme Court Hears How Women Suffered From Abortion Pill After FDA Abandoned Them
Marco Rubio: Investigate Planned Parenthood for Selling Aborted Baby Parts
Supreme Court Should Hold FDA Accountable for Putting Abortion Ahead of Women’s Health
The Abortion Drug Mifepristone is Harming Women, Here’s Proof

More Pro-Life News
Poll Shows Republicans More Excited About Voting for Trump Than Democrats About Voting for Biden
FDA Put Women at Risk in 2016 by Removing Abortion Pill Safeguards, Now Thousands are Being Injured
2,400 Babies are Killed in Abortions Every Day. We Must End Abortion
Irish Woman Nearly Dies From Ectopic Pregnancy Three Days After Having Abortion
Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

Supreme Court Hears How Women Suffered From Abortion Pill After FDA Abandoned Them

Marco Rubio: Investigate Planned Parenthood for Selling Aborted Baby Parts

Supreme Court Should Hold FDA Accountable for Putting Abortion Ahead of Women’s Health

The Abortion Drug Mifepristone is Harming Women, Here’s Proof


 

Poll Shows Republicans More Excited About Voting for Trump Than Democrats About Voting for Biden

 

FDA Put Women at Risk in 2016 by Removing Abortion Pill Safeguards, Now Thousands are Being Injured

2,400 Babies are Killed in Abortions Every Day. We Must End Abortion

Irish Woman Nearly Dies From Ectopic Pregnancy Three Days After Having Abortion

MORE PRO-LIFE NEWS FROM TODAY

Judge Rules 27-Year-Old Woman With Autism Can be Euthanized

British MP Files Bill to Stop Abortions Up to Birth on babies With Down Syndrome

Supreme Court Should Protect Women From Dangerous Abortion Pills

Idaho Governor Signs Law to Stop Government From Discriminating Against Christians Who Adopt Children

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.

NBC Promotes Abortion Pill Mill That Illegally Sends Dangerous Abortion Drugs to Pro-Life States

Arizona Pregnancy Center Opens New Home to Provide Housing for Pregnant Women

Women Tell Supreme Court Abortion Pills are Dangerous: “I Was Shocked to See I Was Covered in Blood”

New Pro-Abortion Study is a Propaganda Poly to Sell More Abortion Pills

Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2024 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.
For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.

The Bloodbaths Leftists Won’t Discuss


By: Kevin Jackson | March 25, 2024

Read more at https://theblacksphere.net/2024/03/bloodbaths-leftists-wont-discuss/

We’ve heard a lot about bloodbaths recently, as the Left tried to reinforce the “insurrection” narrative. That backfired on them, as almost all their attempts have to paint Trump supporters as extremists.

But the real bloodbaths happen with Leftists. Those happening and those yet to come.

As for the bloodbaths that are happening, one would think Leftists would examine their policies and see the carnage. However, they refuse to see the bodies rotting on life’s battlefield.

For example, Leftists paint Americans who want to protect children as “extremists” who ignore a woman’s right to choose. But look at the bloodbath of million dead babies a year in their wake. Children mostly killed because of Democrat policies. These people empower Planned Parenthood to kill babies. And worse, they openly wage war against Black babies in such disproportionate numbers, I can’t imagine how Blacks Leftists don’t shout “Racists!” at the organization.

Remember the bloodbath in Afghanistan, where 13 Marines died due to Biden’s botched Afghanistan withdrawal. What do you think those 13 families define as a bloodbath?

Next, Joe Biden’s open border policy that allows for an invasion of America comes with its tolls.

55,000 deaths a year and counting from Fentanyl overdoses. But that’s not the only drug Biden is ignoring. Bidenflation has caused many Americans to rely on mind-soothing drugs. They need to forget their realities, and rely on illegal drugs to do so. That same reality has created the highest suicide rate in two decades. How many people have we lost to the bloodbath created by drug overdoses? People who have lost hope in the American Dream.

Does anybody think the Democrats want to address the bloodbaths that happen daily in every major city across this country? What’s the body count every weekend in Chicago? Baltimore? St. Louis? And who’s responsible?

The horror, the bloodbaths of Blacks killing other Blacks in unbelievable numbers. And then there are other violent crimes, crimes that Biden claims are dropping.

Biden’s astonishing claim about reducing crime shows us all we need to know. He rules from the ivory tower, and he wouldn’t dare live his lie and reside without protection in one of America’s Democrat-controlled hell holes. If he did, he would witness first-hand the daily bloodbaths Leftist Democrats inflict on this country and each other daily.

Still, perhaps Biden’s biggest bloodbath centers around his Draconian covid restrictions and forced vaccinations.

We will never get the real numbers; numbers that drove some of the drug overdoses and suicides mentioned earlier. All because Democrats wanted to provide mail-in ballots to fake constituents. How many people had to die in for the sake of this ruse?

Democrats who mention bloodbaths represent their party well: total hypocrites. Their body counts rival any world war or the deaths by genocidal despots. I’ve said this many times on my radio show that Leftist Democrats are the most dangerous people in the world.

Ironically, Democrats try to paint Donald Trump as a despot, while Joe Biden behaves like one. But, America knows who creates the real bloodbaths. And it’s time conservatives stand up and fight for this country as if we were fighting a revolution. Because we are.

Jordan Demands Answers About DOJ’s Persecution of Blaze Investigative Reporter Steve Baker


BY: JORDAN BOYD | MARCH 13, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/13/jordan-demands-answers-about-dojs-persecution-of-blaze-investigative-reporter-steve-baker/

Steve Baker

Author Jordan Boyd profile

JORDAN BOYD

VISIT ON TWITTER@JORDANBOYDTX

MORE ARTICLES

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan wants President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice to explain why it targeted Blaze investigative reporter Steve Baker for covering the Jan. 6, 2021 chaos at the U.S. Capitol. Baker, one of the leading conservative journalists covering the fallout from the events at the Capitol, faces four charges connected to his presence while reporting at the demonstrations.

In a letter penned on March 12, Jordan demanded U.S. Attorney for Washington D.C. Matthew Graves hand over documents, communications, and other information related to Baker’s arrest and charges as well as “the investigation, prosecution, or arrest of any journalists covering the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.”

“There are serious concerns about selective prosecution in this case as well as the Department’s commitment to the First Amendment rights of journalists,” Jordan warned. The Republican noted that “other journalists were in the Capitol at the same time as Mr. Baker who have not been charged with crimes” but Baker, “who has been critical of the Department’s handling of the January 6 investigations and prosecutions” was.

“As Mr. Baker’s attorney noted, the Department ‘is not allowed to decide what press coverage it likes and what press coverage offends it and take prosecutorial action based on those judgments’,” Jordan wrote.

The FBI told Baker last month to turn himself in without disclosing the exact charges he would face. When Baker self-surrendered in Dallas on March 1, the FBI “fingerprinted, photographed, handcuffed, and placed Mr. Baker in the back of an FBI vehicle, transported him to the courthouse, and brought him before the magistrate judge in ‘a belly chain, box cuffs, and leg shackles.’”

“Mr. Baker’s counsel, a former federal prosecutor, stated that, in his long career with the Department, he never once saw ‘in an initial appearance on misdemeanor charges where the defendant was told to report first to the FBI to be fingerprinted and photographed before going to the courthouse,’” Jordan noted.

Not only did Jordan say, “this conduct smacks of harassment and selective treatment for a disfavored criminal defendant,” but he also wrote that the DOJ’s actions inherently contradict its alleged principles.

“The disparate treatment of disfavored groups violates the Department’s mission of equal justice under the law,” Jordan

Jordan also noted that members of the Judiciary Committee filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, which is “considering whether the Department has improperly interpreted a financial crimes statute to sentence January 6 defendants to 20-year prison terms,” focused on “explaining how the Department’s conduct criminalizes politics and weaponizes the administration of justice.”

“All of these issues raise concerns about the Biden Administration’s commitment to equal application of the law,” Jordan concluded.


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.

Alabama Secretary Of State Warns Of ‘Misleading’ Voter Registration Mailer By Leftist Group


BY: M.D. KITTLE | MARCH 26, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/26/alabama-secretary-of-state-warns-of-misleading-voter-registration-mailer-by-leftist-group/

A sticker declaring, I Voted, with American flag.

Author M.D. Kittle profile

M.D. KITTLE

MORE ARTICLES

Two groups are running a “misleading, unsolicited mass mailing of pre-filled voter registration forms targeting Alabama mailboxes,” according to an alert from Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen. In his warning, Allen says his office has “officially discouraged” the mailer, which is in no way affiliated with the state. 

Perhaps it’s no surprise that left-wing groups founded by an old Clinton family friend are behind the effort. According to the secretary of state’s office, the Voter Participation Center and Center for Voter Information have said they intend at least two rounds of mass mailings. 

“On two occasions, this Office was contacted on behalf of Voter Participation Center and Center for Voter Information regarding a mailer they planned to send to Alabama citizens,” Allen said in the alert. “In response, I strongly discouraged the group’s plan to mass mail our citizens.”

According to activist tracker InfluenceWatch, the Voter Participation Center (VPC) was launched in 2003 as Women’s Voices Women Vote, before expanding its mission and changing its name nearly a decade later. 

“The group initially focused on registering the strongly Democratic-leaning voting bloc of single women to vote; today, the group organizes registration of numerous Democratic-leaning voting populations,” InfluenceWatch reports

Founded with help from former President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff John Podesta, the leftist nonprofit has been heavily scrutinized for trying to “register animals, dead people, infants and felons to vote,” according to a 2012 Judicial Watch probe. The center has ties to Big Labor, including the AFL-CIO.

The VPC’s “questionable tactics to undermine the electoral process have caused concerns in several states, including New Mexico, Florida, Wisconsin and Virginia,” the Judicial Watch investigative report states. “VPC forms are deceiving and appear to be official when they are not, according to a news report that links a picture of the mailer. The VPC has also defended the famously corrupt Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) during its various scandals.”

The Voter Participation Center and its partner nonprofit, the Center for Voter Information, were at it again in the 2020 presidential election, to the concern of election officials in several states. As left-leaning Propublica reported at the time, the Democrat-tied groups conducted a “massive campaign to register voters and promote mail-in voting.”

“The nonprofits aim to send 340 million pieces of mail this election cycle, with a focus on two dozen key states. The groups describe themselves as nonpartisan, but they were founded by a former Democratic operative, and the organization has spent at least $47,142 this cycle to promote former Vice President Joe Biden’s presidential bid and $40,065 supporting other Democrats, according to public filings,” Propublica reported on Oct. 23, 2020, just 11 days before the election. 

Propublica’s figures were a drop in the bucket. Tax filings subsequently reviewed by the Hill found the Voter Participation Center spent more than $100 million, a sevenfold increase from what the organization spent on the 2016 presidential election.  

Like other leftist groups, the center used the cover of Covid to defend its get-out-the-vote efforts targeting Democrats. 

“At a time when in-person voter contact was sidelined for health and safety reasons, the Voter Participation Center really stood up and did the work that was needed to help register voters, to help voters learn about and sign up to vote by mail, and to educate voters on early voting in person, voting by mail and how to vote safely on election day,” Tom Lopach, the group’s CEO, told the Hill at the time. Lopach, as the publication noted, is a longtime Democrat operative who previously served as “executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and a former chief of staff” to Democrat Sen. Jon Tester

Allen said his office has in previous elections cycles received complaints from Alabama residents about “incorrect pre-filled voter registration forms” much like the ones from the Voter Participation Center. 

“This type of targeted, partisan interference by out-of-state, third-party organizations is unnecessary, confusing, and counterproductive,” the secretary of state said. 

“Alabama citizens can rest assured that the Alabama Secretary of State’s office and local election officials are well-equipped to handle voter registration in Alabama,” Allen added. “Trusted voter registration and election information can be found on the Secretary of State’s official website.”


Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.

New York’s Fraud Judgment Against Trump Is So Bad, Even His Biggest Critics Aren’t Defending It


BY: MARK HEMINGWAY | MARCH 26, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/26/new-yorks-fraud-judgment-against-trump-is-so-bad-even-his-biggest-critics-arent-defending-it/

Donald Trump

Author Mark Hemingway profile

MARK HEMINGWAY

VISIT ON TWITTER@HEMINATOR

MORE ARTICLES

It’s pretty clear at this point that Democrats’ main election strategy against Donald Trump has nothing to do with Joe Biden running a savvy political campaign. Instead, they’re attempting to defeat Trump with a series of obviously politically coordinated lawsuits and criminal charges, hoping this will both drain Trump’s resources and any resulting convictions would tarnish him in the eyes of voters. Suffice it to say, this strategy is not working out well for them — Biden hasn’t led in the polls in six months.

And while there’s a lot to be said about the dubious nature of the charges being brought against him, the point has been driven home by the recent decision by a New York appeals court to reduce Trump’s bond in his civil fraud trial from $454 million to $175 million. Or rather, the issue is what no one is saying about this case: It’s such complete bunk that no one among the legion of Trump’s critics in and out of the corporate media is even trying to defend this case on the merits.

To recap: Trump took out loans over several years, as real estate moguls are wont to do. For him to get approved for those loans, the banks did their own due diligence about Trump’s finances and ability to pay back the loans and decided to give them to him. Trump paid back the loans, and everyone made money.

