Following the presidential debate last night, CNNโs Daniel Dale meticulously fact-checked the many inaccurate statements made by President Joe Biden during his exchange with former President Donald Trump. In a thorough analysis, the CNN employee scrutinized Bidenโs remarks and exposed a multitude of falsehoods without hesitation.
โHe said heโs the only president in a while who didnโt have any troops dying anywhere in the world. Troops have of course died on his watch,โ Dale stated, highlighting Bidenโs inaccurate claim about military casualties during his presidency.
Dale also pointed out Bidenโs misrepresentation of his insulin pricing policy.:
โHe said heโs put in a $15 per shot cap on insulin and Medicare. Itโs a $35 a month cap. He said itโs a $200 cap on overall drug spending and Medicare, itโs $2000 a year,โ Dale clarified, correcting the Presidentโs misleading statements.
Prepare to watch the most brutal CNN fact check of crooked Joe youโll ever see.
Furthermore, Dale challenged Bidenโs claims about border crossings and unemployment rates:
โHe said the border now has fewer crossings than when Trump was in office. Thatโs generally not true,โ Dale said, presenting data that contradicted Bidenโs assertion. He also corrected Bidenโs claim about the unemployment rate at the start of his presidency, stating, โHe said or at least strongly suggested unemployment was at 15% when he took office. It was actually 6.4%.โ
Dale also addressed Bidenโs statements about Trumpโs policy proposals and endorsements:
โHe said Trump wants to get rid of social security. Trump doesnโt. He said billionaires pay 8.2% in taxes, itโs much higher. He said Trump told Americans to inject bleach amid COVID,โ he explained.
โWe know Trump made foolish comments about scientists studying disinfectant injection but didnโt frame it as advice to people. Biden said the border patrol endorsed him. No, itโs union supported the border bill he supported, never endorsed him himself,โ Dale explained, providing a comprehensive fact-check of Bidenโs claims.
CNNโs thorough fact-checking of Bidenโs remarks in the debate revealed a consistent pattern of inaccuracies and misrepresentation, emphasizing the significance of evidence-based reporting in political discussions.
Top Stories โข Trump Slams Biden for Supporting Abortions Up to Birth โข Pro-Life Group Blasts Joe Biden: He Supports Abortions Up to Birth โข Iowa Supreme Court Reinstates Heartbeat Law That Will Save Babies From Abortions โข Bidenโs Debate Performance Was Such a Disaster, He Could be Replaced
More Pro-Life News โข Joe Biden Wants to Put This Father of 11 in Prison for 11 Years for Protesting Abortion โข Trump is Right: Democrats Have Supported Late-Term Abortions and Infanticide for Decades โข GOP Primaries Show Republicans Donโt Want Pro-Abortion Candidates โข Idaho AG: Weโll Stop Biden From Pushing Abortion on Us, โWeโre Going to Winโ โข Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
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.
At the presidential debate, Biden made a bold claim that the official union of the U.S. Border Patrol had endorsed him. However, the National Border Patrol Council wasted no time in setting the record straight, tweeting that they have never and will never endorse Biden. This statement came as a humiliation for Biden, who is trying to justify his handling of border issues. In fact, his executive order on the border has been criticized by many as being pro-illegal immigration and for making the situation even worse.
Bidenโs claim of endorsement by the Border Patrol Council is simply not true. In fact, the Council did endorse a Senate bill in February that aimed to strengthen border security. However, this is a far cry from endorsing Biden himself. The Councilโs president, Brandon Judd, made it clear at the time that the bill was better than the current situation, but it did not mean an endorsement for Biden. This distinction is important, as Biden is trying to use this false endorsement to bolster his image on border issues.
Bidenโs executive order, issued earlier this month, has also come under fire for being ineffective and even counterproductive. The order sets limits on the number of migrants who can cross illegally into the country, but it only applies to crossings between ports of entry. This means that when illegal crossings average 2,500 per day, the border will be shut down. This measure is not only arbitrary, but it also does not address the root causes of the border crisis. It only serves to make the situation worse, as it does nothing to stop the large number of illegal crossings happening at ports of entry.
To be clear, we never have and never will endorse Biden.
— Border Patrol Union – NBPC (@BPUnion) June 28, 2024
It is clear that Bidenโs policies on the border have been a failure. In the fiscal year 2021, there were a record 2.48 million total encounters at the southern border, a significant increase compared to the previous years. In fact, during Trumpโs presidency, the highest number of illegal crossings was approximately 852,000 in 2019. The numbers for the other three years ranged between 300,000 and 400,000. This shows that Bidenโs policies have led to a massive increase in illegal crossings and have failed to address the issue effectively.
Moreover, these numbers do not even include the estimated 1.6 million โgotawaysโ โ migrants who were able to evade apprehension at the border. This is a serious concern, as it shows that not only are the number of illegal crossings increasing, but there are also many who are able to slip through undetected. Bidenโs policies have created a chaotic and uncontrollable situation at the border, and this has serious implications for national security.
Here's the clip of Joe Biden claiming he was endorsed by the Border Patrol.
Bidenโs claim of endorsement by the Border Patrol Council is false and has been refuted by the Council itself. His executive order on the border is ineffective and has been criticized as pro-illegal immigration.
The record number of illegal crossings under Bidenโs presidency only highlights his failed policies and inability to control the border. As the situation continues to spiral out of control, it is clear that Bidenโs handling of border issues has been a major disaster.
Body language expert Susan Constantine weighs in on the debate performance by President Biden and former President Trump.
President Biden and former President Donald Trump squared off in their high-stakes 2024 electionย debate rematchย on Thursday and the contrast between the pair could not have been starker, body language expert Susan Constantine tells Fox News.
Constantine says the physical difference between the candidates was noticeable from the moment they both took the stage in Atlanta, and that set the tone for the rest of the evening, with Trump purveying strength and confidence in his mannerisms, while Biden showed a tired and slow demeanor, made worse by his raspy voice, mumbled answers and oftentimes dazed looks.
“I was really concerned because the minute [Biden] walked out on that stage, I felt he [was] not feeling good,” Constantine said. “His skin was pale, it was pasty, and he literally looked like a dead man walking.”
Biden looks on as he participates in the first presidential debate of the 2024 elections with former President Trump on June 27, 2024.ย (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images)
“It was as if everything were in slow motion,” she continued. “His fingers and his lack of illustrators when he was talking, he was like a frozen statue up there on the stage. It really was painful to watch. [Trump] had a more serious demeanor. He didn’t make a lot of facial gestures as we normally see him do. He didn’t flash his great big smile at anybody. He was very serious when he walked out on the stage, and it really didn’t change at all through the entire debate.”
Constantine added, “It made Biden look exceptionally weak, and made Donald Trump exceptionally powerful.”
Biden’s campaign blamed the raspy voice on a cold, but the president’s uneven debate performanceย grabbed the vast majority of headlinesย from the debate, sparking a new round of calls from political pundits and some Democrats for the president to consider stepping aside as the party’s standard-bearer.ย But top Biden allies pushed back against such talk as they defended the president and targeted Trump for lying throughout the debate.ย
Constantine says that it was clear that Biden had rehearsed many of his answers and went through his scripted answers very fast so as not to forget his lines. But when he did fail to recollect lines, it tripped him up, resulting in him giving long stares, oftentimes without blinking, which she describes as a “stalker stare.”
“And the minute he forgot a couple of words, it was all over with, right, and then you could see that dropped mouth, and it was that dumbfounded look,” she explained. “His eyes would become very open and almost zombie-like. So he had that very flat stare in his eyes.”
Biden and Trump debated in a high-stakes debate Thursday night and a body expert says their gestures told a lot about them.ย (Getty Images)
She also said Biden had too many cosmetic injections which physically prevented him from making proper expressions.
“He was really way too botoxed out, and that is a real problem because it can create some cognitive issues because when you shut down those emotions through facial effects, it can affect your brain,” Constantine explained. “It really almost felt abusive in my opinion, to literally allow him โฆ [to] go through that kind of pressure knowing that he is in this high cognitive decline was to me, almost abusive.”
“And it was sad to watch. My heart broke,” she added. “I mean, literally, I could have cried watching him try to force these words out the best he could and it was just super hard to watch. The emotion that I felt, of sympathy, of empathy, because he just truly looked pathetic.”
Trump, on the other hand, showed discipline and commanded his stage space, Constantine said, adding that the lack of an audience played to Trumpโs advantage as it kept him focused on the debate and not distracted.
She said Trump also used his hand movements to convey his messaging. He also expressed his emotions in his face, and said that when he is hurt or attacked, it is noticeable as his face droops downward in a sad gesture.
Trump used his hands to convey his point in the debate.ย (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images)
“He’s a big guy with big hands, right? And he captures the attention,” Constantine said. “He’s very big, and wide and open, and so everything in his gestures and in his movements are big and boisterous. His hands are no more than additional communicators of what he’s saying.”
Constantine said Trump used a chopping motion when he was serious and used an “okay” sign when he was concentrating on something that was really important. He also gave an “L” sign at ear level which she terms as “listen and learn” while he also moved his hands towards his chest as if he is playing an accordion.
“[Trump’s gestures] are much more rapid and much more commanding, much more intense. But that goes along with his personality, so it is in sync with his personality,” Constantine said. “We’ve seen politicians where their gestures are so synchronized and they’re so on point that it loses its authenticity. He left that window open so that he was able to gesture, stay within that balance, stay within the frame, connect with the audience, or on camera and not over gesture but just gesture enough to get his point across.”ย
“Very powerful,” she added.ย
Fox Newsโ Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report.
Michael Dorgan is a writer for Fox News Digital and Fox Business.
You can send tips to michael.dorgan@fox.com and follow him on Twitter @M_Dorgan.
Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz says the Supreme Courtโs ruling Friday that raised the legal bar for prosecutors pursuing obstruction charges against Jan. 6 protesters is a victory for civil liberties.
The justices ruled 6-3 to throw out a lower court’s decision that had allowed a charge of corruptly obstructing an official proceedingย โ the congressional certification of President Joe Biden’s victory over former President Donald Trump that the rioters sought to preventย โ against defendant Joseph Fischer, a former police officer. The justice directed the lower court to reconsider the matter.