However, the state of New York, where the current Attorney General Letitia James campaigned for office on the insane premise of convicting Trump without even saying what he was guilty of, combed through the paperwork of these loans and charged Trump with fraudulently inflating the value of his assets to get favorable loan terms. They did this in spite of the fact that no bank has accused Trump of wrongdoing.

The case was decided by a judge who is personally bizarre and professionally incompetent and adversarial. In a case where Trump was accused of inflating the value of his assets, in Judge Engoron’s ruling he concluded that Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s historic estate on 17 oceanfront acres in the heart of the most exclusive neighborhood in America, was worth between “$18 million and $27.6 million.” Even CNN was incredulous about Engoron’s low valuation of Trump’s assets: “Real estate insiders question how Trump fraud judge valued Mar-a-Lago.” For those who believe that Trump inflated the value of his assets to get a loan — this would not exactly make him a unique figure in the business world — Engoron’s judgment is still unreliable.

The ruling against Trump is, in the words of former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy, “a fraud case in which there are no fraud victims.” McCarthy’s National Review colleague Dan McLaughlin, who has decades of experience litigating business fraud in New York, notes, “The idea that Trump caused half a billion in damages to his lenders doesn’t pass the straight face test. A tenuous-at-best theory of illegality should not be a springboard for draconian punishment.” (It should also be noted that though McCarthy and McLaughlin are on the right, neither man has much affinity for Trump.)

This case is so obviously politically motivated, and even America’s corrupt media are at a loss to defend this: “An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of similar cases showed Trump’s case stands apart: It’s the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.”

For months now, I have been on the lookout for any notable journalist or pundit who is willing to write an actual defense of Engeron’s judgment against Trump. Outside of a handful of ill-considered tweets from the #resistance crowd, I haven’t seen anything substantive at all. While I pay attention to this stuff much more closely than most, I’m obviously not omniscient. So, I went on X and asked if anyone had written anything substantive defending Engeron’s decision on the merits. (My question was almost immediately retweeted by Dilbert cartoonist and unorthodox political commentator Scott Adams, who has more than a million followers, giving it wide exposure.)

So far, the closest thing I’ve found was this column at the libertarian-ish legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy. Berkeley law professor Orin Kerr defends the ruling, taking a strict read on what the state was allowed to do here. However, even he is conflicted about whether the case should have been brought, admirably and transparently states his opinion is contingent on the fact he’s not an expert in New York law, and concludes, “So if the opinion is wrong, and gets reversed, I certainly don’t mind that.”

Well, Monday a New York appeals court did conclude that Engeron’s opinion was substantially wrong and reduced the bond Trump has to present from $454 million to $175 million. (Incredibly, New York law dictates Trump has to post this still obscene amount before he can further appeal the decision.)

In addition to reducing the size of Trump’s bond, the appeals court also threw out Engeron’s ruling barring Trump from serving as an officer or director of a New York company for three years and the order barring Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump from serving as officers and directors of New York companies for two years. The plan was clearly to slap Trump with an egregious fine while simultaneously hamstringing Trump’s business in ways that would make it harder to raise money to pay the penalty.

Even by the very low standards set by the other Trump charges, what’s happening here is appalling. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled that Colorado may not bar Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment’s provision against insurrectionists. The fact that there was a riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, does not mean we automatically get to presume it was a serious insurrection attempt, much less that Trump has been convicted in a court of law for any crime related to it.

From the beginning, this was a desperate and quixotic attempt to stop Trump from participating in a free election, as well as disenfranchise millions of voters. It was so bad it prompted a unanimous SCOTUS ruling. And yet, in the weeks and months leading up to SCOTUS’s ruling there were dozens of op-eds from ostensibly serious and high-profile commentators assuring us that the unilateral decision by Colorado’s secretary of state was sound constitutional law. Anti-Trump pundits such as David French and many others eagerly staked out a position on this case to the left of avowedly progressive Supreme Court Justices Kentanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor.

As crazy as the Colorado case was, the reaction to it is an instructive comparison. In the Trump civil fraud case, we have an overtly partisan attorney general bringing charges and a solitary judge handing down a verdict so insane that even the regrettably prominent segment of America’s commentariat willing to abase itself at the drop of a hat to stop Cheeto Mussolini is looking at the facts of this case and deciding to steer clear of the blast zone.

While the appeals court’s rebuke of Engeron’s decision is strong confirmation the case is as bad as it seems, it was hardly Solomonic in its wisdom. The reality is that the man leading in the polls to be the next president is still being rung up by the opposition party with an outrageous fine that reeks of an Eighth Amendment violation on a case that never should have been brought. And we should probably throw in a Fifth Amendment due process violation while we’re at it, because the idea that Trump has to pay the state $175 million for the privilege of continuing to appeal in court is something I’m confident the reanimated corpse of James Madison would tell us is exactly the kind of injustice the Bill of Rights was trying to prevent, right before he dies a second time upon finding out about the existence of a federal income tax.

In the end, what’s really telling is that while the “country over party” crowd won’t defend this decision on the merits, they’re also not speaking out about the perversion of justice here. They’re content to let it happen to Trump even if it erodes the very norms and concerns about “rule of law” they insist Trump threatens as president.

Well, people are noticing that this isn’t a very principled position. And based on the polls, voters are coming to the entirely rational conclusion that Trump, for all his considerable flaws, is less of a threat than an establishment that will eagerly distort the law to subvert an election they’re afraid they can’t win on the merits.


Mark Hemingway is the Book Editor at The Federalist, and was formerly a senior writer at The Weekly Standard. Follow him on Twitter at @heminator

Judge Bars Trump From Commenting on Witnesses, Others in Upcoming Case


Tuesday, 26 March 2024 03:16 PM EDT

Judge Bars Trump From Commenting on Witnesses, Others in Upcoming Case
(AP)

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/trump-gag-order-hush-money-new-york/2024/03/26/id/1158723/

A New York judge Tuesday issued a gag order barring Donald Trump from making public statements about witnesses, prosecutors, court staff and jurors in his upcoming criminal trial.

Judge Juan M. Merchan cited Trump’s previous comments about him, and others involved in the case, as well as a looming April 15 trial date in granting the prosecution’s request for a gag order.

“It is without question that the imminency of the risk of harm is now paramount,” Merchan wrote.

Prosecutors had asked for the gag order citing what they called his “long history of making public and inflammatory remarks” about people involved in his legal cases.

The order also bars Trump from making or directing others to make public statements about people involved in the trial, but it does not apply to the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg because he is an elected official. The gag order adds to restrictions put in place after Trump’s arraignment last April that prohibit him from using evidence in the case to attack witnesses.

Trump’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the order. A message seeking comment was sent to the prosecutors’ office.

The trial, involving allegations related to hush money paid during Trump’s 2016 campaign to cover up marital infidelity claims, had been in limbo after his lawyers complained about a recent deluge of nearly 200,000 pages of evidence from a previous federal investigation into the matter. Trump’s lawyers accused Bragg’s office of intentionally failing to pursue evidence from the 2018 federal investigation, which sent Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen to prison. They contended prosecutors working under Bragg, a Democrat, did so to gain an unfair advantage in the case and harm Trump’s election chances. Cohen, now a vocal Trump critic, is poised to be a key prosecution witness against his ex-boss.

Merchan bristled at the defense’s claims at a hearing Monday, saying the DA’s office had no duty to collect evidence from the federal investigation, nor was the U.S. attorney’s office required to volunteer the documents. What transpired was a “far cry” from Manhattan prosecutors “injecting themselves in the process and vehemently and aggressively trying to obstruct your ability to get documentation,” the judge said.

The DA’s office denied wrongdoing and blamed Trump’s lawyers for bringing the time crunch upon themselves by waiting until Jan. 18 to subpoena the records from the U.S. attorney’s office — a mere nine weeks before the trial was originally supposed to start. Merchan, who earlier this month postponed the trial until at least mid-April to deal with the evidence issue, told defense lawyers that they should have acted sooner if they believed they didn’t have all the records they wanted.

Though the hush money case is seen as less consequential than his other prosecutions — which charge him with conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and illegally retaining classified documents — it has taken on added importance given that it’s the only one that appears likely for trial in the coming months.

The trial will begin with jury selection, a potentially arduous task given the publicity surrounding the case and Trump’s struggle for popularity in heavily Democratic Manhattan.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to charges that he falsified business records, a felony punishable by up to four years in prison, though there is no guarantee a conviction would result in jail time. Manhattan prosecutors say Trump did it as part of an effort to protect his 2016 campaign by burying what he says were false stories of extramarital sex. Trump on Monday repeated to reporters his claims that the case is a “witch hunt” and “hoax.”

Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

Gap in San Diego Sector Border Wall Raises Obvious Question About Illegal Immigration


By: Virginia Allen @Virginia_Allen5 / March 26, 2024

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/03/26/gap-san-diego-sector-border-wall-raises-big-question-illegal-immigration/

A large gap in the U.S.-Mexico border wall is seen in Otay Mesa, a community in San Diego County, California, on Friday. (Photo: Virginia Allen/The Daily Signal)

A man made his way along a dirt path in Tijuana, Mexico, toward the large gap in the U.S.-Mexico border wall Friday morning. He carried a backpack and walked with ease through the more than 100-yard opening into Otay Mesa, a community in San Diego County, California. No Border Patrol agents were in sight. A source working alongside agents in the San Diego Sector told The Daily Signal on Friday that Border Patrol was short-staffed, only having a fraction of the agents needed to cover California’s border with Mexico. 

The man who entered through the gap Friday did not appear concerned about whether he was seen entering the country illegally, but also appeared hesitant to encounters strangers, maintaining a significant distance between himself and The Daily Signal reporting team.  

If the wall had been completed in Otay Mesa, would the man with the backpack still have found another way to enter the country illegally? In other words, do walls alone stop illegal immigration?  

Trump vs. Biden on Border Walls  

Construction was underway to extend the border fence 3 miles through the Otay Mountain Wilderness under President Donald Trump, The San Diego Union-Tribune previously reported. And the materials to finish the project, according to local landowners who recently spoke with The Daily Signal, were ready to be used to complete the barrier between Otay Mesa and Tijuana.  

But under the Biden administration, construction was halted, and the wall materials were removed from the area. Today, a large gap in the wall remains in the mountainous region.  

On his first day in office, Biden signed an executive order declaring that “building a massive wall that spans the entire southern border is not a serious policy solution. It is a waste of money that diverts attention from genuine threats to our homeland security.”  

Case Study of the San Diego Sector  

The San Diego Sector, one of nine sectors along the southern border, presents an interesting case study on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of border walls and policy related to U.S. border security.  

(Photo: Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, generated based on Customs and Border Protection data)

Illegal crossings into the San Diego Sector are not new.  

“San Diego Sector’s primary operational area of responsibility consists of 7,000 square miles, including 60 linear miles of international boundary with Mexico and 114 coastal border miles along the Pacific Ocean,” according to Customs and Border Protection.  

Throughout the 1970s, ’80s, and into the ’90s, the San Diego Sector consistently experience more illegal crossings than any other southern border sector. In fiscal year 1980, for example, Border Patrol encountered 285,984 illegal aliens in the San Diego Sector. The El Paso Sector, which includes all of New Mexico and a portion of western Texas, had the second-highest number of encounters that same year at 127,488.  

In an effort to stem the vast number of illegal crossings into the sector, in 1994, “Border Patrol’s San Diego Sector introduced a new border control plan at Imperial Beach Station,” according to an archived Justice Department document. The plan was called Operation Gatekeeper.  Imperial Beach Station is one of eight Border Patrol stations in the San Diego Sector.  

According to the Justice Department, Operation Gatekeeper focused on deterring and preventing illegal crossings, and shifted away from an emphasis on apprehensions.  Following Operation Gatekeeper’s implantation in the Imperial Beach Station, the plan was rolled out at the other seven stations in the sector.  

In 1993, fencing was constructed out of steel landing mats along long stretches of the San Diego Sector border with Mexico starting at the Pacific Ocean, according to the Justice Department report.  The report notes that people were still able to climb over the barrier, but “the fencing serves two important functions: It provides a barrier to vehicles crossing the border with aliens and/or drugs, and it defines a clear line of demarcation between the two countries.” Those initial efforts to stem the flow of illegal immigration into the San Diego Sector saw little result.  

Border Patrol encountered 565,581 illegal aliens in 1992 before the implementation of Operation Gatekeeper or the building of long stretches of barrier. By 1996, the San Diego Sector was seeing slightly lower encounter numbers, ending the fiscal year with a total of 483,815—still the highest among all nine southern border sectors.  

It was not until 2010 that the San Diego Sector began to see a large and sustained decrease in illegal border crossings, following Congress authorizing the building of 700 miles of border wall under the Secure Fence Act of 2006 during the Bush administration.

Border-NumbersDownload

The construction of the border wall that began under then-President George W. Bush continued under President Barack Obama, including in the in the Otay Mountain Wilderness in California, where a gap remains today.  In 2007, total illegal Southwest border crossings between ports of entry began to decline and did not see significant increase again until fiscal year 2019, at which time then-President Donald Trump began implementing new policies to reduce the flow of illegal immigration, such as the Remain in Mexico policy. More fencing was also built under Trump. 

Results 

Between factors such as changes to Border Patrol policies and the building of border wall during the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations, Border Patrol encounters between ports of entry on the southern border fell to 400,651 in fiscal year 2020, the final full fiscal year of Trump’s presidency. In the San Diego Sector, Border Patrol encountered 53,282 illegal aliens during the same year. In fiscal year 2021, most of it under President Joe Biden’s administration, encounters in the San Diego Sector climbed back up to over 142,000, and across the southern border, encounters were more than 1.6 million, levels the Border Patrol had not come close to since before the building of the tall border wall in 2000.

Biden ended Trump’s Remain in Mexico policy and stopped all wall construction, but did not remove sections of previously built wall, yet has seen record high encounter numbers under his presidency.  In fiscal year 2022 and 2023, Border Patrol encountered more than 2 million illegal aliens in each 12-month period between ports of entry along the southern border.  

Border Patrol data indicates illegal crossings have only declined significantly with both construction of border wall and during times when policies were in place to discourage entering the country illegally.  

Saving Democracy from Itself: The Democratic National Committee Moves to Block Third Party Candidates


By: Jonathan Turley | March 26, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/03/26/saving-democracy-from-itself-the-democratic-national-committee-moves-to-block-third-party-candidates/

Below is my column in the New York Post on a reported plan of the Democratic National Committee and allied groups to try to block third-party candidates from the 2024 ballot. The contradiction is stunning as these groups raise money to “save democracy” by limiting democratic choice. In the meantime, the leading third-party candidate Robert Kennedy, Jr. will be reportedly announcing his running mate this week.

Here is the column:

The last time that the Chicago Democratic Convention was held in Chicago in 1968, the resulting riots led to one of the greatest Freudian slips in American politics. Mayor Richard Daley declared “the policeman isn’t there to create disorder; the policeman is there to preserve disorder.” The Democratic National Committee has now added its own gem: the Democratic Party is not here to preserve democracy, it is here to prevent democracy.

That’s because the DNC is seeking to block third party candidates from ballots — Robert Kennedy Jr., Cornell West, and Jill Stein. All three are liberal and are considered a threat to Joe Biden. This effort will likely include any ticket put forward by the No Labels group, seeking a moderate alternative to the two parties.

Mary Beth Cahill, the former interim DNC CEO, and long-time DNC staffer Ramsey Reid  will lead this effort. According to media reports, former Buttigieg campaign aide Lis Smith will lead the effort with another Buttigieg alumni, Matt Corridoni. This effort includes not just a public campaign against Kennedy and Stein as spoilers, but “legal action” to solve the problem by denying voters a choice.

The media does not appear at all alarmed or critical of the effort to limit democratic choice. The Washington Post stated clinically “Democrats are taking third-party threats seriously this time.” Taking it seriously appears to mean using legal means to keep them from the ballots.

It is true that the main political parties have challenged qualification signatures and paperwork in the past. However, the reports indicate a systemic effort geared toward reducing the choices for voters. What is striking is that this is coming from democratic groups and the DNC, which are raising money on the “save democracy” narrative.

The contradiction is spellbinding. On the same sites promising to oppose the third party candidates, the DNC and other groups push the narrative that only the Democrats are working to protect the right to vote.

The Post reports that Democrats have studied the Hillary Clinton campaign and vowed not to allow third party candidates to drain away millions of voters as they did in 2016. Of course, the comparison is particularly telling because in both 2016 and 2024, the DNC chose the least popular Democratic candidates. Polls showed that Clinton was the worst possible candidate for the party, but the Clintons had control over the DNC and state party organizations.

Of particular concern is the fact that Trump beat Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan by only 67,000 votes. In just those states, Libertarian Gary Johnson and the Green Party’s Stein received more than half a million votes.

Rather than actually pick a candidate that most citizens want, the DNC wants to replay the 2016 strategy of forcing the choice between two evils in a Biden-Trump choice. That can only work reliably if there is no other choice for citizens tired of the duopoly and the political (and media) establishment. So Kennedy, Cornell, and Stein just have to go.

I am one of those misguided voters. Years ago, I wrote a column saying that I was tired of voting for the lesser of two evils — leaving every election as a moral hazard. I am prepared to vote for candidates from the two main parties in any given election, but I will only vote for the candidate who I believe is the best of candidates to be president. We are played as chumps by a political and media establishment in every election system. Over two decades ago, I pledged to vote for the best candidate, even if they are with a third party.

The DNC is reportedly to be joined in this effort by a well-financed array of groups including the liberal think tank Third Way (which has filed complaints with secretaries of states); American Bridge (a Democratic opposition operation), and Clear Choice (a super PAC composed of “allies of President Biden”). While these groups work to limit the choice of voters, the effort continues in Florida, Georgia, Washington, and New York to keep Trump in court until the election, including a possible trial running up to or even through the election. There is hope that this multi-front effort will be the winning ticket, particularly if the ultimate ticket denies voters any other choice.

The open discussion of these efforts in the media illustrates the contempt for voters, who need to be protected from their bad choices. I have previously compared the underlying assumptions to a type of electoral Big Gulp law. Before they were also struck down, these laws sought to take away the dietary choices of citizens because they were making the wrong choice in the view of experts. Activists are now big gulping the election. Voters cannot be trusted with something as important as democracy.

President Biden has said “make no mistake: Democracy is on the ballot for all of us.” Of course, he could end this effort by denouncing further ballot cleansing (something he refused to do when Trump was removed by the Colorado and Maine ballots). It appears that the last thing that democracy needs is free democratic choice.

Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – He’s The Bomb

A.F. BRANCO | on March 26, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-hes-the-bomb/

Biden Is A Disaster
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

Biden has been a complete and total disaster, but so many have drunken the legacy media’s leftist propaganda against Trump to the point they fail to see the devastation Biden and the Democrat’s policies have given us and can’t see it in comparison to the peace and prosperity that four years of President Trump brought us.

Karine Jean-Pierre Blames Trump After Peter Doocy Repeatedly Asks Her Why Americans Disapprove of Biden Economy (VIDEO)

Donald Trump Writes Column: ‘How I Will End Joe Biden’s Border Disaster on Day One’ READ MORE

DONATE to A.F. Branco Cartoons – Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

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.

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report


Monday, March 25, 2024

Top Stories
Women Tell Supreme Court Abortion Pills are Dangerous: “I Was Shocked to See I Was Covered in Blood”
Five Questions SCOTUS Should Ask FDA About Dangerous Abortion Drug Mifepristone
After New Interview, Some Claim Justice Stephen Breyer Was Dobbs Leaker
Study Shows Bump in Mail-Order Abortion Pills After Dobbs, Killing More Babies and Injuring More Women

More Pro-Life News
New Pro-Abortion Study is a Propaganda Poly to Sell More Abortion Pills
Pro-Life Advocates Will Protest CVS and Walgreens for Selling Abortion Drugs
40 Days for Life Campaign Saves 266 Babies From Abortions
Nurses Group Tells Supreme Court to Protect Women From Dangerous Abortion Drugs
Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

Women Tell Supreme Court Abortion Pills are Dangerous: “I Was Shocked to See I Was Covered in Blood”

Five Questions SCOTUS Should Ask FDA About Dangerous Abortion Drug Mifepristone

After New Interview, Some Claim Justice Stephen Breyer Was Dobbs Leaker

Study Shows Bump in Mail-Order Abortion Pills After Dobbs, Killing More Babies and Injuring More Women


 

New Pro-Abortion Study is a Propaganda Poly to Sell More Abortion Pills

 

Pro-Life Advocates Will Protest CVS and Walgreens for Selling Abortion Drugs

40 Days for Life Campaign Saves 266 Babies From Abortions

Nurses Group Tells Supreme Court to Protect Women From Dangerous Abortion Drugs

MORE PRO-LIFE NEWS FROM TODAY

British Government Says Pro-Life People are Potential Terrorists

Polls Show Trump Leading Biden in Key Battleground States

Premature Baby Born 16 Weeks Early and Weighing as Much as a Loaf of Bread Celebrates His First Birthday

Washington State Denies Foster Care License to Couple Because of Their Christian Views

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.

Pope John Paul II’s “Gospel of Life” is Still a Powerful Document Condemning Abortion

Some Women Decide to Have 5 or More Children, And They’re Incredibly Happy

Gov. Kristi Noem Signs Pro-Life Bill Clarifying That Abortion Ban Allows Emergency Medical Care for Pregnant Women

Louisiana House Defeats Amendment to Legalize Abortions Up to Birth

Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2024 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.
For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.

Biden’s America: Safer and More Prosperous?


By: Kevin Jackson | March 24, 2024

Read more at https://theblacksphere.net/2024/03/bidens-america-safer-and-more-prosperous/

In case you need a respite from the butt-kicking of life under Joe Biden, Joe Biden rides to the rescue. According to Biden and his media minions, America is “safer and more prosperous” under his rule.

Yes, Der Fuhrer issued an edict: you will admit that you are better off, or you will die. In other words, accept the lies. And Team Biden does what it does best. Lies. Biden lies about everything, and he’s created an ecosystem of liars. Biden’s team lied about the 2020 Presidential Election, and then they tried to cover their lie with J6 nonsense. They lie on weather, calling it climate change, then milking taxpayers for billions. And what about the support of Ukraine. Lies built to cover up the corruption between the Biden family and that crooked government. Biden’s lies have consequences. Especially his current lie about crime.

Before I go into the numbers, I would ask you, “Do you feel that America is safer under Biden?”

I offer nothing official, but I feel confident that the majority of Americans believe crime has worsened under Biden.

NYC residents certainly don’t think there is less crime. That was reflected in the results of a new poll, reported on by the NY Post. Only 30% said they were happy with the quality of life in the city, the poll – run by The Citizens Budget Commission – also revealed. Additionally, the poll also found merely 37% of New Yorkers now rate public safety in their local area as excellent or good. This marks a significant decline from six years prior, when 50% of residents felt positively about their neighborhood’s safety.

Queens Councilman Robert Holden said to the Post

“People are fed up with the quality of life. There’s a general sense of lawlessness. You go into the CVS and there’s shoplifting. People’s cars get vandalized.”

The survey of 6,600 households revealed half feel unsafe using the subway by day, a stark drop from 2017. It also highlighted significant declines in satisfaction with public education, government services, and cleanliness.

Dissatisfaction grew regarding traffic, safety for cyclists and pedestrians, and subway services. Higher income Manhattan residents and white individuals reported higher satisfaction with city life, although overall contentment with life quality in NYC fell. Yet, 50% were pleased with their neighborhood quality. This dissatisfaction coincides with rising major crime rates from 2017 to 2023, per NYPD data.

Tom Grech, the president and CEO of Queens Chamber of Commerce simply added: “In general, it’s pretty ugly out there. There’s a free for all mentality over there the last couple of years. There’s a little sense of things spiraling out of control. We’ve got to get back to basics.”

So what people are experiencing the crime wave, when you have Joe Biden to provide bogus statistics that the media actually uses?

Watch MSNBC’s Chris Hayes present Biden’s crime stats with all the believability of Tommy Flanagan:

Hayes said that under Biden, America had the largest one year decline in murder ever recorded. Indisputable. Thus, Safer and more prosperous under Biden.

As Tommy Flanagan would say, “Yea…that’s the ticket!”

I like how Hayes sneaked in “more prosperous”, while discussing safety. “More prosperous” continues the lie that inflation is good for Americans.

Going back to the discussion of crime, I read this from another source:

Overall violent crime levels have done even better — they’re now down to levels last seen in the mid-1960s. Yet much of the public still thinks the U.S. is in the midst of a crime wave.

There goes that pesky public again. Believing reality over manipulated data.

Crime in the US fell significantly in 2023, according to new FBI data, with a 13% decline in murder and drops in reported violent crime and reported property offenses.

Both robbery and aggravated assault dropped by 5% from 2022, the FBI data shows, while all violent crime declined by 6%.

However, the statistics are based on figures collected from only 79% of law enforcement agencies in the US. Experts have previously warned that data can be “patchy” given inconsistency in reporting by the local agencies who supply the numbers. And the new stats are unaudited as the FBI is not scheduled to release its official figures and analysis concerning crime in 2023 until this upcoming October.

(…)

The figures released on Tuesday are based on data collected from 15,199 of 19,152 law enforcement agencies, the FBI said. Experts previously told the Guardian that the FBI’s findings should be viewed with caution given the incomplete information.

Why issues a “patchy” report? Because the FBI and media know that when they release the real numbers later that show there was no drop in violent crime, few will remember the lie.

The obviously erroneous numbers represent a campaign ploy by Biden. He wants to be known as the man who wiped out crime. You know. Like he saved us from Covid and simultaneously cured cancer.

The LA Times reinforces public perception:

The public perception is very different. Gallup, for example, has surveyed Americans every fall for years about crime. Last year’s survey found that by 56%-28%, Americans said crime had increased in their area.

I have seen first-hand the escalation of crime in the suburb where I live. The Gilbert Goons have been in the news for weeks, and there is much more happening in an area deemed, “the safest city in Arizona”.

Crime is a major problem, and it’s escalating. But leave it to Biden to try to soft-shoe things, instead of really addressing the problem. Thankfully, Trump will soon be back to actually start solving problems again and not manipulating statistics.