“It’s so interesting because it’s the conservative justices who are giving some meaning to civil liberties and the liberal justices who are saying lock them up and throw them in jail,”ย Dershowitz saidย on Newsmax TV’sย “National Report.”
“It shows the partisan nature of the judiciary.”
The justices ruled that the charge of obstructing an official proceeding, enacted in 2002 in response to the financial scandal that brought down Enron Corp., must include proof that defendants tried to tamper with or destroy documents. Only some of the people who entered the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, fall into that category, the court ruled.
The court, in the decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, ruled that an obstruction conviction requires prosecutors to show that a defendant “impaired the availability or integrity” of documents other records related to an official proceeding – or attempted to do so.
Dershowitz said the ruling is good for civil liberties.
“This is a victory for civil liberties, a victory for truly liberal people, but also a victory for Republicans and for Trump,” the famed legal scholar said.
He also said the ruling could benefit those who engaged in anti-Israel and anti-Semitic protesters on college campuses.
“You can’t give rights to some people without giving rights to other people,” Dershowitz said.
“This may give rights to all protesters. This is a ruling by conservative justices that is very supportive of civil liberties. It really is a very dramatic demonstration of how partisanship is more important than principle, even for some justices of the Supreme Court.”
Overall, Dershowitz said he was happy with the ruling.
“I think itโs a good day for America, a good day for protesters, a good day for civil liberties,” Dershowitz said. “This was a necessary response to the over broadening of criminal law.”
About NEWSMAX TV:
NEWSMAX is the fastest-growing cable news channel in America!
Findย Newsmaxย channel inย your homeย via cable and satellite systems โย More Info Here
Watchย Newsmax+ย on your home TV app or smartphone and watch it anywhere! Try it for FREE โย See More Here:ย NewsmaxPlus.com
An isolated tent is pitched April 22 near a homeless camp in Chicago’s Humboldt Park. (Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)
The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision Friday holding that the government may punish the homeless by fines or imprisonment for trespassing or camping on public property.
In 2013, the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, had a population of roughly 38,000 and as many as 600 homeless individuals on any given day. Many of these homeless individuals clustered in encampments that all too frequently serve as a hotbed of disease, addiction, and rampant crime committed by and against the encampment dwellers.
In the case now known as City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, the city responded by enforcing its โcamping banโ ordinance, which barred the use of blankets, pillows, and cardboard boxes while sleeping within the city. Violators were subject to a $295 civil fine for initial violations, which could escalate to $1,250 and 30 days in jail for repeat offenders convicted on charges of criminal trespass.
Similar ordinances, of course, have been adopted by many cities and localities throughout the country.
A lawsuit was promptly filed on behalf of a group of homeless individuals challenging the ordinance. Theย 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appealsย enjoined enforcement of the law, holding that it would violate the cruel and unusual punishments clauseย of theย Eighth Amendmentย to the ConstitutionโโExcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflictedโโto fine someone for sleeping on public property if no bed is available at a secular shelter.
In so ruling, the 9th Circuit relied on two earlier Supreme Court decisionsโRobinson v. California (1962), which held that a state canโt criminalize the status of being a narcotics addict, and Powell v. Texas (1968), which held that a state may outlaw public drunkenness. These rulings, in the 9th Circuitโs view, barred the government from punishing someone for involuntary conduct, which sleeping ultimately is.
Writing for the majority in the Supreme Court decision issued Friday, Justice Neil Gorsuch resoundingly and rightfully rejected the lower courtโs results-oriented interpretation of the high courtโs precedents.
Gorsuch held that the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public lands doesnโt qualify as โcruel and unusual punishmentโ and that public camping ordinances โare nothing like the law at issue in Robinson.โ
Gorsuch noted that status is not the issue since it โmakes no difference whether the charged defendant is currently a person experiencing homelessness, a backpacker on vacation, or a student who abandons his dorm room to camp out in protest on the lawn of a municipal building.โ
Further, Gorsuch opined, the ordinance punished conduct, not status, and therefore was fully consistent with the high courtโs opinion in the Powell case.
Moreover, he stated, the Constitutionโs cruel and unusual punishments clause focuses on the question of โwhat โmethod or kind of punishmentโ a government may impose after a criminal conviction, not on the question whether a government may criminalize particular behavior in the first place or how it may go about securing a conviction for that offense.โ
While stating that there was no need to reconsider the Supreme Courtโs decision in the Robinson case, Gorsuch noted that the court at the time โexpressly recognized the โbroad powerโ States enjoy over the substance of their criminal laws.โ
Additionally, Gorsuch noted, the penalties that Grants Pass adopted to prevent homeless encampments werenโt โcruelโ because they werenโt remotely similar to the hideously painful punishmentsโsuch as drawing and quarteringโthat the Framers of the Constitution knew. Nor were those penalties โunusual,โ he wrote, but rather laws of this ilk are โcommonplace.โ
Justice Clarence Thomas would have gone further, writing in a concurring opinion that, in his view, the Robinson case was wrongly decided and should be overturned.
In Thomasโs view, the high courtโs holding in Robinson that the Constitution prohibits enforcement of laws that criminalize somebodyโs status โconflicts with the plain text and history of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause.โ
Quoting from an earlier opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, Thomas opined that for too long and on too many occasions, the Supreme Court has โproclaimed itself sole arbiter of our Nationโs moral standards.โ
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented. Sotomayor decried what in her view was the courtโs abdication of โits role in safeguarding constitutional liberties for the most vulnerable among us.โ
Sotomayor stated: โIt is possible to acknowledge and balance the issues facing local governments, the humanity and dignity of homeless people, and our constitutional principles. Instead, the majority focuses almost exclusively on the needs of local governments and leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested.โ
But in writing this, Sotomayor failed to offer any textual or historical analysis for this seemingly new constitutional right to camp on public lands, at least in the absence of adequate available public housing.
Dealing with homelessness is a difficult and longstanding problem with real consequences for public safety, government budgets, and humanitarian considerations. As Gorsuch recognized in Fridayโs opinion, the issue of how to address homelessness โis complexโ and the causes of homelessness โare many.โ
Although we all may be sympathetic to the plight of the homeless, the Eighth Amendment doesnโt give federal judges primary responsibility โfor assessing those causes and devising those responses,โ Gorsuch wrote.
The Supreme Courtโs decision in the Grants Pass case returns this problem to the political process, which is precisely where it belongs.
The debate last night was chilling for many citizens as President Joe Biden clearly struggled to stay focused and responsive. It appeared to put on display what Special Counsel Robert Hur saw in his interview before concluding that Bidenโs loss of mental capacity would make a prosecution difficult. What may be equally troubling for Democrats and the media is a poll that came out just before the debate that shows more swing-state voters see former President Donald Trump rather than President Joe Biden as protecting democracy.
According to a new poll from the Washington Post and the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University, if โdemocracy is on the ballot,โ the majority of the public believes that threat comes from elsewhere, including possibly Biden himself.
Over half of the respondents told the Washington Post that threats to democracy are extremely important to their vote for president. However, 44% said they think Trump would do a better job at handling those threats. Only 33% of respondents said they believe Biden would be better for democracy.
Many citizens are alarmed by prosecutions like the one in Manhattan where the legal system seems to have been weaponized against political opponents.
The poll not only shows the diminishing faith in the President but also in the press. The media has been unrelenting in pushing the narrative that this election is a choice between democracy and tyranny. The public is clearly tuning out the media message. This is only the latest example of that widening gap. Indeed, the whole โLetโs Go Brandonโ chant is as much a criticism of the media as it is President Biden.
I haveย previously writtenย that democracy is not on the ballot, but free speech is. The Biden Administration has chilling analogies to the Adams Administration in the weaponization of the legal system and the crackdown on free speech. What should most concern Biden is the possibility of another aspect of history repeating itself: a defeat like the one in 1800.
The anti-free speech movement has flourished largely in the echo chambers of academia and the media. It is time for the public to render its judgment. Free speech is again on the ballot. It is time for the public to decide.
The presidential debate last night was chilling to watch as President Joe Biden clearly struggled to retain his focus and, at points, seemed hopelessly confused. The winner was clear: Special Counsel Robert Hur. For months, Democrats in Congress and the media have attacked Hur for his report that the president came across as an โelderly man with a poor memory.โ Hur concluded that prosecuting Biden would be difficult because a jury would view him as a sympathetic figure of a man with declining mental capabilities. That was evident last night, and the question is whether a man who was too diminished to be a criminal defendant can still be a president for four more years.
Hur laid out evidence that President Biden had unlawfully retained and mishandled classified evidence for decades. However, he also concluded that โat trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.โ He found that โit would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict himโby then a former president well into his eightiesโof a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.โ
What has followed is the usual pile-on in the media with legal analysts, press, and pundits denouncing Hur for his findings.
Hur likely does not anticipate any apologies even as commentators on CNN and MSNBC admit that there are now unavoidable questions of Bidenโs ability to be the nominee.
Democrats have repeatedly insisted that Hur did not find Biden diminished and that he actually was impressed by his memory and mental acuity. Hur contradicted that in his own testimony before Congress.
Indeed, the denial campaign took on a bizarre character, particularly when Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D., Wash.) insisted that Hur โexoneratedโ Biden. Hur pushed back: โI need to go back and make sure that I take note of a word that you used, โexoneration.โ That is not a word that is used in my report and that is not a part of my task as a prosecutor.โ
Jayapal shot back,ย โYou exonerated him.โ
Hur responded, โI did not exonerate him. That word does not appear in the report.โ
The debate showed not only what Hur saw but why the Justice Department is making a clearly laughable privilege claim to delay any release of the audiotape until after the election.
A leading House Republican filed a resolution in Congress urging Vice President Kamala Harris to invoke the 25th Amendment in the wake of President Joe Bidenโs performance Thursday night in the first debate with former President Donald Trump. Even Democrats and Biden supporters described the presidentโs performance as poor, though few have suggested a need to invoke the 25th Amendment.
โI intend to put forth a resolution calling upon the [vice president] to immediately use her powers under section 4 of the 25th Amendment to convene & mobilize the principal officers of the Cabinet to declare the [president of the United States] is unable to successfully discharge the duties and powers of his office,โ Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, wrote on X on Friday morning.