Conservative Scholars Debate Prison Abolitionists at Berkeley Conference on Crime


By: Jarrett Stepman @JarrettStepman / March 25, 2024

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/03/25/conservative-scholars-debate-prison-abolitionists-at-berkeley-conference-on-crime/

“Too often today when we talk about criminal justice reform, when we talk about criminal justice issues, there’s no accountability for people who break the law,” Heritage Foundation legal fellow Zack Smith tells conferees in Berkeley, California. Pictured: A customer, his face blurred, makes a choice after a Target employee unlocks merchandise in a theft-proof cabinet at a store in Queens, New York. (Photo: Lindsey Nicholson/UCG/Universal Images Group/ Getty Images)

BERKELEY, Calif.—When scholars from the Right and Left recently met at UC Berkeley School of Law to debate what to do about surging crime, the event provided a rare opportunity to identify key philosophical and policy fault lines as Americans ponder policing and criminal justice. The conference, sponsored by Berkeley Law and The Heritage Foundation, featured not only scholars from across the political spectrum but district attorneys and former district attorneys—including San Francisco’s Chesa Boudin, now a professor at the law school and director of Berkeley’s Criminal Law & Justice Center. (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s news and commentary outlet.)

What became apparent throughout the conference is the stark contrast between each side’s view of human nature.  Although both sides said they want fewer crimes, a wide and seemingly intractable gulf appeared to loom between the methods the Left and Right would use to achieve that end.

Zack Smith, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, led off with a speech about the necessity of the discussion—especially considering demands for reduced sentencing and other criminal justice reforms that have coincided with increases in crime. In 2014, California adopted Proposition 47, a ballot initiative that reduced penalties for many crimes and led to the early release of many prisoners. The change led to a series of similar laws around the country.

“Too often today when we talk about criminal justice reform, when we talk about criminal justice issues, there’s no accountability for people who break the law,” Smith told conferees.

Smith said it was a myth that first-time drug offenders, for instance, spend time behind bars.

“Most people in prison today are committing violent crimes like rape, robbery, and murder, so whenever you hear panelists today or elsewhere talk about reducing the prison population by 50%, 75%, even 80% in some cases, that necessarily means releasing some repeat, violent offenders back into our communities,” the Heritage scholar  said.

Here’s a roundup of the most important discussions that took place at the March 8 gathering, titled Justice Unveiled: Debating Crime and Public Safety Conference.

How to Prevent Crime: A Conflict of Visions          

A panel on policing and public safety at the conference demonstrated the sharpest conflict of visions—as commentator Thomas Sowell has put it—between the Left and Right on crime. On the Right, the focus is on targeted policing in high- crime areas and stricter sentencing laws for those who commit crimes. On the Left, so-called prison abolitionists focus on structural forces and “root causes” to explain crime and blame more policing for creating more crime.

Jamelia Morgan, a professor at the Center for Racial and Disability Justice at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, argued for more “soft police” to take the place of traditional policing. Essentially, that means more social workers instead of police officers. Morgan pointed to the writings of Mariame Kaba, who is at the forefront of those who want to abolish police and prison. The law professor quoted from Kaba’s 2020 New York Times article, published just as the George Floyd protests and riots were beginning.

Morgan said, quoting Kaba:

As a society, we have been so indoctrinated with the idea that we solve problems by policing and caging people that many cannot imagine anything other than prisons and the police as solutions to violence and harm. People like me who want to abolish prisons and police, however, have a vision of a different society, built on cooperation instead of individualism, on mutual aid instead of self-preservation.

Kaba advocates spending more taxpayer money on housing, food, and education as an answer to problems of safety and justice.

Many U.S. cities defunded police departments in 2020 and 2021, after Floyd’s death in police custody in Minneapolis. The murder rate jumped by 30% from 2019 to 2020 according to the FBI, the largest single-year jump in recorded U.S. history.

Rafael Mangual, the Nick Ohnell fellow at the Manhattan Institute, said police are an essential element of promoting justice and protecting citizens in a free society. Police perform two broad roles, Mangual said, specifying that “one is to detect violations of the law, the other is to prevent violations of the law.” Often, just the presence of police is enough to deter crime, according to research, he said.

The second way to stop crime is to remove criminals from the street, the Manhattan Institute scholar said, noting crime statistics that show how investing in police led to sharp reductions in crime and other costs to the city and community.

“If a police officer makes an arrest and removes an active offender from the street, if that’s someone who was committing 10, 20, 30 felonies a year, that individual being in custody spares the community the crimes that would have otherwise been committed,” Mangual said.

The main thing driving recent spikes in crime is the problem of repeat offenders, he said. The same individuals often commit crimes over and over because the justice system puts them back on the street.

“In the city of Chicago, the typical homicide suspect has 12 prior arrests,” Mangual said. “One in five [homicide suspects], 20 prior arrests, these are not just individuals who are being locked up for the first offense and having the key thrown away.”

The problem of crime always will be with us, whether we like it or not, the Manhattan Institute scholar said.

“No one has ever been able to figure out how to eliminate poverty; no one has ever figured out how to eliminate inequality; no one has ever figured out how to eliminate crime or predation. It is part of the human condition,” Mangual said.

Taking away policing, which has proved to be effective in reducing crime and violence, is “irresponsible,” he concluded.

This enunciation of the constrained view of human nature provoked a response from representatives of the Left on the panel. Shakeer Rahman, an attorney for the Stop LAPD Spying Coalition and Los Angeles Community Action Network, appeared incredulous that Mangual said crime and inequality always will be with us.

“Abolitionists are the hopeful ones, because we believe that a world without poverty is possible, that that can be built and that’s at least worth prioritizing,” Rahman said.

Rahman said that this leads to the problem of racial disparities in incarceration. Factors such as structural racism led to this disparity, he said.

Mangual interjected at this point, saying he believes some structural factors drive crime. It isn’t because something is wrong with people like himself who have African roots, he said. Instead, the issue is the breakdown of families, Mangual argued. The disintegration of the family—especially black families—has created childhood disorders that lead to longer-term behavioral issues, he said.

Rahman responded that the U.S. criminal justice system has broken up black families, to which Mangual replied that research suggests that the prevalence of family members who engage in criminal activities is an even bigger driver of crime than fathers who are absent from the home.

Crime Surge a Hoax, the Left Says

According to a recent Gallup poll, the number of Americans—both Republicans and Democrats—who say they consider crime a “serious problem” is at the highest point since the polling firm began recording it in 2000. But many left-wing speakers at the conference said the widespread perception that crime has become a serious problem is based on media propaganda and is false.

USC Gould School of Law Professor Jody Armour, who focuses on critical race theory scholarship, said the perception that crime is increasing is just a “moral panic.”

One of the biggest points of contention at the Berkeley Law School conference was whether there is a spike in crime at all. On a panel about crime trends, civil rights lawyer Alec Karakatsanis said that media reporting on crime is the issue, not the crimes themselves.

Although many crime statistics are “true facts,” Karakatsanis said, they are used “to deceive people in profound ways.” He blamed the media for creating the impression that crime is up.

The civil rights lawyer pointed to a brazen theft at a San Francisco Walgreens that received widespread media coverage. The incident was real,  he said, but it created a “false impression” that shoplifting is increasing when shoplifting is down.

Reported shoplifting incidents were down slightly in San Francisco in 2023 compared to the previous year, but the latest numbers are still much higher compared to 2019. Walgreens and other retail stores throughout the Bay Area often take extreme actions to prevent widespread retail theft, such as putting locks on freezers and shelves. One Walgreens location in Richmond, California—a city close to San Francisco—put chewing gum behind glass, The San Francisco Standard reported. Many Walgreens locations have closed down because the drug store chain says they no longer are profitable.

Many such retail thefts are being committed by organized crime rings, police say.

Talking about crime comes down to “framing,” Karakatsanis said, and “most people in society have utterly lost their way when they think about what public safety means.” The problem with looking at crime, he said, is that most people look at so-called index crimes such as homicide, assault, and property theft. Most crimes, he argued, aren’t reported as crimes. He pointed to tax evasion, “wage theft,” and corporate fraud.

A System Focused on Equity, Not Preventing Crime

Manhattan Institute scholar Heather MacDonald said she isn’t optimistic about criminal justice trends. MacDonald spoke about how many cities signal that crimes simply won’t be punished. So, she said, criminals became more brazen and the commission of many kinds of crimes exploded. She focused on the increase in retail crimes that the left-wing scholars dismissed.

“Our criminal justice elites have decided that they would rather subject the property of honest businessmen to mass expropriation than to apprehend and punish looters, because doing so has a disparate impact on minority criminals,” MacDonald said.

These are “not crimes of necessity, they are crimes of opportunity,” she said.

MacDonald drove home the point that the rise in retail and property crimes is not being driven by poverty or economic hardship. Many of those committing retail thefts record the act on a smartphone and post the videos on social media, she said.

“No one who has a smartphone is poor,” MacDonald said. “No one engaged in these crimes is unable to eat. Rather, predatory theft comes from a sense of entitlement. If others have something I don’t have, I’m entitled to take it.”

The Manhattan Institute scholar said society shouldn’t have to be conditioned to assume that the trivial items of life—such as shampoo—need to be locked up at retail stores.

“This is not a normal state,” MacDonald said. “It is due to a failure of will. The will to enforce the values of civilized society.”

Passage of California’s Prop 47, MacDonald said, launched a wave of similar decriminalization measures around the country. Reclassifying many property and drug felonies as misdemeanors, she said, has resulted in hardcore criminals remaining on the street.

“It is not a ‘moral panic’ to be concerned about the lawlessness that has broken out since 2020, it is realism,” MacDonald said, referring to Armour’s use of the term.

Appeals Court Sides with Trump, Reduces Bond in Civil Fraud Case


By: Katelynn Richardson @katesrichardson / March 25, 2024

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/03/25/appeals-court-sides-trump-reduces-bond-civil-fraud-case/

Former President Donald Trump makes remarks as he returns to the courtroom from a recess during a pretrial hearing in a so-called hush money case on Monday in New York City. Meanwhile, Trump’s request for a lower bond was granted Monday in a victimless civil fraud case. (Photo: Mary Altaffer/Getty Images)

DOWNLOAD YOUR FREE EBOOK

COMMENTARY BY

Katelynn Richardson@katesrichardson

Katelynn Richardson covers courts as a reporter for the Daily Caller News Foundation.

An appeals court agreed Monday to reduce former President Donald Trump’s New York civil fraud case bond while he appeals the ruling. If Trump is able to put up the $175 million bond within 10 days, the court agreed to block collection of the judgment, according to The Associated Press.

Trump initially faced a Monday deadline to pay a $454 million bond to cover the judgment issued by Judge Arthur Engoron.

dailycallerlogo

Trump’s lawyers indicated in a court filing last week that he would not be able to post that bond, writing that “very few bonding companies will consider a bond of anything approaching that magnitude.” His attorneys sought to stay the execution of the judgment.

In response, New York state Attorney General Letitia James argued Trump had not supplied evidence that he would be unable to pay.

“If defendants were truly unable to provide an undertaking, they at a minimum should have consented to have their real estate interests held by Supreme Court to satisfy the judgment,” the filing stated.

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation

“Blatantly Misogynistic”: UC Berkeley Students Declare That They Feel Unsafe After Professor Shares Dating Advice


JonathanTurley.org | March 25, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/03/23/uc-berkeley-blatantly-misogynistic-students-declare-that-they-feel-unsafe-after-professor-shares-dating-advice/

This week, parents of students at the University of California at Berkeley took the extreme step of hiring private security to protect their children at the school after years of complaints over rising crime and anti-police policies. The university, however, is focused this week on another threat that has led students to object that they no longer feel safe on campus: the dating advice offered by Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences Professor Jonathan Shewchuk in response to a query from a student.

Professor Shewchuk is known as a bit of a quirky character at the school, as illustrated by his long maintaining that he identifies as a “Smith & Wesson 460XVR .45 caliber revolver.” He has also suggested pronouns for himself that are a bit unconventional: “death/deathem/deathself.”

None of that has endeared the tenured professor with the far left faculty and students at Berkeley.

Recently, however, this all came to a head after a student asked for advice on both the inability to find a date in the Bay Area and the fears of finding work in computer science. On the dating question, Shewchuk pointed the student to prospects “out of the Bay Area.” He explained that “you’ll be shocked by the stark differences in behavior of women in places where women are plentiful versus their behavior within artillery distance of San Jose and San Francisco.’

That comment was immediately declared offensive and “blatantly misogynistic.”  CS 189 student Rebecca Dang was interviewed and reportedly said that she felt unsafe on campus due to the advice.

The university quickly condemned the comment as “threatening” to students and women. UC Berkeley spokesperson Roqua Montez declared “We want to be absolutely clear that the offensive content of the original post goes against the values and Principles of Community we adhere to at UC Berkeley. The comment was hurtful and threatening to students – particularly women – in his class and beyond.”

Shewchuk removed the posting and apologized to the school.  He has previously won teaching awards at the school. However, many want him fired as a threat to students.

Junior Noemi Chulo has reportedly begun the process of drafting grievances on behalf of Academic Student Employees through the local UAW 4811 against UC Berkeley, as creating a hostile work environment by employing Shewchuk.

Shewchuk’s own teaching assistant Lydia Ignatova denounced him as furthering discrimination against women and nonbinary people in EECS.

I can certainly see why the comment was offensive to many. However, the call to fire the professor stands in sharp contrast to how controversial comments on the left are often handled in higher education, including in the California system.

Radical professors are often lionized on campuses. At the University of California Santa Barbara, professors actually rallied around feminist studies associate professor Mireille Miller-Young, who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display. 

We have also seen professors advocating “detonating white people,” denouncing policecalling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservativescalling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters, and other outrageous statements. University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis defended the murder of a conservative protester and said he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. The university later elevated Loomis to director of graduate studies of history.

Berkeley has a long history of treating liberal and conservative speakers and academics differently in such controversies. The blog is replete with examples of the intolerance and bias at Berkeley. It has lost major court rulings due to its unconstitutional treatment of conservative speakers.  Nevertheless, student groups at Berkeley have pledged to block pro-Israel speakers for years as threatening to many on campus. Even liberal speakers with pro-Israeli views have been cancelled at Berkeley.

We previously discussed how a Berkeley physicist resigned after faculty and students opposed a presentation by a UChicago physicist due to his questioning the impact of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs. The school has long employed faculty with radical left ideologies, including professors like Professor Zeus Leonardo who has discussed the need “to abolish whiteness.” That is not viewed as making white students feel unsafe. Conservative sites have previously criticized Leonardo for inflammatory statements, including a guest lecture at George Washington University where I teach. At GWU, Leonardo argued that children are born “human” and then are “bullied” into becoming white: “They were born human. Little by little, they have to be abused into becoming white humans. This abuse is sometimes physical … such as being bullied into whiteness. But also it’s psychological and cultural.”

The students on the campus newspaper have defended for violent resistance against the right. That is particularly threatening after conservatives were attacked on campus.  Faculty has joined in declaring that some views are not protected on campus in seeking limits on free speech.

None of this means that comments from conservative or libertarian faculty are not worthy of criticism, but the response to such comments appears far more pronounced in controversies involving conservative, libertarian, or contrarian faculty.

The Free Speech Trifecta: How the Court Could Fundamentally Alter Free Speech in Three Pending Cases


By: Jonathan Turley | March 25, 2024

Below is my column on the three major free speech cases heard by the Supreme Court in the last month. The three cases (Murthy v. Missouri, National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, and Gonzalez v. Trevino) could hold the balance for whether free speech will be protected in the coming years from increasing censorship and targeting by the government.

Here is the column:

This month, the Supreme Court reviewed a trifecta of free speech cases that has government and civil libertarians alike on edge. While each of the cases raises an insular issue, they collectively run across the waterfront of free speech controversies facing this country.

For some of us, what was most chilling from oral arguments were the sentiments voiced by justices on the left of the court, particularly Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The court may now be reflecting the shift among liberal scholars and politicians away from freedom of speech and in favor of greater government speech regulation.

In my forthcoming book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I explore the evolution of free speech in the United States, including the failure of the Supreme Court to protect free speech during periods of political unrest. Although a new revolutionary view of free speech emerged at the founding of the republic, it was quickly lost due to the regressive views of the federal courts over centuries of conflicted decisions.

We are now living through one of the most anti-free speech periods in our history. On our campuses, law professors are leading a movement to limit free speech under the pretext of combating hate speech or disinformation. A dangerous triumvirate has formed as government, corporate and academic interests have aligned to push limitations of free expression.

That triumvirate is now before the Supreme Court, which is looking at cases where government officials targeted critics, dissenting websites and revenue sources.

What was disconcerting was to hear many of those same voices from our campuses echoed this week on the court itself.

In Murthy v. Missouri, the court is considering a massive censorship system coordinated by federal agencies and social media companies. This effort was ramped up under President Joe Biden, who is arguably the most anti-free speech president since John Adams. Biden has accused companies of “killing people” by resisting demands to censor opposing views. Even though the administration was dead wrong on many pandemic-related issues, ranging from the origin of COVID-19 to the efficacy of masks, thousands were banned, throttled or blacklisted for pointing this out.

Biden’s sole nominee on the court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, has long been an enigma on the issue of free speech. That is why these oral arguments had some alarming moments. While her two liberal colleagues suggested that some communications may not be coercive as opposed to persuasive, Jackson would have none of it. She believed that coercion is perfectly fine under the right circumstances, including during periods like a pandemic or other national emergencies claimed by the government. When dangerous information is spotted on social media sites in such periods, she seemed to insist, the government should feel free to “tell them to take it down.”

The sweeping quality of Jackson’s remarks shows that the relativistic views of free speech may now have a new champion on the court.

In a second case, National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, the court considered an effort by a New York regulator to discourage banks and insurers from working with the NRA. Maria Vullo, who ran New York’s Department of Financial Services, allegedly used her office to pressure these businesses to cut off financial support for the nation’s leading gun rights organization.

As with Murthy, the Vullo case captures one of the principal tactics used by the anti-free speech movement in attacking the advertisers and businesses of targeted individuals and groups. One such government grant resulted in a list of the 10 most dangerous sites for advertisers to avoid, a list that happened to consist of popular conservative and libertarian news sites.

The idea of a Democratic New York regulator targeting a conservative civil rights organization did not appear particularly troubling in oral argument for some of the justices. In fact, the views expressed by some of the justices were appallingly dismissive. Justice Elena Kagan asked, “if reputational risk is a real thing, and if gun companies or gun advocacy groups impose that kind of reputational risk, isn’t it a bank regulator’s job to point that out?”

In the third case, Gonzalez v. Trevino, the court was considering the arrest of Sylvia Gonzalez, a 72-year-old former councilwoman in Castle Hills, Texas. She earned the ire of the sheriff, mayor and other officials with her criticisms of their conduct. She was subsequently charged with inappropriately removing a government document (a citizen petition) that she had mistakenly put with other papers. The charges were later dropped. The case smacked of retaliation — there is no evidence that anyone else has faced such a charge in similar circumstances.

The case resonates with many who believe that the legal system is being politically weaponized in this country. Many of us are appalled by the Gonzales case. However, in this case, the support for the government seemed to come from the right of the court, including the author of a prior decision limiting such challenges, Chief Justice John Roberts.

The free speech trifecta, therefore, covers the three areas of greatest concern for the free speech community: censorship, blacklisting and weaponization. The resulting opinions could curtail or magnify such abuses. For example, the social media case (Murthy) seemed to trouble the justices as to where to draw a line on coercion. If the court simply declines to draw such a line and rules for the government, it will likely fuel new censorship efforts by federal agencies.

What is disconcerting about the views expressed by Justices Kagan, Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor in two of the cases is not that they are outliers. The problem is that liberal justices long acted as the bulwark for free speech on the court. They are now viewed as the weakest link, often dismissive or hostile to free speech arguments.

When Justice Jackson defends the right of the government to coerce speech, she follows a long legacy of speech relativists on the court, including the earlier Justice Robert Jackson. He had warned that the court needed to approach speech prosecutions with “a little practical wisdom,” so as not to “convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”

The current Justice Jackson seemed to channel the same practicalities over principle in stressing that “you’ve got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government’s perspective.”

The view of speech as harm or violence is all the rage on college campuses, and also in many Western countries where free speech is in a free fall. France, Canada and the United Kingdom now regularly arrest people for expressing hateful or controversial viewpoints. Those same anti-free speech arguments are now being heard in our own Congress and colleges in the U.S.

It is not clear how the court will decide these cases. One fear is that it could retreat to blurry lines that leave us all uncertain about what speech is protected. In an area that demands bright lines to prevent the chilling effect on speech, such vague outcomes could be lethal.

The government loves ambiguity when it comes to speech regulation. It now may have found new voices on the left side of the court to join in the ignoble effort of combating free speech. That renewed effort to introduce “a little practical wisdom” could mean a lot less freedom for Americans.

Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School, where he teaches a class on the Constitution and the Supreme Court.

Today’s TWO Politically INCORRECT Cartoons by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Moving Up

A.F. BRANCO | on March 24, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-moving-up/

Kamala Visits Minnesota
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

Kamala goes to Minnesota to promote Biden’s stance on abortion in the name of women’s health, babies be damned.

Kamala Harris makes celebratory visit to Minnesota abortion clinic

By Mary Margaret Olohan – March 14, 2024

(The Daily Signal) — Vice President Kamala Harris spent Thursday afternoon visiting a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Minnesota.

The visit, which makes her the first vice president to do so, is intended to demonstrate President Joe Biden’s administration’s dedication to promoting abortion in the post-Roe v. Wade era. The visit is a historic first. While a celebratory visit to an abortion clinic once would have been considered horrifying, tactless, and gruesome, Harris used her Thursday tour to claim there is a “health crisis” in the post-Roe v. Wade United States — since it’s now harder in a number of states for women to abort their unborn babies. READ MORE…

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Justice Denied

A.F. BRANCO | on March 25, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-justice-denied/

A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

It’s great to be a Democrat when Trump affiliates see prison time, but Democrats rarely do for even worse crimes. Peter Navarro is sentenced to prison for refusing a subpoena from a phony kangaroo court, but Democrats like Hunter Biden, Eric Holder, and others get nothing. There is absolutely a two-tier justice system in this country now.

Fox News Anchor Cuts Away From Peter Navarro’s Speech Outside of Prison to do a ‘Fact Check’ (VIDEO)

By Cristina Laila – March 19, 2024

Please consider contributing to Peter Navarro’s GiveSendGo to help with his legal defense fund. Trump aide Dr. Peter Navarro on Tuesday delivered remarks before he reported to prison for his 4-month sentence. Navarro is the first high-ranking Trump aide to be imprisoned by the Biden Regime.

Fox News anchor Sandra Smith cut away from Navarro’s speech outside of prison to do a fact check. When I walk in that prison today, the justice system, such as it is, will have done a crippling blow to the constitutional separation of powers and executive privilege,” Navarro said. Sandra Smith interrupted Navarro’s speech to ‘clarify’ that Navarro has been convicted. READ MORE… 

DONATE to A.F. Branco Cartoons – Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

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.

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report


Friday, March 22, 2024

Top Stories
Planned Parenthood Caught Selling Livers From Aborted Babies for $1,500 in New Undercover Videos
Planned Parenthood Yanked Legs Off Babies in Abortions to Get Around Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
House Passes Government Funding Bill Spending Millions on Abortion
Supreme Court Will Hold Oral Arguments on Case That Could Ban Mail-Order Abortions

More Pro-Life News
Top Democrat Dick Durbin Supports Abortions Up to Birth, Lies About Late-Term Abortions
Kamala Harris Isn’t “Pro-Choice,” She Actively Celebrates Killing Babies in Abortions
1 in 25 Women Who Take the Abortion Pill End Up in the Emergency Room
Democrat Legislator Slams Democrats for Targeting Black Babies in Abortions: Black Baby Lives Matter
Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

Planned Parenthood Caught Selling Livers From Aborted Babies for $1,500 in New Undercover Videos

Planned Parenthood Yanked Legs Off Babies in Abortions to Get Around Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

House Passes Government Funding Bill Spending Millions on Abortion

Supreme Court Will Hold Oral Arguments on Case That Could Ban Mail-Order Abortions


 

Top Democrat Dick Durbin Supports Abortions Up to Birth, Lies About Late-Term Abortions

 

Kamala Harris Isn’t “Pro-Choice,” She Actively Celebrates Killing Babies in Abortions

1 in 25 Women Who Take the Abortion Pill End Up in the Emergency Room

Democrat Legislator Slams Democrats for Targeting Black Babies in Abortions: Black Baby Lives Matter

MORE PRO-LIFE NEWS FROM TODAY

UK Will Spend £1.5 Million Paying for Abortions Killing Babies in Ukraine

Former British MP: Seeing Baby Born Alive After Abortion “Changed Me Profoundly”

Abortion Advocates No Longer Consider It “A Necessary Evil,” They Celebrate Killing Babies

Abortion Clinic Botches Another Abortion, Woman Hospitalized for Possible Perforated Uterus

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.

Colorado is Trying to Stop This Nurse From Saving Babies From Abortion, But She’s Fighting Back

Adoption is an Excellent Alternative to Abortion. Here’s Why

Texas Pro-Life Group Urges Medical Board to Give Doctors Clear Instructions on Rare Medically Necessary Abortions

Donald Trump Says He Would Sign Bill to Stop Abortions Up to Birth

Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2024 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.
For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.

SUMMING OF THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT POLITICAL CARTOONS FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 22, 2024


Biden’s Classified Documents Case Just Got Bigger


By: Kevin Jackson | March 21, 2024

By: Kevin Jackson | March 21, 2024

Read more at https://theblacksphere.net/2024/03/bidens-classified-documents-case-just-got-bigger/

Biden, Kevin Jackson

After Joe Biden was declared mentally incompetent by the Special Prosecutor in the classified documents case, I asked myself a simple question: “Who is competent in this case?”

In other words, somebody had to do Biden’s dirty work, if Joey Demento wasn’t giving the orders.

Consider what happened to Trump satellites when Democrats wrongly targeted him for Russian collusion. Paul Manafort, George Pappadopoulos, General Mike Flynn and others were investigated and railroaded. But in the case of Joe Biden’s obvious crime of possessing classified materials as a Senator and VP, we have nobody being examined.

Further, Biden has definite ties to the Chinese, the Ukrainians, and many nefarious characters who benefitted from the closeness to the Bidens. Hunter Biden gave us all the evidence we need of this, as he left one laptop at a repair shop, and another may be in the hands of Russian pimps.

So, who was involved with Joe Biden’s criminal carelessness? I asked this question of the handling of the classified documents:

What Biden most often says he does not recall is who packed his documents or other personal items when he left the vice presidency in 2009 and in the aftermath. Could it have been Hunter’s Chinese assistant? Biden admits that chain of custody for the classified materials is unknown to him. He doesn’t recall reading them, then removing them from wherever he got them.

“My problem was I never knew where any of the documents or boxes were specifically coming from or who packed them,” Biden said, telling Hur he relied on staff to do that instead.