I intend to put forth a resolution calling upon the @VP to immediately use her powers under section 4 of the 25th Amendment to convene & mobilize the principal officers of the Cabinet to declare the @POTUS is unable to successfully discharge the duties and powers of his office.
The 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967, sets up a process by which the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet can notify the president pro tempore of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office, enabling the vice president to become acting president. Under the amendment, the president can submit a written declaration that no inability exists, at which time he would resume his office.
Throughout the debate, Biden spoke with a raspy voice and made numerous verbal stumbles, including instances of rambling.
๐คWhat is going on here? Real video of Joe Biden in the middle of a presidential debate "The ability of Medicare… to… ugh.. for the ability… for us to be able to negotiate drug prices with Big Pharma companies." pic.twitter.com/XExK7ywKbu
The resolution directly calls upon Harris to take office as acting president.
โWhereas President Joseph R. Biden has repeatedly and publicly demonstrated his inability to discharge the powers and duties of the presidency, including, among others, the powers and duties of the commander-in-chief: Now, therefore, be it resolved that the House of Representatives calls upon Vice President Kamala D. Harris to immediately use her powers under section 4 of the 25th Amendment to convene and mobilize the principal officers of the executive departments in the Cabinet to declare that President Joseph R. Biden is unable to discharge the duties and powers of the office; and to transmit to the president pro tempore of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives that she will be immediately assuming the powers and duties of the office as acting president.โ
If Harris and the Cabinet invoked the 25th Amendment and Biden did not stop them, Harris would become acting president.
๐จGreat debate moment๐จ Biden: "We finally beat Medicare." Trump: "He's right, he did beat Medicare. He beat it to death." pic.twitter.com/oCFGijp6nz
โA lot of people who are fans andย supporters of President Bidenย or who are Democrats or who are just worried about the prospect of Donald Trump returning to the presidency feel like this was not a strong performance tonight from President Biden,โ MSNBCโs Rachel Maddow told Harris. โI want to hear your assessment and how you respond to those critics.โ
โWell, it was a slow start, thereโs no question about that, but I thought it was a strong finish,โ the vice president responded. โWhat we know is that when you look at the two sides of the ledger, what we had in Joe Biden is someone who wanted to have a debate based on facts, based on truth, and in Donald Trump we have what we have come to expect, which is someone who will push lies and distract from the reality of the damage he has created and continues to create in our country.โ
Harris said that Biden has done โhistoric workโ and did not mention the 25th Amendment.
๐จBREAKING: Kamala Harris dismisses concerns about Joe Biden's debate performance, and doesn't mention the 25th Amendment. pic.twitter.com/85DREWoZqJ
Yet former Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said Biden failed to demonstrate that he was up to the job.
โJoe Biden had one thing he had to do tonight, and he didnโt do it,โ McCaskill said. โHe had one thing he had to accomplish, and that was reassure America that he was up to the job at his age, and he failed at that tonight.โ
๐ฒFormer Sen. @clairecmc: Joe Biden had one thing he had to do tonight, and he didn't do it. He had one thing he had to accomplish and that was reassure America that he was up to the job at his age, and he failed at that.โผ๏ธ pic.twitter.com/CLcoRiJba1
Two Republican senators also suggested Bidenโs performance suggested an inability to carry out his duties.
โWeโve definitely entered 25th Amendment territory,โ Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, wrote on X.
โIf you think Democrats in Washington and across the country arenโt talking about the 25th Amendment right now, youโre crazy,โ Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., wrote. โItโs not a question of whether he should be on the ballot. That ship has sailed. Itโs a question of whether he can serve as president right now.โ
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., said Bidenโs debate performance will strengthen her calls for Attorney General Merrick Garland to release the tapes of Bidenโs interview with special counsel Robert Hur.
โEvery member of Congress has a constitutional duty to ensure we have a coherent President,โ she wrote on X. โWe MUST hear the Hur tapes. A lawsuit can take years. I will be calling up the vote to hold Garland in inherent contempt this morning. This is a national security issue.โ
Every member of Congress has a constitutional duty to ensure we have a coherent President. We MUST hear the Hur tapes. A lawsuit can take years. I will be calling up the vote to hold Garland in inherent contempt this morning. This is a national security issue.
— Anna Paulina Luna (@realannapaulina) June 28, 2024
Will Democrats replace Joe Biden as their presidential nominee?
Itโs not that simple, logistically or politically, as long heโs still alive. States have pretty strict rules on last-second ballot changes, but Democrats have always found ways to get courts to rewrite laws for them at the last second. Just look at what they did for Frank Lautenberg and Robert Torricelli in New Jersey. It would be a heavy lift but not an impossible one.
The real problem for Democrats is political: Removing Biden as nominee requires them to deny and reject the election results of their voters in all 50 states after they spent four years accusing everyone else of being โelection deniers.โ They also will have a very hard time removing Biden as nominee but leaving him in as president. If heโs not mentally fit to be on the campaign trail or debate stage, how on Earth can he be fit enough to remain as president? The downsides of that strategy are immense, with little upside.
And that brings us to the real problem for Democrats: Kamala Harris. They know sheโs political kryptonite because sheโs both incredibly stupid and extremely unlikeable. Democrat voters canโt even stand her. So, if they manage to get rid of Biden both as nominee and as president, they end up stuck with her, which might even be worse than doing nothing. Do they really want to be in the position of preventing the first female president from running as an incumbent? And can they sideline her while promoting another white dude like Gavin Newsom when their entire party is built around identity politics?
Four minutes of Kamala. I defy you to listen to it without cracking a molarโฆ pic.twitter.com/ylqmEDcxsu
So, the predicament for Democrats right now is they have to somehow find out how to get rid of Biden as the nominee, keep him as president, and prevent the black woman who is currently vice president from being the nominee. I donโt think itโs a needle theyโll be able to thread without resorting to violence and republic-destroying tactics.
Now, they could just reap what theyโve sown, accept the consequences of their choices, and accept losing an election for once โ but Iโm not holding my breath.
Sean Davis is CEO and co-founder of The Federalist. He previously worked as an economic policy adviser to Gov. Rick Perry, as CFO of Daily Caller, and as chief investigator for Sen. Tom Coburn. He was named by The Hill as one of the top congressional staffers under the age of 35 for his role in spearheading the enactment of the law that created USASpending.gov. Sean received a BBA in finance from Texas Tech University and an MBA in finance and entrepreneurial management from the Wharton School. He can be reached via e-mail at sean@thefederalist.com.
A.F. Branco Cartoon โ Democrats are in a full-blown panic attack over Bidenโs debate performance with Donald Trump. Rumors are swirling around about Michelle Obama jumping in to save them.
Trump Campaign Fact-Checks Biden in Real Time โ Here are the Details (VIDEO)
By Jim Hoft June 27, 2024
In a bold move to keep the current administration accountable, the Trump campaign has launched a real-time fact-checking initiative aimed at Joe Bidenโs statements during the debate.
Here are the details:
FACT CHECK: BIDEN FUELED THE INFLATION CRISIS
Crooked Joe Biden has repeatedly claimed inflation was โ9%โ when he took office, but he couldnโt be more wrong.
Biden took office with year-over-year inflation at 1.4% โ thenย promisedย rising inflation was โtransitoryโ as it went higher and higher, peaking at 9.1% well over a year later.
Under Biden, Americans have experienced the longest period of high inflationย since the late 1980sย โ with overall pricesย up 20.1% since he took office.ย READ MOREโฆ
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 โThe Washington Post.โ He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh DโSouza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
Top Stories โข Supreme Court Ruling Leaves Idaho Abortion Ban in Place to Protect Unborn Babies โข Justice Alito Confirms Federal Law Requires Hospitals to โProtect an Unborn Child From Harmโ โข Democrat Party Will Spend $8.3 Million to Promote Killing Babies in Abortions โข Republican Party Would Face Disaster if it Abandoned The Pro-Life Position
More Pro-Life News โข Study on Abortion and Infant Mortality in Texas is Totally Misleading, Hereโs the Truth โข Congressman Introduces Bill To Ban Using Taxpayer Dollars For Abortions โข Courts Need to Stop Biden From Turning ERs Into Abortion Centers โข Former Pussycat Dolls Singer Kaya Jones Condemns Abortion: โChildren are a Blessing From Godโ โข Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
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.
In December 2021, the FDA cautioned the public against using animal-intended Ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19.
At the time, this statement sparked controversy as the FDA promoted the drug to African migrants in 2015, despite receiving praise in numerous scientific journals. There have been more than 101 scientific studies on Ivermectin confirming its significant efficacy in treating COVID-19 in the early stages. The scientific evidence is indisputable. However, the US government has criticized the use of Ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment, leading to unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of Americans.
Fast forward to today, a recent study has shown that individuals who took Ivermectin fared significantly better than those who did not. The Epoch Times and ZeroHedge reported on a new study that found individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 and used ivermectin as a treatment experienced faster recovery compared to a control group.
According to the study conducted in the UK, those who took ivermectin reported recovering a median of two days sooner than the comparison group. The difference in recovery time was deemed statistically significant. Furthermore, the study revealed that individuals who received ivermectin were less likely to require hospitalization or face mortality, with only 1.6 percent of ivermectin recipients needing hospital care or succumbing to the virus compared to 4 percent in the control group who received standard care focused on symptom management. In addition to quicker recovery, those who took ivermectin also showed a reduction in severe symptoms and sustained recovery.
The research was published by the Journal of Infection on Feb. 29 following an open-label trial involving 2,157 individuals treated with ivermectin and 3,256 participants receiving standard care from June 23, 2021, to July 1, 2022.
Participants were randomly assigned and monitored for symptoms and recovery progress throughout the study period.
Free speech may have taken a beating in the U.S. Supreme Courtโs ruling giving Big Government and Big Tech free rein over the First Amendment, but an attorney for the private plaintiffs in the case says the battle is far from over.
NCLA represents the private plaintiffs in the ruling that saw a 6-3 majority in Murthy v. Missouri reverse a lower courtโs injunction that blocked the federal government from partnering with social media giants to silence posts it doesnโt like. As my colleague Shawn Fleetwood wrote, the decision โ based on an absurd standing argument โ effectively frees the Biden administration to continue its censoring operations during the 2024 election.
โThe Supreme Court majority has practically erased the First Amendment and permitted government to co-opt private entities, like social media platforms, to accomplish its censorship aims,โ NCLA said in a press release following the ruling.
In the majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that the plaintiffs failed to establish standing because they did not โdemonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a Government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek.โ
โBecause no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction,โ the decision opines.
โTruth Can Get You Firedโ
But if the past is truly an indicator of the future, itโs difficult to reconcile the standing argument with the speech suppression that occurred, particularly against those who rightly questioned the governmentโs Covid policies and voiced legitimate concerns over Covid vaccines.
NCLAโs clients, Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff, Aaron Kheriaty, and Jill Hines, were all censored for daring to challenge the governmentโs โdisinformationโ campaign on the pandemic. It cost Kulldorff his job as a respected professor at Harvard.
โI am no longer a professor of medicine at Harvard. The Harvard motto is Veritas, Latin for truth. But, as I discovered, truth can get you fired. This is my story โ a story of a Harvard biostatistician and infectious-disease epidemiologist, clinging to the truth as the world lost its way during the Covid pandemic,โ he wrote earlier this year in a column for City Journal. Kulldorff had questioned the lockdowns and vaccine mandates.
"Scientific institutions have enjoyed enormous prestige among the public. The COVID-19 pandemic, and the dreadful performance of the experts and institutions, ended this idyll. – @mgurrihttps://t.co/3KcnfTq0Gj
No one was hurt by the government? The majority opinion asserts that while the Big Tech speech suppressors did have content moderation policies and may have been censoring users, the plaintiffs provided no documentation showing the government coerced the social media giants to do so.ย As censor-in-chief Joe Biden would say, thatโs malarkey.ย
Younes said the ruling is rooted in some โfactual errorsโ by the majority. The Louisiana District Court Judge who on July 4, 2023, issued the injunction against the government said the executive branchย โseems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian โMinistry of Truth.โโย U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty conducted a thorough review of voluminous records showing dozens of agencies communicating with Big Tech companies, according to Younes.
โ[There were] probably close to 100 federal officials that we know of who were colluding with, coercing, pressuring, influencing the companies to effectuate their censorship desires,โ the attorney said, adding that the justices in the majority appear to have โread the governmentโs brief and just believed everything they said.โ
In his dissent, Justice Samuel Alito warned that the governmentโs conduct was โblatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Courtโs failure to say so.โ
โOfficials who read todayโs decision together with Vullo will get the message. If a coercive campaign is carried out with enough sophistication, it may get by. That is not a message this Court should send.โ
Difficult but Not Impossible
While the high court remanded the case to the lower court โfor further proceedings consistent with this opinion,โ Younes said expanded discovery might just stop the overreaching government yet. NCLA plans to go after government and Big Tech communications involving its clients to show the direct harm caused, as demanded in the majorityโs standing argument.
โThe district court has shown that it believes in our case and โฆ said this is arguably the most massive attack on free speech in the history of the United States, which I agree with,โ Younes said. โThe federal government was censoring entire narratives, entire lines of thought. If you questioned the efficacy of the vaccines in 2021, even if you were a vaccine expert like our client, Martin Kulldorff, you would be censored on social media, as he was.โ
The case may also get an assist from a presidential candidate. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now running as an independent, had sought to intervene in the Supreme Court case but was turned back by the majority. If anyone knows censorship, itโs RFK Jr., who was blocked from social media as part of what the government and corporate media have described as theย โDisinformation Dozenโย for challenging the governmentโs faulty narrative on Covid vaccines.ย Kennedy has lots of emails showing the Biden administration trying to silence his speech.ย
As government water carrier USA Today reported, one email shows the Biden administration pouncing after Kennedy suggested baseball legend Hank Aaronโs death may have been caused by his Covid-19 vaccine.
โWanted to flag the below tweet and am wondering if we can get moving on the process for having it removed ASAP,โ the digital director for the White Houseโs Covid response team wrote in an email to an official at Twitter, the publication reported.
Alito also dissented in the courtโs rejection of Kennedyโs motion to join the lawsuit, suggesting standing could be a problem and RFK Jr. could help take away that argument.
โ[The Supreme Court is] making it very difficult to bring the case, but theyโre not making it impossible,โ Younes said.
If the Supreme Court wonโt stand up to assaults on the First Amendment, Congress must, said plaintiff Jill Hines, NCLA client and co-director of Health Freedom Louisiana.
โAfter reviewing the shocking and incriminating evidence indicating a massive government censorship scheme, the Justices erroneously determined to allow the government access to social media companies for the purpose of undermining free speech,โ she said in the press release. โCongress must act immediately to defund agencies and third parties actively involved in this broadly pervasive and unconstitutional censorship scheme.โ
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.
A bus bearing the faces of female athletes, coaches, and sports advocates has been traveling the country to raise awareness of the Biden administrationโs attack on Title IX. (Virginia Allen/The Daily Signal)
The Biden administration is waging war on Title IX and, in response, a group of female athletes, coaches, and sports advocates have spent the month of June touring the country to sound the alarm.
Title IX has long served to protect girlsโ and womenโs education and sports opportunities. The 1972 federal education amendment requires there be equal opportunities for men and women in schools across the country, but President Joe Biden is working to undo those protections by unilaterally rewriting Title IX.
โThe Biden administration has decided they want sex to be equivalent to gender identity; meaning, anyone that identifies as a woman, aka men, can take female opportunities,โ former collegiate swimmer Paula Scanlan says.
Scanlan was forced to compete with a male athlete who identifies as a woman on the University of Pennsylvania womenโs swim team. Now, she is speaking out against Bidenโs attempted changes to Title IX because, by redefining sex in Title IX to include gender identity, Biden is swinging the door wide open for girls and women to be relegated to the sidelines in their own sports.
Scanlan says she thought it was a prank when a male swimmer, William Thomas, announced in the fall of 2019 that he would be competing on the female team the following season.
โI thought that someone was going to come out with a camera crew and say, โPranked you! Weโre starting a new prank TV show,โโ Scanlan said, explaining that a male competing on the womenโs team just sounded โso unreal.โ But it was real, and soon Scanlan and the other University of Pennsylvania female swimmers were sharing a locker room with Thomas, who now goes by the name Lia Thomas.
After she graduated, and after watching Thomas take medals and opportunities from female athletes, Scanlan joined other defenders of womenโs sports, among them Riley Gaines, and began speaking out about her experience.
Scanlan is one of the many female athletes who have participated in the Independent Womenโs Forum Take Back Title IX Summer Bus Tour to inform Americans of the Biden administrationโs bid to change Title IX, which not only threatens womenโs sports, but throws open restrooms, locker rooms, and dormitories.
Scanlan and Kim Russell, the former head womenโs lacrosse coach at Oberlin College, join the โProblematic Womenโ podcast to discuss the fight to keep womenโs sports female only.
Below is my column in USA Today on why the opponents of President Joe Biden should make free speech the focus of this election. With the Supreme Court taking an off ramp in Murthy v. Missouri on Internet censorship, the free speech community is left, for now, with the political process to protect free speech. It is a potentially unifying issue for many Americans who are alarmed by the current anti-free speech movement. I have previously written that the Biden Administration has chilling analogies to the Adams Administration in the weaponization of the legal system and the crackdown on free speech. What should most concern Biden is the possibility of another aspect of history repeating itself: a defeat like the one in 1800.
Here is the column:
Since hisย dystopianย speechย outside of Independence Hallย in 2022, President Joe Biden has made โdemocracy is on the ballotโ his campaign theme. Pundits have repeated the mantra, claiming that if Biden is not elected,ย American democracy will perish. While some of us haveย challenged these predictions, the other presidential candidates are missing a far more compelling argument going into this election. While democracy is not on the ballot this election, free speech is.
The 2024 election is looking strikingly similar to the election of 1800 and, if so, it does not bode well for Biden. In my bookย โThe Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,โ released last week, I discuss our long struggle with free speech as a nation. It is an unvarnished history with powerful stories of our heroes and villains in the struggle to define what Justice Louis Brandeis called our โindispensable right.โ
One of the greatest villains in that history was President John Adams, who used the Alien and Sedition Acts to arrest his political opponents โ including journalists, members of Congress and others. Many of those prosecuted by the Adams administration were Jeffersonians. In the election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson ran on the issue and defeated Adams.
Government efforts to limit free speech are Orwellian
We are now seeing what is arguably the most dangerous anti-free speech movement in our history. President Joe Biden is, in my view, the mostย anti-free speechย president since Adams. Under his administration, we have seen a massive censorship system funded and directed by the government.A federal judge described the system as โOrwellianโ in its scope and impact.
Biden has repeatedly called for greater censorship and accused social media companies ofย โkilling peopleโย by not silencing more dissenting voices. Other Democrats such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts haveย pushed for restrictionsย on โunacceptableโ speech. The Biden administration seeks to censor even true statements as disinformation.
For example,ย I testified before Congress last yearย on how Jen Easterly, who heads the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, extended her agencyโs mandate over critical infrastructure to include โour cognitive infrastructure.โ The resulting censorship efforts included combating โmalinformationโ โ described as information โbased on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.โ
The left has picked up the cudgels of censorship and blacklisting once used against them. During theย McCarthy period, liberals were called โcommunist sympathizers.โ Now,ย conservative justices are calledย โinsurrectionist sympathizers.โ
Candidates should call out Biden on censorship
In this election, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Jill Stein, Donald Trump and Cornel West should talk about the threats against free speech at every debate and stump speech. They will have to overcome a news media that has been complicit in the attacks on free speech, but these candidates can break through by raising it as a key issue dividing Biden from the rest of the field.
So far, the anti-free speech movement has flourished largely in the echo chambers of academia and the media. It is time for the public to render its judgment.
As discussed in my book, we are hardwired for free speech. It is in our DNA. Despite these periods of crackdowns on free speech, we have always rejected those who wanted to regulate the views of others. Jefferson called the Federalists โthe reign of the witches.โ (Ironically, Jefferson would himself prosecute critics, though not to the same extent as Adams).
Attacks on free speech have returned with a vengeance before another presidential election. After fighting in the courts and in the public to expand censorship, Biden should now have to defend it with the voters. Letโs have at it, as we did in 1800.
Free speech is again on the ballot. It is time for the public to decide.