I suggest the congressional committee find out who had access to these documents. Who did pack them? Apparently, I’m not the only one who wondered this. Nick Arama of Red State wrote:

One of the things that has been most shameful about Joe Biden’s classified documents scandal was how he said he didn’t have any idea how the docs got all over his house and in his offices. He has tried to blame his staff, including during his interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur’s team.

That’s just ridiculous as an excuse — the documents were all over his house and his offices, even his garage. Not to mention that he had material from when he was in the Senate. So this has been going on for decades. Plus, he had notes with some of the classified documents, and he told his ghostwriter about the classified documents in 2017. The common element there is Joe Biden. Not some staffer. But it’s typical Joe Biden who never wants to take responsibility for anything he does wrong and there were all kinds of problems with his actions here.

It turns out that within 24 hours of the release of Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report, Joe Biden promoted two of the aides whose names came up in regard to the classified documents. What a coincidence.

Two aides who helped in the movement and potential cover-up of this crime were promoted?

Aramas continues,

According to the House Oversight Committee, longtime Biden aide and director of Oval Office operations Annie Tomasini visited the Penn Biden Center “to take inventory of President Biden’s documents and materials” in March 2021. Classified documents were found there in Biden’s officer in November 2022.

Then, aide Kathy Chung told Congress that Richard Ruffner, another staffer, was involved, along with other people, in the transportation of the undiscovered classified materials from the General Services Administration facility.

Tomasini was promoted to deputy White House Chief of Staff on Feb. 8, and Richard Ruffner was promoted into Tomasini’s old job as director of Oval Office operations.

The plot thickens

The House Oversight Committee has been trying to get Tomasini in for a transcribed interview since November, but the White House has failed to cooperate. That should say a lot right there. What doesn’t the White House want her to say? They don’t cooperate, and then, on top of that, Biden gives her a promotion?

“The Department of Justice has failed to deliver accountability for President Biden’s mishandling of classified documents and now Biden aides involved in the scandal are getting promotions,” House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. James Comer (R-Ky) told The Post. 

“We’ve requested to interview Annie Tomasini about President Biden’s mishandling of classified documents but the White House is blocking her testimony and instead has promoted her to a senior role. The American people expect consequences for mishandling of classified information, not rewards,” he continued.

When dealing with the corruption of the Biden White House, little surprise me anymore.

These people claim to want transparency, then continually do the opposite. One can only imagine what we would learn if Biden actually allowed true investigations into these things.

We might learn the truth. That Biden is mentally incapable of running his family, much less the country. We most certainly would learn that in his dementia Joe Biden assigned his crackhead son to run their criminal organization. And we would be able to track down every illicit dime they collected from the Chinese, Ukrainians, Romanians, and so on.

I suspect we might understand how the Chinese flew a spy balloon across America with no recourse. Or why they weren’t made to compensate America for release of Covid, and the resulting aftermath.

Many questions would be answered if we could get to the real truth. But too many Leftists get rich and powerful off the spreading of lies and protecting those who tell them.

To Stop the Border Invasion, Get Tough on Mexico


BY: JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON | MARCH 22, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/22/to-stop-the-border-invasion-get-tough-on-mexico/

riot overwhelms border patrol at the border with Mexico

Author John Daniel Davidson profile

JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON

VISIT ON TWITTER@JOHNDDAVIDSON

MORE ARTICLES

A group of several hundred illegal immigrants forcibly pushed past Texas National Guard troops on Thursday in El Paso, Texas, breaking through razor wire and assaulting guardsmen as they forcibly rushed a border gate. Video of the clash, which was filmed by reporters from the New York Post, quickly went viral. It shows the crowd of migrants, all of them adult men, at first putting their hands up as they crowd around a small group of Texas guardsmen trying to block an opening in the fence the migrants had created. After what appears to be a brief physical altercation, the crowd rushes past the guardsmen. The Post reporter at the scene described it as a “riot.”

The video is shocking. It underscores not only how unstable the border has become but also what has been true for a while now: This is an invasion. What began as a crisis created by the Biden administration’s lax border policies is now an open conflict careening toward disaster.

What can be done to stop this? In the near term, mostly nothing. The riotous scenes at the border, the millions of illegal immigrants processed and released into the country by federal immigration authorities, the chaos of homeless illegal immigrants camped out on the streets of major American cities — all of these were totally predictable policy outcomes that the Biden administration knew would happen. They did it anyway, and they will probably not do anything to stop it.

But even if the Biden administration recognized that the border invasion might be a political liability going into the November presidential election, the steps required to bring the situation under control at this point are so drastic that there’s almost no chance the Biden White House would even consider them.

The key thing to understand about the crisis is that it’s being managed by Mexican cartels, along with their partners inside the Mexican government, as a for-profit enterprise. Under Biden, the cartels have turned illegal immigration into big business, a massive black market in which every illegal immigrant who crosses the border represents a source of income for the cartels. They are all being trafficked, in other words. It is not too much to say the cartels are running slave markets, as my friend Joshua Treviño did in these pages recently, “in which children are bought and sold to increase the chances that the norteamericanos will admit a supposed family unit, and also to provide supply to the vile and ravenous market in sex.”

The Mexican government is complicit in all this. President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, popularly known as AMLO, has not tried to hide his longstanding connections to the country’s most powerful cartel, Sinaloa, nor has he done anything to rein them in during his presidency, consistently pursuing the drug war policy he outlined when running for president in 2018: “hugs, not bullets.”

In recent years, he has become testy and aggressive on matters related to immigration and the border. AMLO is especially incensed at efforts by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to crack down on illegal immigration. Asked about the new Texas law that would allow state law enforcement officers to arrest and deport illegal border-crossers, which a federal appeals court temporarily blocked this week, AMLO strongly implied the Mexican military would help illegals cross the border. His foreign secretary, Alicia Bárcena, said the government would put “increased vigilance and controls” at border crossings to prevent Texas from carrying out deportations if the law goes into effect. While AMLO would not say clearly what steps he would take, he did suggest some kind of retaliation: “We will not just sit around with our arms crossed.”

This is not how a friendly neighbor talks nor how a partner nation behaves. The truth is, Mexico is neither. One of the great fictions Washington policymakers have labored under for decades is the notion that our southern neighbor is anything but an antagonist on the border issue and that carrots, not sticks, are sufficient to secure its cooperation.

But the truth is just the opposite. Unless Mexico is credibly threatened with concrete measures that would harm its economy, AMLO will not act to alleviate the illegal immigration crisis. During Trump’s term in office, he was only able to get his Mexican counterpart to cooperate with his border agenda by threatening to slap tariffs on Mexican goods coming across the border. In many ways, Trump’s clear-eyed dealing with Mexico is what made policies like Remain in Mexico successful.

Something similar will be required in any future Republican administration. The only way to deal with the border crisis, at this point, is to carry out mass deportations. That will mean forcing Mexico to accept deportees and do more — far more — to control the flow of illegal immigrants north to the U.S. border. Absent the threat of crippling economic sanctions — or something worse — Mexico will not act to stem the tide of illegal immigration.

Until GOP leaders get that through their heads, they will be left in the ridiculous position of doing what House Speaker Mike Johnson did Thursday after the El Paso video went viral: pathetically tweeting about how it’s all Biden’s fault for “refusing to secure our border and protect America.” This, from one of the only Republicans in a position to actually do something about the border. Johnson could shut down the government over the Biden administration’s refusal to address the crisis, but he won’t.

It’s going to take stronger leadership than that to really deal with the invasion at the border, if and when a Republican takes back the White House. It will mean a total shift in conventional thinking about Mexico — and a willingness to treat our southern neighbor like the antagonist it has become.


John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. He is the author of the forthcoming book, Pagan America: the Decline of Christianity and the Dark Age to Come, to be published in March 2024. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

Poll: Majority Say Biden Seeking to Jail Trump to Stop Him


By John McLaughlin    |   Friday, 22 March 2024 03:40 PM EDT

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/politics/biden-trump-election/2024/03/22/id/1158277/

joe biden
President Joe Biden (AP)

Many Americans believe the country is becoming a virtual dictatorship with a solid majority saying President Joe Biden wants to put former President Donald Trump in jail to stop his electoral chances, a new McLaughlin poll finds.

We should note that Russian President Vladimir Putin just won reelection by 88%. But he did so only after Putin first jailed his leading political opponent, Alexei Navalny, and many of his supporters. (Sadly, Navalny recently died while in prison.)

Now Biden’s playbook against Trump seems eerily similar. At least a majority of American voters think so.

In our new national poll 56% of all voters think Biden really wants to stop Trump from winning by putting him in jail. The national poll of 1,000 likely voters with plus or minus 3.1% at the 95% confidence interval was completed between March 9 and March 14. Only 30% say it’s not true that Biden is trying to jail Trump.

A supermajority of Republicans, 86%, agree that Biden is weaponizing the justice system against Trump. This is also not a partisan issue. Independents agree 50% to 33% that Biden is seeking to jail Trump for political reasons, with moderates agreeing 48% to 32%. Democratic constituencies also have a negative view of Biden’s actions with African Americans at 41%, Hispanics at 53%, and women at 53% agreeing.

Biden and his legal henchmen have truly made Trump a sympathetic victim. 

It’s a frightening idea that after 235 years of democracy and peaceful presidential elections, we have devolved to such a point. Here are more findings of our poll of voters:

  • 67% say that politics has played a role in the indictments of Trump.
  • 58% say that Biden has played a role in the indictments of Trump.
  • 56% to 31% say there is a double standard and bias at Biden’s Department of Justice, FBI, and IRS, where they target Trump but Biden and his family get sweetheart deals.
  • 52% to 38% say the indictments against Trump were done because he leads in the polls and they want him stopped.
  • 58% to 34% say that Biden should stop targeting Trump and interfering in the election, letting voters decide the next president.   

Regardless, Trump leads Biden 49% to 43% in a head-to-head poll for the presidency — Trump’s largest lead this year. The reasons for Trump’s success and Biden’s weakness are simple. Some 66% of all voters say the country is on the wrong track and 56% disapprove of the job Biden is doing as president. 

Facing serious challenges with the economy and crises internationally, the Biden campaign has shifted gears from winning on the issues to winning the Putin way — by putting your opponent in jail. Fortunately, voters are seeing through this dangerous strategy and rejecting it.

National Survey and Political Environment Analysis Likely General Election Voters

John McLaughlin has worked professionally as a strategic consultant and pollster for over 40 years. Jim McLaughlin is a nationally recognized public opinion expert, strategic consultant and political strategist who has helped to elect a U.S. president, prime ministers, a Senate majority leader, and a speaker of the House. Read John and Jim McLaughlin’s Reports — More Here

© 2024 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Angry Americans Muscle $400 Million Away From Pro-Trans Planet Fitness


By: Suzanne Bowdey / March 22, 2024

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/03/22/angry-americans-muscle-400-million-away-pro-trans-planet-fitness/

Planet Fitness has countless critics of its “no judgment” policy that permits gender-confused men to interlope into its women’s locker rooms. It’s costing the gym chain hundreds of millions of dollars. (Photo: Bernard Weil/Toronto Star/Getty Images)

At Planet Fitness, you can exercise everything but your right to privacy. That’s the message customers are taking to heart after an Alaskan woman had her membership revoked for complaining about a man in the women’s locker room.

“The gym is a “no judgment zone,” Patricia Silva was told. Well, it’s about to become a profit-free zone, too, thanks to angry Americans who are putting the company’s stock in a $400 million free-fall.

In a perfect snapshot of where corporate wokeness will lead these days, the media is reporting that within five days of Silva’s story hitting social media, Planet Fitness lost almost a half-billion dollars in value—crashing 7.8% in less than a week. “The company’s value dropped from $5.3 billion on March 14 to $4.9 billion on March 19,” reports show, “and its shares are down by 13.59% compared to a month ago.”

Despite the pushback, the business stubbornly stuck by the mixed-sex policy, insisting that it doesn’t matter if members felt uncomfortable. “This discomfort,” the company’s operational manual argues, “is not a reason to deny access to the transgender member.”

In a video she took from the Fairbanks location, Silva said, “I just came out of Planet Fitness. There is a man shaving in the women’s bathroom,” viewers find out later after she posts a picture.

“I love him in Christ,” she makes clear. “He is a spiritual being having a human experience. He doesn’t like his gender so he wants to be a woman, but I’m not comfortable with him shaving in my bathroom. I just thought I’d say it out loud.”

When Silva confronted the man in the restroom, he replied, “Well, I’m LGB … .” She interrupted, “But you’re a man invading my space!” She ultimately walked away and went to the front desk. “‘Are you aware that there is a MAN shaving in the women’s bathroom?’” she asked. “‘ … I’m not OK with that.’ The two men standing at the desk, put their heads down and their tails between their legs!” Silva recounted. “As I was walking out the door … at my back, a woman shouts, ‘It’s a girl!’ … I shouted back, ‘It’s a man!’”

Silva was especially irate that a young girl, who “could have been 12 years old,” was exposed to the same man. She stood in the same room in a towel and “kind of freaked out.”

The next day, she posted on Facebook that she got a call from Planet Fitness “announcing that they have chosen to cancel my membership rather than protect [young] girls and women … that enter the women’s locker room from men with a penis. … Despicable.”

And yet, even now, flooded with complaints and nationwide criticism, the company stands by its decision, telling Libs of TikTok that the staff will “work with members and employees to address this discomfort [sharing facilities with transgender members] and to foster a climate of understanding consistent with the ‘Judgment Free’ character of Planet Fitness.”

Then, doubling down, the business vowed to continue calling trans-identifying customers by their preferred pronouns and “other terms consistent with their self-reported gender identity, if reasonably known to the Planet Fitness staff.”

None of this should come as a surprise, since the company has a long and unflattering past of siding with trans activists over women who feel victimized by their male presence. In 2015, Yvette Cormier, a member of a Michigan branch, had the exact same experience—well before the movement had risen to the public prominence it has now.

“Freaked out,” she complained to the desk that there was a man in her restroom. She was shocked to find the on-duty staff taking his side. Stunned, she contacted Planet Fitness’s corporate office—where she heard more of the same. The gym, she was told, is a “no judgment zone”—but apparently not for everyone. When Cormier started warning women about the policy, Planet Fitness revoked her membership.

“This is very scary,” she told reporters at the time. “I feel like it’s kind of one-sided. I feel like I’m the one who is being punished.” She sued.

In Leesburg, Florida, six years ago, the same thing happened. “Mrs. H” confronted the man in her locker room and told him to leave. For more than an hour, he refused to go, watching every woman coming and going from his spot near the door. “Despite a male employee observing that [Jordan] Rice’s behavior was ‘over the top,’ staff did not intervene and ask him to finish his business, but permitted him to monopolize the women’s locker room.”

For Mrs. H, who’d survived an attempted rape, it was a traumatic experience to say the least. All she wanted was the privacy to change and shower—instead she got something else; namely, a notice that her membership had been canceled. She took the gym to court.

Conservatives remember the company’s one-sided trans advocacy well. The Family Research Council’s Meg Kilgannon thought back to those cases, pointing out, “Planet Fitness was an early adopter of insane policies that allow adult men in women’s locker rooms with women and children. And of course, the policies changed with little notice to customers.”

“When women complained,” she explained, “they were ignored or kicked out. Women need to stand up for ourselves, but we also need the men who love us to stand up for us as well. I am grateful that so many good men do. If it takes hurting them financially to make a difference, I’ll take that. But it’s cold comfort.”

For now, the wave of consumer activism that brought Bud LightTargetRipCurl, and Doritos to their knees is in full force. And rightly so, the army of boycotters say. “The most offensive thing you can do to a woman is pretend she doesn’t exist,” Paul Szypula tweeted. “Because Planet Fitness has chosen this path their gym, will, ironically, soon not exist. The universe has a way of balancing things out.”

Libs of TikTok, which helped break Silva’s story, is surprised CEOs need the warning at this point, but posted, “Turns out people don’t want to support companies who cave to gender pseudoscience and allow men in women’s private spaces! #BoycottPlanetFitness Do not let up! Keep it going!”

Originally published by The Washington Stand

The Dripping Away of the Democratic Party: Sir Thomas More and the Biden Corruption Scandal


By: Jonathan Turley | March 22, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/03/22/the-dripping-away-of-the-democratic-party-sir-thomas-more-and-the-biden-corruption-scandal/

Below is my column on Fox.com for the hearing this week on the corruption scandal involving the Biden family. For years, the Democrats have opposed any effort to investigate the Bidens, including as part of the current impeachment inquiry. Various members misrepresented my earlier testimony during the hearing on the basis for the impeachment inquiry. Members like Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) stated that I joined other witnesses in saying that there was nothing that could remotely be impeachable in these allegations. That is demonstrably untrue. My testimony stated the opposite. I refused to pre-judge the evidence, but stated that there was ample basis for the inquiry and laid out various impeachable offenses that could be brought if ultimately supported by evidence. I also discussed those potential offenses in columns. The purpose of the hearing was not to declare an impeachment on the first day of the inquiry. Unlike the two prior impeachments by many of these same Democratic members, this impeachment inquiry sought to create a record of evidence and testimony to support any action that the House might take.

Here is the column:

In the 1966 movie “A Man for All Seasons,” Sir Thomas More faces Richard Rich, an ambitious office seeker who would ultimately lie and betray him. In this British historical drama, More warns Rich that “when a man takes an oath, he’s holding his own self in his own hands like water, and if he opens his fingers then, he needn’t hope to find himself again.”

This week, Democrats appear to have finally drained away what remained of themselves and their party. For years, Democratic members and the media have demanded any evidence of the direct involvement or knowledge of President Joe Biden of the influence-peddling operation of his son, Hunter, and his brothers, James and Frank.

In the hearing, witnesses testified under oath about specific meetings with Joe Biden discussing these foreign dealings and the family business interests. Bank records were introduced showing the transfers of millions going to Hunter and various Biden family members.

Faced with the evidence that the president lied about his lack of any knowledge or involvement in the influence peddling, the Democrats opened their fingers wider.

Rep. Dan Goldman, D., N.Y., captured the problem for Democrats in even addressing any of the mounting evidence contradicting the president. Yet, Goldman has long shown a willingness to rush in where angels fear to tread.

In previous attacks, Goldman repeatedly hit the Bidens with friendly fire when eliciting damaging answers from witnesses. Goldman has a habit of raising the worst evidence that his colleagues have avoided. In one hearing, he stumbled badly in raising the WhatsApp message where Hunter told a Chinese businessman that his father was sitting next to him and would not be pleased unless he sent him money. On another occasion, he prompted an IRS whistleblower to note that an email Goldman read into the record was actually a direct contradiction of the denials of the president.

In the latest misstep, Goldman pressed former Biden partner Tony Bobulinski on a proposal shared with Hunter and others to reserve 10% for “the Big Guy.” In other emails, Bobulinski was told to use such codes to avoid mentioning Joe Biden’s name. He was expressly identified as “the Big Guy.” Video

Goldman snapped at Bobulinski, “Did anyone ever respond to that email?”

Bobulinski responded “Yes, they did numerous times. Hunter himself did.”

Goldman blurted out “you’re right” before angrily reclaiming his time to cut him off.

Things did not prove any easier for other members. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D., N.Y., imploded by mocking Bobulinski and challenging him “It is simple, you name the crime. Did you watch him steal something?”

Bobulinski proceeded to rattle off a series of possible criminal acts and Ocasio-Cortez cut him off. She then bizarrely pretended that he did not just list the crimes and barked “What is the crime, sir? Specifically?”

Bobulinski was not the only one confused and noted “you ask and answer the question, I answered the question, RICO, you’re obviously not familiar with…”

That is when Ocasio-Cortez again cut him off with “Excuse me, sir. Excuse me, sir. Excuse me, sir. RICO is not a crime, it is a category. What is the crime?”

With that, it appears that Trump has now been cleared of charges in Atlanta by no one other than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Racketeering is a crime and some of the crimes referenced by Bobulinski are commonly part of such conspiracies.

The exchange captured the lunacy of the hearing as Democrats demanded evidence and then ignored it when it was repeatedly offered by witnesses and members.

Yet, Ocasio-Cortez was illuminating on one point. Neither she nor her colleagues were willing to admit the obvious. Few people now disagree that Hunter was openly engaging in influence peddling, which is a form of corruption that the government has long fought around the world. It is also clear that Joe Biden knew of that influence peddling not just from his son but newspaper accounts. He had knowledge of the corruption and facilitated it. However, Ocasio-Cortez wanted to ignore the millions of dollars acquired in influence peddling to press a witness on whether he saw the president steal something like a purse or a hubcap.

The Democrats have allowed their very identity to drip through their open fingers. They have become a party that calls for censorship, ballot cleansing, and court packing. Now they are dismissing allegations of raw influence peddling after opposing every effort to investigate it.

Those who raise free speech or free press concerns now face a McCarthy-like mantra from Democratic members that they are nothing more than fellow travelers of Russia as we head into yet another election. Some Democratic members have called for criminal charges against reporters or demanded the names of sources.  MSNBC contributor and former Sen. Claire McCaskill even attacked former and current members testifying in favor of free speech as “Putin apologists” and Putin lovers.

As a lifelong Democrat from a politically active Chicago family, I can no longer recognize the party from my youth. We once stood for something other than the next election or hating others.

By the end of the hearing, virtually every Democratic member had attacked the witnesses and denied the obvious corruption surrounding the Biden family. They had become a party of Richard Riches. Of course, this unified effort to deny the obvious left little time to look down at what remained in their hands. They had owned the moment when the party fought to shield one of the most extensive and lucrative influence peddling operations in history.

After that ignoble effort, there was little reason to look down since they “needn’t hope to find [themselves] again.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and a practicing criminal defense attorney. He is a Fox News contributor.

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report


Thursday, March 21, 2024

Top Stories
Donald Trump Says He Would Sign Bill to Stop Abortions Up to Birth
New Defense Spending Bill Allows Biden to Make Americans Fund Abortion Travel
Democrats Put $1.8 Million in Congressional Budget for Late-Term Abortion Biz That Kills Viable Babies
Democrats Introduce Bill to Celebrate Abortionists Who Kill Babies

More Pro-Life News
Joe Biden Celebrated St. Patrick’s Day With Other Pro-Abortion Leftists Who Pretend to be Catholic
Scientists Tell Supreme Court: Abortion Drugs Harm Women
Congressional Hearing Confirms Abortion Industry Selling Aborted Baby Parts on Massive Scale
Smithsonian Forced to Settle After Kicking Out Students for Wearing Pro-Life Hats
Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

Donald Trump Says He Would Sign Bill to Stop Abortions Up to Birth

New Defense Spending Bill Allows Biden to Make Americans Fund Abortion Travel

Democrats Put $1.8 Million in Congressional Budget for Late-Term Abortion Biz That Kills Viable Babies

Democrats Introduce Bill to Celebrate Abortionists Who Kill Babies


 

Joe Biden Celebrated St. Patrick’s Day With Other Pro-Abortion Leftists Who Pretend to be Catholic

 

Scientists Tell Supreme Court: Abortion Drugs Harm Women

Congressional Hearing Confirms Abortion Industry Selling Aborted Baby Parts on Massive Scale

Smithsonian Forced to Settle After Kicking Out Students for Wearing Pro-Life Hats

MORE PRO-LIFE NEWS FROM TODAY

Oregon Assisted Suicides Jump 20% as Out of State Residents Travel There to Kill Themselves

Premature Baby Who Weighed as Much as a Can of Coke is Doing Great Now

Women Share Horror Stories After Taking Abortion Pills: “I Was Passing Clots the Size of Baseballs”

Kamala Harris Calls Abortion “Health Care,” But Real Health Care Doesn’t Kill Babies

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.

Republicans Can’t Stop Fighting to Save Babies From Abortion

On World Down Syndrome Day, Let’s “End the Stereotypes”

Nevada Judge Uses Equal Rights Amendment to Force Residents to Fund Abortions

After Bringing Abortion on Demand to Ireland, Thankfully Leo Varadkar is Finally Resigning

Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2024 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.
For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.

This Country Cannot Afford A Weak Supreme Court Decision On Internet Censorship


BY: JOY PULLMANN | MARCH 21, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/21/this-country-cannot-afford-a-weak-supreme-court-decision-on-internet-censorship/

Murthy v. Missouri defendants

Author Joy Pullmann profile

JOY PULLMANN

VISIT ON TWITTER@JOYPULLMANN

MORE ARTICLES

The Biden administration attempted to distract the Supreme Court from the voluminous evidence of federal abuse of Americans’ speech rights during oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri Monday. It sounded like several justices followed the feds’ waving red flag.

“The government may not use coercive threats to suppress speech, but it is entitled to speak for itself by informing, persuading, or criticizing private speakers,” said Biden administration lawyer Brian Fletcher in his opening remarks. He and several justices asserted government speech prerogatives that would flip the Constitution upside down.

The government doesn’t have constitutional rights. Constitutional rights belong to the people and restrain the government. The people’s right to speak may not be abridged. Government officials’ speaking, in their official capacities, may certainly be abridged. Indeed, it often must be, precisely to restrict officials from abusing the state’s monopoly on violence to bully citizens into serfdom.

It is obviously un-American and unconstitutional for the government to develop a “hit list” of citizens to mute in the public square through secret pressure on communications monopolies beholden to the government for their monopoly powers. There is simply no way it’s “protected speech” for the feds to use intermediaries to silence anyone who disagrees with them on internet forums where the majority of the nation’s political organizing and information dissemination occurs.

Bullying, Not the Bully Pulpit

What’s happening is not government expressing its views to media, or “encouraging press to suppress their own speech,” as Justice Elena Kagan put it. This is government bullying third parties to suppress Americans’ speech that officials dislike.

In the newspaper analogy, it would be like government threatening an IRS audit or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigation, or pulling the business license of The Washington Post if the Post published an op-ed from Jay Bhattacharya. As Norwood v. Harrison established in 1973, that’s blatantly unconstitutional. Government cannot “induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”

Yet, notes Matt Taibbi, some justices and Fletcher “re-framed the outing of extravagantly funded, ongoing content-flagging programs, designed by veterans of foreign counterterrorism operations and targeting the domestic population, as a debate about what Fletcher called ‘classic bully pulpit exhortations.’”

Every Fake Excuse for Censorship Is Already Illegal

We have laws against all the harms the government and several justices put forth as excuses for government censorship. Terrorism is illegal. Promoting terrorism is illegal, as an incitement to treason and violence. Inciting children to injure or murder themselves by jumping out windows — a “hypothetical” brought up by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and discussed at length in oral arguments — is illegal.