A.F. Branco Cartoon โ Trump had illegal immigration down to a trickle compared to Biden blowing up the dam and allowing over 10 million Illegals along with unknown gotta-aways and terrorists.
Bidenโs Broken Border Allowed 400 Illegals Tied to ISIS-Affiliated Human Smuggling Network into US, The Whereabouts of Over 50 Remain Unknown
By Margaret Flavin โ June 26, 2024
Two Venezuelan illegal immigrants were arrested for 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungarayโs murder in Houston, Texas, after reportedly abducting her, strangling her, and dumping her body in a bayou.
An illegal from Ecuador wielding a โmachete-styleโ knife kidnapped two school children from a New York park in broad daylight, tied them up, and then sexually assaulted the young girl.
The Gateway Pundit also reported that an illegal alien from El Salvador was charged with brutally raping and murdering Rachel Morin, a mother-of-five, on a Maryland hiking trail last year.
Now, disturbing news from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reveals that they have identified over 400 illegals who have entered the U.S. from Central Asia and elsewhere by an ISIS-affiliated human smuggling network and are considered โsubjects of concern.โ READ MOREโฆ
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 โThe Washington Post.โ He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh DโSouza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
Top Stories โข Supreme Court Appears to Support Bidenโs Attempt to Force States to Allow Abortions โข Justice Alito Slams Supreme Court Ruling Against Free Speech โข Pro-Life Laws Save Thousands of Babies From Abortion Every Month โข Missouri Attorney General Will Keep Fighting Bidenโs Censorship After Supreme Court Ruling
More Pro-Life News โข 18% Of Biden Voters In Battleground States Are Not Supporting Him In 2024 โข Supreme Court Appears to Put Idaho Abortion Ban on Pause While State Fights to Protect Babies โข Pro-Life Voters Defeat Three Pro-Abortion Republicans in South Carolina โข Radical Abortion Activists are Spending $140 Million for Abortions Up to Birth Nationwide โข Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
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.
FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL: Miss Maryland USA professes to celebrate both the beauty and confidence of young women, promising a โfair environment in which young women have the opportunity to develop skills that will help them win in life by being their personal best in everything they do.โ
But on June 1, when the beauty pageant crowned a man the winner of Miss Maryland USA, a number of the contestants felt that they had not been granted that fair and supportive environment they were promised.
The male winner goes by the name Bailey Anne Kennedy and identifies as a transgender woman. The day that he was crowned Miss Maryland USA was also the first day of Pride Monthโa fact that was not lost on the contestants.
The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now
Bailey Anne Kennedy was crowned the new Miss Maryland USA in June, becoming not only the first transgender woman to win the title but also the first Asian American to achieve the coveted honor. โค๏ธhttps://t.co/ldx4WgnksJpic.twitter.com/W7k79dC6S8
โI was shocked,โ one contestant told The Daily Signal as she described how she found out that she was competing against a man. This contestant, who asked to remain anonymous to protect her privacy, will be identified as Contestant A. โI had mixed feelings. I started to think that the winner might be predetermined.โ
โA transgender woman gets crowned during first day of transgender Pride Month?โ she asked. โIt did not seem like a coincidence. Especially when owner of the pageant is a transgender woman herself. I was feeling like neither myself nor my fellow contestants had a fair opportunity from the beginning.โ
Kennedy will now go on to compete for the title of Miss USA in Los Angeles in August. The 31-year-old beauty pageant contestant, who would reportedly be the oldest Miss USA winner in pageant history if he won, is married to Marine Corps officer Casey Guthrie.
Kennedy describes himself as a military wife. Immediately after winning the Miss Maryland contest, Kennedy marched in the Capitol Pride Parade in Washington, D.C.
โTo be able to be in this position and be able to make an impact on my community, especially with the LGBTQIA community, military spouses, and immigrant womenโto be able to make such an impact,โ Kennedyย told ABC Newsย this week. โI think thatโs just something that I could never dream up, and itโs such an honor to be here.โ
This year, Miss Maryland USA removed multiple requirements for the contest and now allows women who are over the age of 28 and women who are married to compete. And it is not lost on Kennedy that his win is breaking with former precedent for the contest.
โTo win the whole thing, I knew it was bigger than me,โ Kennedy told ABC. โI knew that ultimately, this will mean something more to my community, the LGBTQIA community and military spouses and immigrant girls. Hopefully, this will send out a message to everybody, and it will be a delicious invitation for people to just be themselves and to forge their own path, even if they canโt see.โ
Kennedy did not respond to requests for comment. Reached by Instagram direct message, the male beauty contestant blocked The Daily Signal. Miss USA similarly did not respond to a number of requests for comment.
The Daily Signal reviewed a copy of the 2024 Miss Maryland USA Contestant Agreement, which specifically asks contestants to verify that they are biologically female. If a contestant is not a woman but is a man, such as in Kennedyโs case, that contestant would have to provide proof that heโs legally recognized by the government as a womanโand maybe even that he had undergone so-called transgender surgeries and hormones.
โI attest that I am a female, recognized legally and medically as such in the United States,โ the agreement states. โIf your sex designated at birth was not female, [you] must be able to provide legal and governmental recognition of [your] assigned sex as female by the U.S. federal government or [your] U.S. state of residence (which may include, if requested by us, any certification that [you have] fully completed sex reassignment required by your state and/or provided by a physician).โ
A former state-level contestant within the Miss Universe organization who spoke with The Daily Signal about the matter expressed that she was very concerned that a man was allowed to not only compete in and win the competition, but also to share womenโs spaces while some of these women were completely unaware of his actual sex.
โWe need transparency and consent to protect women-led spaces, especially those that involve minor teen contestants,โ said the former contestant, who asked to remain anonymous to protect her privacy.
โUnless things have changed from when I competed, contestants share changing rooms and bedrooms,โ she added. โParents (and all contestants) have the right to know of biological male individuals occupying their female childrenโs private spaces, including shared changing rooms and hotel rooms. Further, organizations must not impose political agendas that undermine the hard work, finances, and dedication of contestants.โ
A Man โฆ or a Woman?
Multiple female contestants who spoke with The Daily Signal said they were not sure if Kennedy was a man or a woman until after the competition had finished and he had been declared Miss Maryland USA.
This is likely due to the fact that Kennedy does, very convincingly, look like a female beauty queen. Photographs of the male contestant show that Kennedy is toned, leggy, and slim, with long black hair and accentuated cleavage. Several of the women who spoke to The Daily Signal indicated that Kennedy looks more masculine in person and that his online photographs depict him as more feminine than he is in real life.
โI first realized I competed with a biological man a few days after the competition,โ said contestant Elizabeth McCarthy. โI saw it on the Miss Maryland USA Instagram post. At first, I was shocked. I felt sick to my stomach and was so upset for the other women in the top five. I was disgusted and disappointed that the pageant coordinators allowed women to undress in front of a man without any disclosure.โ
โI just donโt understand what happened to embracing your TRUE self,โ she added. โThe self that God made perfectly in His image. I donโt understand what happened to loving ourselves for who we ARE, not how we WANT to be. I feel absolutely terrible that society pushes us to change who we are. Itโs not fair, kind, or loving.โ
A third contestant, who asked to remain anonymous to protect her privacy and will be identified as Contestant B, said that she felt betrayed by the way the contest was handled.
โI felt lied to,โ she shared. โI wouldโve liked to know ahead of time, as I was subject to change, utilize the bathroom, and be in the same space as a biological man โฆ it surely seemed like the organization and Bailey was trying to hide this fact until it was convenient to them.โ
A third Miss Maryland contestant, who will be identified as Contestant C, stressed that she is โnot against the LGBTQ communityโ and believes that individuals who identity as LGBTQ have โrights just like every individual.โ
โHowever, I do believe the competition was rigged,โ she shared. โThere isnโt a doubt in my mind that it was not. For example, I think in previous years, the pageant secured different judges โฆ I think they were changed. In addition, the staff were not respectful nor pleasant. I completely understand that this is a pageant and it is fast paced, but there is a certain respect that individuals should provide, especially since we are all grown women who can take direction and listen.โ
โI believe it is disheartening to have so many women pay for coaches, hair and makeup, and find sponsors when they already knew who they were going to select,โ Contestant C added.
Contestant B also pointed out that Kennedy is a self-described โstay-at-home wife with no kids.โ Given that the Miss Maryland USA contest awards women not only for beauty but for hard work and professional success, Contestant B found it odd that Kennedy would win without a job or a family.
โI met a lot of women who were moguls in business, philanthropy, and more. But Bailey ended up winning without a job or being in school,โ the contestant stressed. โHow does that showcase or inspire women/young women that they can do anything?โ
A Pride Month Win
Several of the women that The Daily Signal spoke with believe that Kennedyโs win was attached to his transgender identification, noting that he won the pageant on June 1, the very first day of โPride Month.โ
โIt was Pride Week when she won, so I would assume it was to show that the pageant community does not discriminate,โ Contestant C said.
โI feel Kennedy won this competition because it was set up,โ McCarthy told The Daily Signal. โWhat are the odds that a trans-identifying individual wins the Miss Maryland USA title on the first day of Pride Month? I feel that men are taking over everything that women worked so hard for.โ
โI believe Kennedy won this title solely based on her status of being transgender and the first transgender to win Miss Maryland, especially it being the first day of Pride Month,โ Contestant B argued.
โThis organization wanted to check all of its diversity and different boxes, so instead of selecting the most qualified, they selected what would make them stand out to the new organization owner, who is also transgender,โ she added, arguing, โThis space is less about women supporting women and more about how many boxes we can check.โ
All of the female contestants who spoke with The Daily Signal said that they wished Miss Maryland USA would have been truthful in acknowledging why they selected Kennedy as the winner, and they argued that Miss Maryland USA owes the 2024 contestants a โpublic apology.โ
McCarthy even suggested that Miss Maryland USA replace Kennedy with first runner-up, Terra Johns. Johns, who did not return The Daily Signalโs request for comment, supported Kennedy publicly in an Instagram post and said she was โhonoredโ to have the โopportunityโ to watch Kennedy make history.
โYouโre going to Miss USA, and I canโt wait to cheer you on!โ she wrote. But in the same caption, the beauty pageant contestant and first runner-up also discussed the important of Godโs plan for her life, hinting at disappointment.
โThis is not rejection, itโs redirection,โ she wrote. โGod always has a plan, and I havenโt lost sight of that. I trust Him and I know that my best days lie ahead of me. As my best friend so eloquently reminded me before competition weekend, the true glory is in the process of becoming. Hereโs to the beautiful unknown and to steppingstones of elevation. The work doesnโt stop here.โ
Given that many of the contestants poured huge sums of money into their outfits, makeup, and hair, the women would like to see some kind of monetary compensation as well an apology.
โItโs expensive,โ said one woman, โand they already had [picked] a winner.โ
โI hope that they give all of the women their money back,โ added another contestant. โPageant life is big money, and I cannot imagine how much money they obtained from us. I believe that the Miss Maryland pageant should have held a separate pageant for transgender individuals where they can compete and go onto to become Miss USA if they would like to do so.โ
Below is my column on Fox.com on my book and how our current โage of rageโ may be the most dangerous for free speech, but it is not our first such period in history. Indeed, the current debate is returning this nation to the very debate that erupted at the start of our Republic.
Here is the column:
As the nation heads into the July 4th holiday, we have rarely been more divided as a people. Ironically, we are still debating the core values that define us, particularly the right to free speech. Indeed, โdebateโ hardly captures theย rising anger and animosityย from campuses to Congress. hat is also nothing new.
While I have called this โan age of rage,โ it is not our first. The United States was born in rage.
Roughly 250 years ago, a group calling itself the Sons of Liberty boarded three ships and dumped almost 100,000 pounds of English tea into the Boston harbor. The โBoston Tea Partyโ is still celebrated as an act of defiance that helped spark the American Revolution.
It was also an act of rage, a key moment that is the focus of my book out this week,ย โThe Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.โ As a nation, we have gone through almost cyclic periods of unhinged rage, including periods of what I call โstate rage.โ The first victim has always been free speech, including in our current age of rage. Indeed, this is arguably the most dangerous anti-free speech period in our history.
โThe Indispensable Rightโ is a reference to the description of Justice Louis Brandeis of core value in our nation. It is also a reference that captures our inherent conflict with free speech. Brandeis and his colleague Oliver Wendell Holmes are enshrined as civil libertarians who became the โgreat dissenters,โ arguing for rights that remained unrealized for decades.
Yet, these two jurists would support some of the most abusive denials of free speech in our history. Holmes would supply the single most regrettable line of any opinion: that free speech protections do not allow citizens to shout fire in a crowded theater. That paraphrasing of his decision in Schenck v. United States continues to be used today as a rationalization for censorship and limits on free speech.
On free speech, Brandeis and Holmes were no heroes. Our true heroes are detailed in this book, a collection of true dissenters โ anarchists, unionists, communists, feminists and others who risked everything to fight for their right to speak.
George Bernard Shaw once said โa reasonable man adjusts himself to the world. An unreasonable man expects the world to adjust itself to him. Therefore, all progress is made by unreasonable people.โ
These are stories of wonderfully unreasonable people like Anita Whitney, a feminist who left a family of privilege to fight for social and political justice. The descendent of a family on the Mayflower and niece of Supreme Court Justice Cyrus W. Field, Whitney defied threats of the police that she would be arrested if she spoke in California in 1919 in Oakland.
With police standing around on stage, she refused to be silent and spoke against the lynchings of Blacks occurring around the country. Her abusive conviction would ultimately go before the court (with Brandeis and Holmes) and they would vote to uphold it.
Time and again, this country has abandoned our free speech values as political dissidents were met with state rage in the form of mass crackdowns and imprisonments. It is an unvarnished story ofย free speech in Americaย and for better or worse, it is our story. Yet, we have much to learn from this history as this pattern now repeats itself. The book explains why we are living in the most dangerous anti-free speech period in our history.
In the past, free speech has found natural allies in academia and the media. That has changed with a type of triumvirate โ the government, corporations, and academia โ in a powerful alliance against free speech values.
Ironically, while these groups refer to the unprecedented threat ofย โfake newsโ and โdisinformation,โย those were the very same rationales used first by the Crown and then the U.S. government to crack down on free speech in the early American republic.
The difference is the magnitude of the current censorship system from campuses to corporations to Congress. Law professors are even calling for changing the First Amendment as advancing an โexcessively individualisticโ view of free speech. The amendment would allow the government to curtail speech to achieve โequityโ and protect โdignity.โ
Others,ย including President Biden, have called for greater censorship while politicians and pundits denounce defenders of free speech as โPutin loversโ and โinsurrectionist sympathizers.โ
Despite watching the alarming rise of this anti-free speech movement and the rapid loss of protections in the West, there is still reason to be hopeful. For those of us who believe that free speech is a human right, there is an inherent and inescapable optimism. We are wired for free speech as humans. We need to speak freely, to project part of ourselves into the world around us. It is essential to being fully human.
In the end, this alliance may reduce our appetite for free speech but we will never truly lose our taste for it. It is in our DNA. That is why this is not our first or our last age of rage. However, it is not the rage that defines us. It is free speech that defines us.
Jonathan Turley is a Fox News Media contributor and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of โThe Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rageโ (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).
A.F. Branco Cartoon โ Joe Biden has been preparing for the debate for the past week, so who is running the country? Probably the same people who have been running it for the past 3-1/2 years: Obama and his puppet master Soros.
CNN Contacts Social Media Companies to Censor Conservative Media During Live Presidential Debate (VIDEO)
By Jordan Conradson โ Jun 25, 2024
CNN is attempting to silence independent media and control the narrative surrounding the first 2024 Presidential debate on Thursday by not allowing the use of CNNโs live broadcast to report and comment on the debate in real time.
This revelation comes after CNNโs Kasie Hunt abruptly cut off Trumpโs spokeswoman, Karoline Leavitt, after she brought up Jake Tapperโs history of comparing Trump to Hitler and told people to โGoogle โJake Tapper Donald Trump.โโ
Itโs not enough to turn off President Trumpโs microphone or to cut off spokespersons in interviews. Jesse Watters compared this move to slapping a gag order on the Trump campaign. โWe knew Trumpโs mic would be muted during the debate, but we didnโt know his campaignโs mic would be muted before it,โ said Watters. READ MOREโฆ
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 โThe Washington Post.โ He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh DโSouza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
Top Stories โข Trump Would Pardon Pro-Life Americans Biden Put in Prison, Get Them โBack to Their Familiesโ โข Kamala Harris Cites God to Defend Killing Babies in Abortions โข The Texas Abortion Ban Did Not Increase Infant Mortality โข Pro-Life Senators Fight to Keep Hyde Amendment, Stop Tax-Funded Abortions
More Pro-Life News โข Planned Parenthood Will Use Your Tax Dollars to Lie to You About Abortion โข Abortion Fearmongering is Not Helping Biden Get Women Voters โข Democrats Want Abortions Up to Birth in All 50 States โข Big Abortion is Spending $100 Million for Unlimited Abortion Across America โข Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
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 U.S. Naval War College hosted a lecture last week featuring a trans-identifying Space Force colonel to discuss LGBT โexperiences.โ Titled, โLearning from the developmental journeys of LGBTQ+,โ theย June 17 eventย was co-headlined by Col. Bree Fram, a male astronautical engineer with the U.S. Space Force whoย proclaimsย to be a woman and uses โshe/herโ pronouns. According to hisย website, Fram โ who acquired a masterโs degree in National Security and Strategic Studies from the Naval War College in 2021 โ is โcurrently stationed at the Pentagon to lead space acquisition policy development for the Department of the Air Forceโ and leads the branchโs โLGBTQ+ Initiatives Team.โ
As noted by Federalist Executive Editor Joy Pullmann in her book, False Flag: Why Queer Politics Mean the End of America, Fram has been promoted since coming out in 2016 and most of his military service took place when trans-identifying troops were supposed to be discharged from the armed forces.
โItโs fascinating to look at what LGBTQ folks have been subject to over their lives, and really, over the centuries, and how their experiences led them โฆ to truly have those transformative moments that matter,โ Fram said.
Much of the June 17 lecture focused on claims included in Framโs new book,ย Forging Queer Leaders: How the LGBTQIA+ Community Creates Impact from Adversity, which, according to aย book summary, โexplores the unique and inspiring developmental experiences of LGBTQ+ leaders, the amazing capabilities they bring to teams, and what that means for everyone pursuing positive and inclusive organizational strategy.โ Co-author and Naval War College Professorย Elizabeth Cavallaroย also partook in the lecture.
During his speech, Fram subtly dismissed the notion that the rising percentage of Americans identifying as LGBT is the result of social conditioning by left-wing activists, and instead claimed these high rates are โnot a new phenomenon.โ
โA lot of people say right now, โWhere are all these people coming from? How all of a sudden do we have this explosion of LGBTQ people, and in many cases, LGBTQ leaders?โ Well, itโs not because theyโre new,โ Fram claimed. โWe can go all the way back to the Greek and Roman Empires in the Western world and look at LGBTQ people flourishing and being very visible within society.โ
The Space Force colonel went on to contend the Roman Empireโs adoption of Christianity and a โconfluence of factorsโ led to โLGBTQ folks being pushed aside.โ
Fram also seemingly attempted to normalize gender dysphoria by claiming that non-LGBT identifying individuals can relate to โtransitioningโ because everybody experiences change and goes through โtransitory periodsโ at some point in their lives.
โEverybody transitions. As we look at our experiences in life of moving from one thing to another, we all go through similar things,โ Fram said. โEveryone goes through these transitionary periods, and they may be really challenging โฆ What we have to do by understanding everyone going through these transition moments is help them get through them.โ
The woman-pretender further proclaimed itโs โincredibly importantโ for the military to support โinclusionโ because โinclusion is not only a way to get the most out of person, [but] it is also a retention tool.โ
โIf someone does not receive that inclusion and say, โI belong,โ theyโre gone. But when they do, itโs amazing,โ Fram asserted.
The term โinclusionโ is often synonymous with โdiversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI),โ an offshoot of Marxist ideology that dismisses merit and discriminates based on characteristics such as skin color and sexual orientation.