If someone is spreading terrorist incitements to violence on Facebook, law enforcement needs to go after the terrorist plotters, not Facebook. Just like it’s unjust to punish gun, knife, and tire iron manufacturers for the people who use their products to murder, it’s unjust and unconstitutional for government to effectively commandeer Facebook under the pretext of all the evils people use it to spread. If they have a problem with those evils, they should address those evils directly, not pressure Facebook to do what they can’t get through Congress like it’s some kind of substitute legislature.

It’s also ridiculous to, as Jackson and Fletcher did in oral argument, assume that the government is the only possible solution to every social ill. Do these hypothetically window-jumping children not have parents? Teachers? Older siblings? Neighbors? Would the social media companies not have an interest in preventing their products from being used to promote death, and wouldn’t that be an easy thing to explain publicly? Apparently, Jackson couldn’t conceive of any other solution to problems like these than government censorship, when our society has handled far bigger problems like war, pandemics, and foreign invasion without government censorship for 250 years!

Voters Auditing Government Is Exactly How Our System Should Work

Fletcher described it as a “problem” that in this case, “two states and five individuals are trying to use the Article III courts to audit all of the executive branch’s communications with and about social media platforms.” That’s called transparency, and it’s only a problem if the government is trying to escape accountability to voters for its actions. The people have a fundamental right to audit what their government is doing with public positions, institutions, and funds! How do we have government by consent of the governed if the people can have no idea what their government is doing?

Under federal laws, all communications like those this lawsuit uncovered are public records. Yet these public records are really hard to get. The executive branch has been effectively nullifying open records laws by absurdly lengthening disclosure times — to as long as 636 days — increasingly forcing citizens to wage expensive lawsuits to get federal agencies to cough up records years beyond the legal deadline.

Congress should pass a law forcing the automatic disclosure of all government communications with tech monopolies that don’t concern actual classified information and “national security” designations, which the government expands unlawfully to avoid transparency. No justice should support government secrecy about its speech pressure efforts outside of legitimate national security actions.

Government Is So Big, It’s Always Coercive

Fletcher’s argument also claimed to draw a line between government persuasion and government coercion. The size and minute harassment powers of our government long ago obliterated any such line, if it ever existed. Federal agencies now have the power to try citizens in non-Article III courts, outside constitutional protections for due process. Citizens can be bankrupted long before they finally get to appeal to a real court. That’s why most of them just do whatever the agencies say, even when it’s clearly unlawful.

Federal agencies demand power over almost every facet of life, from puddles in people’s backyards to the temperature of cheese served in a tiny restaurant. If they put a target on any normal citizen’s back, he goes bankrupt after regulatory torture.

As Franklin Roosevelt’s “brain trust” planned, government is now the “senior partner” of every business, giving every “request” from government officials automatic coercion power. Federal agencies have six ways from Sunday of getting back at a noncompliant company, from the EEOC to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to the Environmental Protection Agency to Health and Human Services to Securities and Exchange Commission investigations and more. Use an accurate pronoun? Investigation. Hire “one too many” white guys? Investigation.

TikTok legislation going through Congress right now would codify federal power to seize social media companies accused of being owned by foreign interests. Shortly after he acquired X, Elon Musk faced a regulatory shakedown costing him tens of millions, and more on the way. He has money like that, but the rest of us don’t.

Speech from a private citizen does not have the threat of violence behind it. Speech from a government official, on the other hand, absolutely does and always has. Government officials have powers that other people don’t, and those powers are easily abused, which is exactly why we have a Constitution. SCOTUS needs to take this crucial context into account, making constitutional protections stronger because the government is far, far outside its constitutional bounds.

Big tech companies’ very business model depends on government regulators and can be destroyed — or kneecapped — at the stroke of an activist president’s pen. Or, at least, that’s what the president said when Facebook and Twitter didn’t do what he wanted: Section 230 should “immediately be revoked.” This is a president who claims the executive power to unilaterally rewrite lawsignore laws, and ignore Supreme Court decisions. It’s a president who issues orders as press releases so they go into effect months before they can even begin to be challenged in court.

Constitutionally Protected Speech Isn’t Terrorism

If justices buy the administration’s nice-guy pretenses of “concern about terrorism,” and “once in a lifetime pandemic measures,” they didn’t read the briefs in this case and see that is simply a cover for the U.S. government turning counterterrorism tools on its own citizens in an attempt to control election outcomes. This is precisely what the First Amendment was designed to check, and we Americans need our Supreme Court to understand that and act to protect us. Elections mean nothing when the government is secretly keeping voters from talking to each other.

The Supreme Court may not be able to return the country to full constitutional government by eradicating the almost entirely unconstitutional administrative state. But it should enforce as many constitutional boundaries as possible on such agencies. That clearly includes prohibiting all of government from outsourcing to allegedly “private” organizations actions that would be illegal for the government to take.

That includes not just coercive instructions to social media companies, but also developing social media censorship tools and organizations as cutouts for the rogue security state that is targeting peaceful citizens instead of actual terrorists. Even false speech is not domestic terrorism, and no clearheaded Supreme Court justice looking at the evidence could let the Biden administration weaponize antiterrorism measures to strip law-abiding Americans of our fundamental human rights.


Joy Pullmann is executive editor of The Federalist, a happy wife, and the mother of six children. Her ebooks include “Classic Books For Young Children,” and “101 Strategies For Living Well Amid Inflation.” An 18-year education and politics reporter, Joy has testified before nearly two dozen legislatures on education policy and appeared on major media from Fox News to Ben Shapiro to Dennis Prager. Joy is a grateful graduate of the Hillsdale College honors and journalism programs who identifies as native American and gender natural. Her traditionally published books include “The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of American Kids,” from Encounter Books.

Trump legal team blasts ‘unconstitutional’ attempts to force property sale as deadline for $464M fine nears


Brooke Singman By Brooke Singman Fox News | Published March 21, 2024 2:28pm EDT

Read more at https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-legal-team-blasts-unconstitutional-attempts-force-property-sale-deadline-464m-fine-nears

Lawyers for former President Trump are blasting New York Attorney General Letitia James’ “unconstitutional” attempts to block the GOP presumptive nominee’s appeal and force a property sale as the deadline for him to post hundreds of millions of dollars of bond in the case looms. Trump and his legal team have appealed and requested a stay on his $464 million civil fraud judgment. On Monday, his lawyers said that “ongoing diligent efforts have proven that a bond in the judgment’s full amount is a ‘practical impossibility,’” amid attempts to approach about 30 surety companies. 

NY AG ASKS COURT TO IGNORE TRUMP CLAIM THAT POSTING $464M BOND IS ‘PRACTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY’

The lawyers said the “enormous magnitude” of the bond requirement, which effectively requires cash reserves approaching $1 billion, is “unprecedented for a private company.” 

https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2024/03/file_2274.pdf

James has pushed back, calling Trump’s request for a stay “extraordinary” and “improper.” James has said that Trump should be able to secure the entire value via multiple sureties or offer his real estate holdings as collateral.

But Trump attorney Clifford S. Robert on Thursday sent a letter to the Appellate Division of New York’s Supreme Court, arguing James’ efforts are “unconstitutional.” 

Video

“It would be completely illogical — and the definition of an unconstitutional Excessive Fine and a Taking — to require Defendants to sell properties at all, and especially in a ‘fire sale,’ in order to be able to appeal the lawless Supreme Court judgment, as that would cause harm that cannot be repaired once the Defendants do win, as is overwhelmingly likely, on appeal,” Robert wrote. 

Robert also argued that by James demanding Trump post bond in the full amount in order to appeal, she and the Supreme Court of New York have “sought to impose a patently unreasonable, unjust, and unconstitutional (under both the Federal and New York State Constitutions) bond condition, which would cause irreparable harm and foreclose any review of Supreme Court’s deeply flawed decision in this case.” 

“In short, while attempting to cynically and wrongfully tar the Defendants’ witnesses as ‘unreliable,’ the Attorney General does not actually dispute the truth of a single one of their specific claims,” Robert wrote. “This is unsurprising because these claims are undeniable to those with knowledge of real estate and sureties.” 

Trump plans to ‘exhaust all options’ for bond

TRUMP UNABLE TO GET $464M APPEAL BOND TO STOP COLLECTION, ATTORNEYS SAY: ‘PRACTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY’

Fox News Digital has learned that Trump and his legal team currently have “all options on the table.” 

A source familiar told Fox News Digital that his team plans “to exhaust all options.” 

Donald Trump and Letitia James
New York Attorney General said she is “prepared” to ask the judge to seize former President Donald Trump’s assets if he cannot pay the $354 million judgment handed down in his civil fraud case.  (ABC News/Screenshot/Brendan McDermid-Pool/Getty Images)

“The Trump team is continuing to look at every conceivable option,” the source said, adding that they are “hoping for the best, but preparing for the worst.” 

NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL TAUNTS TRUMP ABOUT INTEREST HE OWES ON CIVIL FRAUD JUDGMENT

If the Trump team’s appeal is granted, the judgment bond could be slashed considerably. It is unclear whether the court will rule on his appeal. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Brooke Singman is a political correspondent and reporter for Fox News Digital, Fox News Channel and FOX Business.

‘I Just Really Wanted My Breasts Gone’: Detransitioner Explains How She Was Duped into Transitioning 


By: Mary Elise Cosgray @maryelisecos / March 21, 2024

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/03/21/wanted-my-breasts-gone-detransitioner-duped-transitioning/

Detransitioner Camille Kiefel with her brown hair sits in front of a black microphone, while wearing a tan shirt and green sweater.
Detransitioner Camille Kiefel says that she and other victims of transgender surgeries “have been dismissed” by doctors pushing so-called gender- affirming care. (Photo: The Daily Signal YouTube)

Detransitioner Camille Kiefel says that she and other victims of transgender surgeries “have been dismissed” by doctors pushing so-called gender-affirming care.  

“I struggled with childhood trauma,” Kiefel told The Daily Signal’s Mary Margaret Olohan. “My best friend had been raped by her brother when I was in sixth grade.”  

A detransitioner is someone who attempts to transition to the opposite gender, then realized that such an attempt is impossible, and “detransitioned.” Many of these individuals, such as Kiefel, say they were betrayed into irreversible hormonal and surgical procedures by doctors and therapists who ignore biological realities in favor of radical ideology. 

“For me, it was being afraid of being vulnerable and wanting to protect myself,” she said, adding, I just started to identify with the male characters in anime manga reading … trying to reject my female identity, dressing more masculine, trying to hide my breasts and my hips, so that men wouldn’t see. 

Kiefel confirmed that her father’s stories of “how men his age talk sexually about girls my age … was what started me on that.”

“It was when I was 26 that I saw a ‘gender-affirming care’ therapist, and then started to believe I was nonbinary, and then I got surgery when I was 30,” she said.

“The crazy thing is that they transitioned me into a nonbinary sex, one that doesn’t exist in nature,” she said.  

“This freeing idea, with being nonbinary for many people is, like … I can just be me, and I’m not sexualized,” Kiefel explained. It was an idea that she learned in women’s studies classes, adding: 

The gender ideology really co-opted it. There was this idea that you can be a third sex.

“I didn’t know what I wanted,” she said. “I just really wanted my breasts gone.” 

Explaining the approval process for getting a double mastectomy, Kiefel said, “The ideology says that you can be trans and have trauma. They’re not accounting for the people who are transitioning because of trauma … it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.” 

She explained the affirmation she received for the transition, saying, “I actually told the gender therapist what had happened to my friend and yet … but they didn’t push back at all.”  

“I dealt with all these physical health issues after the surgery,” Kiefel said, “and the doctors took me seriously at first, but then became dismissive when they thought it was psychosomatic fever.”  

In the face of that dismissal by the doctors, Kiefel took matters into her own hands and began working with a naturopath.  

“I started adding meat back into my diet and some other holistic treatments,” she said, “and all of a sudden, I was, like, ‘Wow!’ My mental health is getting better!” 

“All I needed to do was address my physical health, but nobody was doing that because … you’re depressed. … [T]hey just pegged me as someone dealing with mental illness.”  

When Olohan asked Kiefel about her contact with the surgeons after she realized the mistake, the detransitioner said, “I just don’t feel comfortable reaching out to those doctors” after having experienced a doctor who treated her like she was wasting his time. 

“I think a lot of detransitioners have those feelings of, like, we’ve been dismissed. I know many detransitioners who have been told that this is part of their gender journey,” Kiefel said. 

Many detransitioners are suing the medical establishment, accusing doctors and therapists of manipulating them into undergoing brutal sex-change experiments. 

Olohan asked Kiefel, “What would you say to doctors and therapists who are considering being a part of these so-called gender-affirming surgeries and interventions?”  

“Make sure that no one who is struggling with severe mental health issues should do any of these surgeries,” Kiefel said. “They need to get their mental health under control.” 

“Particularly with women who have histories with sexual trauma,” she added, “there’s a lot of them who are transitioning … . It’s partially escapism and to protect themselves. “ 

Olohan stated, “It sounds like we need more medical professionals that want to help detransitioners.” 

Kiefel agreed: “We do.” 

Olohan documents numerous stories of detransitioners in her book “Detrans: True Stories of Escaping the Gender Ideology Cult,” due out May 28, an intimate look at the lived experiences of detransitioners, including the manipulative therapy sessions, botched surgeries, and attempts to construct phantom body parts. 

Tag Cloud