Last weekโs pro-LGBT speech wasnโt the first Fram has given at U.S. military institutions. Earlier this year, the Space Force colonel spoke at the U.S. Air Force Academy, where he reportedly engaged in left-wing activism while in uniform.
According toย Breitbart News, Fram โwaded into [a] partisan speech about the 2024 presidential electionโ during his lecture. In an apparent reference to former President Trumpโsย repealย of an Obama-era policy allowing trans-identifying individuals to serve in the military, Fram said, โWhile I donโt have a crystal ball, I can look out and say, โWell, either next year things will be great, or I will be fighting for my ability to continue serving.โโ
Pentagon policyย specifiesย that โactive-duty personnel may not engage in partisan political activities and all military personnel should avoid the inference that their political activities imply or appear to implyโ the Defense Departmentโs โendorsement of a political candidate, campaign, or cause.โ An Air Force spokesmanย defendedย Framโs speech when pressed on the matter by The Daily Wire.
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
President Joe Biden meets June 17 with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in the Oval Office. (Photo: Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
If Democrats seek to swap out President Joe Biden for another candidate on the Nov. 5 ballot, theyโll face legal challenges, according to an analysis by The Heritage Foundationโs Oversight Project.
Thatโs because a patchwork of state laws determines what a political party must do to substitute someone else as a presidential nominee.
โIf there is a freezing moment or something very consequential that happens at the debate, the likelihood goes up,โ Mike Howell, executive director of the Oversight Project, told reporters Tuesday.
CNN will host a 90-minute debate Thursday night between Biden and former President Donald Trump.
โThere is not a political exception that if youโve been trying to cover up the fact that your candidate has been declining rapidly to the extent that you are even invoking executive privilege to hide an audio tape โฆ you just get to supersede all of the election integrity rules that exist in the various states,โ Howell told reporters.
Special counsel Rober Hurโs report on Bidenโs possession of classified documents from his years as vice president and senator characterized him as โelderlyโ and โstrugglingโ with memory loss. The Biden administration invoked executive privilege to block release of audio recordings of his two interviews last fall with the special counsel. The Oversight Project is part of a multiparty lawsuit by CNN and other news outlets, as well as watchdog groups, toย access the audio recordingsย of the Biden interviews.ย
More recently, Biden had a wandering incident at the G7 summit in Italy and also appeared to freeze onstage at the end of a Los Angeles fundraiser and be physically guided away by former President Barack Obama (who Biden served as vice president for eight years).
If delegates to the Democratic National Convention were to nominate another candidate for president in August, it might not affect relevant state laws, said Sam Dewey, counsel for Heritageโs Oversight Project.
โThere are two separate questions. One is who gets the partyโs nomination. The second is ballot access,โ Dewey told reporters. โYou can be nominated by a party and not necessarily have access to a ballot. We are seeing that right now with attempts by the DNC to keep Robert Kennedy, RFK Jr., off the ballot. Itโs separate. Just being nominated by a party doesnโt get you on a ballot.โ
Dewey continued:
Even if at the convention, superdelegates and a bunch of [other] delegates get together and said, โWeโre not doing this, weโre subbing in the vice president [for Biden], weโre subbing in Hillary Clinton,โ pick whomever, that wouldnโt at all speak to what [our] memo was addressing, which was access to ballots. Thatโs an entirely different question. If someone drops out, that frequently is litigated.
The Oversight Project sent a memo on substituting candidates to top election officials in all 50 states for their review.
Battleground states such as Georgia and Nevada have procedures under which a presidential candidate may withdraw from the ballot. Wisconsin allows it to occur only in case of death, according to the memo.ย
โImportant caveats include the timeline and triggering events,โ the Oversight Projectโs memo says, adding:
For example, some states allow withdrawal before the 74th day before an election, and failure to adhere to these timelines can result in the candidateโs name remaining on the ballot (which provides its own corollary of post-election litigation). Likewise, the rationale for withdrawal (death, medical, or other) can be outcome determinative. Some states, like South Carolina, do not allow withdrawal for political reasons.
Limited case law exists on swapping out political candidates on a ballot, the memo notes. And at least 31 states defer to state or national party rules and nominating committees in the event of a candidateโs withdrawal.
โThese states circumvent the substitution process highlighted above,โ the Oversight Projectโs memo says. โThere may be some avenues for challenges to these laws on improper delegation grounds, however, these may be marginally beneficial.โ
For its part, the Biden White House has denied that the president has had any mental or physical problems barring his seeking a second four-year term. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre argued that recent videos unflattering to Biden were โcheap fakes.โ First lady Jill Biden has said her husband is a great president โbecauseโ of his age.
Below is my column in the New York Post on the vicious attacks being directed at Judge Aileen Cannon as she addresses pre-trial motions in the Florida prosecution of former president Donald Trump. The sheer hypocrisy in the media is overwhelming after denouncing any criticism of Judge Juan Merchan in the Manhattan prosecution. For Cannon, it is nothing short of a press pile-on.
Here is the column:
The politicians, the press, and pundits are in a feeding frenzy around Judge Aileen Cannon, the federal judge presiding in the Florida case against former President Donald Trump. There is a torrent of hit pieces and petty attacks on virtually every media platform. What is impressive is the complete lack of self-awareness over the hypocrisy of these attacks.ย Just a few weeks ago, the New York Times and other media outlets went into vapors when anyone uttered criticism of Manhattan Justice Juan Merchan in another Trump case.
In 2020, Judge Cannon wasย confirmedย in a bipartisan vote, with the support of liberals such as Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Cal.). Now she is being denounced as aย โpartisan, petty prima donna,ย โwacko, crazy, loony, nutty, ridiculous, and outlandish,โ and a โright-wing hack.โ From the descriptions in the Washington Post, New York Times and virtually every mainstream media outlet, you would think that Cannon was a freak in the courtroom, raving uncontrollably at any passerby.
These critics often stress that she is an appointee of Trump, even though many Trump appointees have ruled against the former president on 2020 election issues. And these same figures denounced Trump for attacking the perceived political bias of Democratic nominees in some of his cases.
Cannon was randomly selected, as opposed to Merchan, who was hand-picked to try Trump even though he is a political donor to President Joe Biden and has a daughter who is a major Democratic operative. Yet these same figures denounced those who questioned Merchanโs refusal to step aside or criticized his rulings against Trump throughout the trial.
In reality, the โloose Cannonโ spin is utterly disconnected with her actual rulings.
She has ruled for and against both parties on major issues. That includes the rejection of major motions filed by the Trump team and most recently challenged Trump counsel on their claims that the Special Counsel is part of โa shadow government.โ
Notably, when Cannon recently rejected the main motion for dismissal by the Trump team, the Washington Post buried that fact in an article titled โJudge Cannon Strikes Paragraph in Trump Classified Document Indictment.โ The suggestion was that the striking of a single paragraph was more newsworthy than insisting that Trump go to trial on these counts. (Also buried in the article is a recognition that the removal of this one paragraph โdoes not have a substantive effect on the case.โ)
Most recently, the left expressed nothing short of horror that Judge Cannon allowed the Trump team to argue a point of constitutional law in a hearing. Scholars and former prosecutors (including former attorneys general) have argued that the appointment of special counsels like Smith are unconstitutional. This is a novel and intriguing constitutional objection that is based on the text of the Constitution, which requires that high-ranking executive officers like U.S. Attorneysย be appointed under statute orย nominated by theย president (and confirmed by the Senate).
Yet after the expiration of the Independent Counsel Act in Jun 1999, the Justice Department asserts the right to take any private citizen like Smith and effectively give him greater authority than a U.S. Attorney. This glaring inconsistency has led to a number of challenges. Thus far, they have been unsuccessful, but none have gone to the Supreme Court. Cannon wanted to hear oral arguments before ruling on the question. That decision has sent the politicians and reporters into another frenzy of faux outrage and indignation.
MSNBC legal analyst and NYU law professor Melissa Murray went on with host Chris Hayes to tell Judge Cannon to โstay in her laneโ and mock her consideration of constitutional claim:
โGirl, stay in your lane. Stay. In. Your. Lane. So, yes, not only has the issue of whether the special counsel comports with the structures of constitutional law, thatโs been settled. Thatโs been addressed in multiple courts. Settled. We donโt have to rehash that โฆ If this were an actual issue it would ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, not by a district court judge in Fort Pierce, Florida.โ
It is a baffling lecture. Cannon is precisely in her lane in hearing a claim without controlling authority. The fact is that the Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue and many lawyers have objected to the summary treatment given the claim by other courts. The point of creating a record is to allow a full review that could well end up at the Supreme Court.
Who isnโt staying in their lane? Cannonโs colleagues.
The New York Times recentlyย reportedย that two judges attempted to get Cannon to hand off the case when it was randomly assigned to her. So, the suggestion is that two of her colleagues breached any sense of collegiality and confidentiality to contribute to a hit piece on Cannon.
It is worth noting that there was no reason for Cannon to decline the selection, particularly not due to her appointment by Trump. A variety of Trump appointees have ruled against Trump on matters without a hint of objection from the left.
While it is true that Cannon was just put on the bench a couple years ago, that did not seem to bother these same pundits in the Georgia case. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee was put on the bench only shortly before being assigned the Georgia case against Trump and associates.
Cannon is a true American success story and, if she were only to rule in favor of the left, she would certainly be the subject of glowing stories of how sheย went from being born in Cali, Colombia to joining the federal bench. Her mother escaped Cuba after the revolution, and she grew up with a deep-seated faith in the rule of law.ย She graduated from Duke University and, after a stint as a journalist, graduated from Michigan Law Schoolย magna cum laude.
Yet there will be no โAmerican dreamโ stories for Cannon like the ones that ran for Sonia Sotomayor after her nomination.
Cannon is a Republican and has the temerity to follow a conservative jurisprudence. For the media, that makes her unworthy (much like the lack of coverage on Justice Clarence Thomasโ incredible life story).
There is little chance that the scorched Earth campaign against Cannon will work. When your family escapes Communist Cuba and then the drug-ravaged city of Cali, partisan media hit pieces are hardly intimidating. That may be frustrating for many in the media, but she is fulfilling the purpose of Article III of the Framers. She will rule and she will not yield.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University School of Law.He is the author of โThe Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rageโ (Simon and Schuster, 2024).
A.F. Branco Cartoon โ Trump may not have to prep much for the upcoming debate with Biden. How will Trump react to Joe Biden mumbling or walking off stage? Or will Biden be so juiced up with some kind of chemicals that heโs coherent for an hour?
FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP HAS SAID THAT THE UPCOMING CNN DEBATE โCOULD BE THE MOST BORING OR IT COULD BE QUITE EXCITING, WHO KNOWS?โ
By Cassandra MacDonald โ June 23, 2024
CNN will be hosting the first presidential debate on June 27 in Atlanta, Georgia, and has named Jake Tapper and Dana Bash the moderators. Trump discussed the debate during his rally in Philadelphia on Saturday. โThereโs two [of] us and two of them โ itโs like death,โ Trump said, referencing that there will only be the two moderators and two candidates without an audience. โThis could be the most boring or it could be quite exciting, who knows?โ Biden is currently doing debate prep at Camp David while Trump continues on the campaign trail, which the Republican presumptive nominee referred to by saying Biden had โgone to a log cabin to study.โ READ MOREโฆ
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 โThe Washington Post.โ He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh DโSouza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
Top Stories โข Overturning Roe v. Wade is Saving Approximately 200,000 Babies From Abortions Each Year โข Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz Will Spend $40 Million Supporting Biden and Democrats โข Women Share How Dobbs Saved Their Babies From Abortions โข Judge Rebukes Biden on Abortion: His Administration โClearly Exceeded its Authorityโ By Illegally Pushing Abortion
More Pro-Life News โข Catholic Bishop: Saving Babies From Abortion is the โCivil Rights Issue of Our Timeโ โข Jill Biden Holds Abortion Rally in Pennsylvania, Only โDozensโ Show Up โข Joe Biden is the Most Pro-Abortion President in American History โข Rachel Holtโs Pro-Life Song โI Was Gonna Beโ Tops the Country Charts โข Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
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.
Supporters of former President Donald Trump cheer as he arrives to speak at a campaign event in Racine, Wisconsin, on June 18, 2024. (Photo: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)
A Department of Homeland Security advisory board characterized supporters of former President Donald Trump, as well as those who are in the military and religious people, as posing potential domestic terrorism risks, according to internal documents obtained by America First Legal.
The board, called the Homeland Intelligence Experts Group, was created in September 2023 to provide DHS with โexpertโ analysis on subjects such as terrorism and fentanyl trafficking. The panel included former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, and former CIA Operations Officer Paul Kolbe, all of whom signed an October 2020 letter casting doubt on the legitimacy of the Hunter Biden laptop and suggesting its release was a Russian disinformation ploy.
Internalย documentsย obtained by America First Legal show the board characterizing โsupporters of the former presidentโ as constituting โmost of the Domestic Terrorism threatโ in the United States. The documents also classified traits such as having served โin the militaryโ and being โreligiousโ as โindicators of extremists and terrorism,โ citing unnamed research.
Military personnel are less likely to be supporters of radical political causes than other Americans, according to a 2023 RAND Corp.ย study. Nevertheless, suspicions of extremism in the military were popular among Democrats in the wake of the Jan. 6 riots, as 15 Democrat lawmakers signed aย letterย in 2021 urging Inspector General Sean OโDonnell to โtake action on this wave of violent extremismโ in the military.
America First Legal on Thursdayย releasedย the first collection of documents that detailed the committeeโs desire to increase information collection on Americans, including getting โmothersโ and โteachersโ to report on children suspected of extremism under the pretext of โpublic health.โ The committee cited the model of the โSee Something, Say Somethingโ campaign after 9/11, which was an initiative by the DHS to encourage American citizens to report potential terror threats.
/1๐จEXCLUSIVE๐จ
Internal docs from Bidenโs DHS show their plans to target Trump supports as domestic extremists.
The Brennan-Clapper intel group discussed how โmost of the domestic terrorism threat now comes from supporters of the former president.โ #DeepStateDiaries PART 2: pic.twitter.com/q2HcoAe2Kd
— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) June 21, 2024
The DHS panel was shut down following a lawsuit from America First Legal in conjunction with former acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell. The lawsuit alleged the group violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which governs how federal advisory committees can legally operate.
Brennan and Clapper were also signatories of the 2020 letter that alleged the Hunter Biden laptop contents may have been part of a Russian disinformation campaign. The contents of the laptop were verified by the Daily Caller News Foundation along with other media outlets.
The DHS did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundationโs request for comment.
Rarely have seven innocuous words, misinterpreted and then amplified, caused so much mischief.
On Wednesday, Republican Gov. Jeff Landry of Louisiana ignited leftist outrage byย signing a billย that requires all the stateโs public-school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments. Predictably, opponents of the bill cited a paraphrased version of a line that appeared in an 1802 letter written by President Thomas Jefferson: โwall of separation between church and state.โ
As we shall see, the use of that โseparationโ phrase to attack Louisianaโs law amounts to an act of sophistry.
No doubt anticipating such objections, Louisiana earmarked no state money for the mandateโs implementation, relying instead on private funds.
Likewise, to affirm that the mandated display constitutes an acknowledgement of the Ten Commandmentsโ historical significance, not an endorsement of a particular religious creed, the law also requires a four-paragraph context statement tying the Ten Commandments to American foundational documents.
That, of course, did not satisfy the billโs opponents.
โBREAKING: Weโre suing Louisiana for requiring all public schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom. Public schools are not Sunday schools,โ theย American Civil Liberties Unionย tweeted.
BREAKING: Weโre suing Louisiana for requiring all public schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom.
Displaying the Ten Commandments, a cornerstone of the Judeo-Christian tradition that undergirds all of Western civilization, would transform public schools into Sunday schools? Where might the confused and litigious folks at the ACLU get such an idea?
They got it from Jeffersonโs โseparationโ phrase, of course, but not from any real understanding of what Jefferson meant.
โHereโs the deal: We stop pretending there is any kind of separation of church and state here. Tax them. Tax them hard,โ one person wrote Wednesday on the social media platform X.
Hereโs the deal: We stop pretending there is any kind of separation of church and state here. Tax them. Tax them hard.
โ Americans United (@americansunited) June 19, 2024
In other words, leftist objections to theย Louisianaย law rest on the phrase โseparation of church and state.โ Alas, that famous phraseโs historical context does not support the leftist interpretation.
Sometime after Oct. 7, 1801 โ the precise date remains unknown โ a three-man committee representing the Danbury Baptist Association, a group of 26 Baptist churches in western Connecticut and eastern New York, wrote a letter congratulating their โbelovedโ Jefferson on his election to the presidency and laying out principles with which they knew he would agree.
โSir, we are sensible that the President of the united States, is not the national Legislator, & also sensible that the national goverment cannot destroy the Laws of each State; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial Effect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine & prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the Earth,โ the letter read.
The authors even suggested to the president that โAmericaโs God has raised you up to fill the chair of State out of that good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over.โ
โAnd may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom throug Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator,โ the letter concluded.
Jefferson did not receive this remarkable letter until Dec. 30. Nor did it reach him without fanfare. In fact, the same itinerant preacher who carried the letter also delivered a now-legendary giant wheel of cheese made by the citizens of Cheshire, Massachusetts, another Baptist stronghold in a state that did not disestablish its Congregational Church until 1833.
In other words, Jefferson had New England Baptists on the mind as the New Year approached. It might even have been the reason he invited Republican Rep. William Eustis of Massachusetts to dine with him.
Over the next two days, the presidentโs reply to the Danbury Baptist Association went through two drafts.
In the first draft, he explained why, as president, he had avoided proclaiming religious fast days. But another New England Republican who reviewed the draft encouraged the president to excise that passage, so he did.
โBelieving with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & hisย God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that theย legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared thatย theirย legislature should โmake no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,โ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State,โ Jeffersonโs famous second paragraph began.
Why take readers so deep into the weeds with this Jefferson letter? What could all this historical context possibly tell us? And what difference does it make?
For one thing, it reminds us that in 1802 those New England states had long-established (i.e. tax-supported) churches. Likewise, while Jeffersonย did not approveย of established churches, he made no effort to influence state laws. Indeed, he could not have done so had he wished. As the Danbury Baptists noted, the president โis not the national Legislator,โ nor could the federal government โ and that includes every branch of the federal government โ โdestroy the Laws of each State.โ
Furthermore, the presidentโs consultation with several New England Republicans suggests that he intended his letter, once published, primarily for an audience of New England Republicans, in this case Baptists who shared the presidentโs views on religious freedom. And that suggests a political act, not a statement meant to clarify, alter or forever enshrineย First Amendmentโsย meaning.
Finally, note Jeffersonโs use of the word โwhole,โ as well as his italicization of the word โtheir.โ The โwhole American peopleโ had declared that โtheirย legislatureโ would make no laws establishing religion or inhibiting its exercise.
Why would Jefferson italicize โtheirโ unless he meant to refer to the legislature of the โwhole American peopleโ only? That tells us that Jefferson recognized the First Amendment as binding on Congress but not on state legislatures.
In sum, could a seven-word phrase from a 222-year-old letter โ written for a special purpose, expressing principles that denied the First Amendmentโs applicability to the states and responding to a letter that did the same โ really keep a cornerstone of Western civilization out of public schools?
Leftists believe that it can. And they believe it because, as theย ACLUย tweet illustrated, they have relied on courts to ensure that it does. In fact, in a brilliantย 2006 essay, Daniel Dreisbach of the Heritage Foundation, author of theย book, โThomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State,โ explained how federal courts spent decades twisting Jeffersonโs casual โwallโ metaphor into a โhigh and impregnableโ barrier.
Ironically, the very mechanism on which โseparation of church and stateโ advocates depend for the enforcement of the Jeffersonian phrase they have misinterpreted happens to be the very mechanism Jefferson himself most feared.
In an 1819 letter, Jefferson denounced the activist federal judiciary of his day. Courts, he argued, could not โusurpโ the power to interpret the Constitutionโs meaning. If they did, it would make the entire Constitution a โfelo de seโ โ an act of suicide.
โFor intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independant, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others; and to that one too which is unelected by, and independent of, the nation,โ he wrote.
Thus, outraged leftists who hope to invalidate Louisianaโs Ten Commandments law based on their own misunderstanding or distortion of Jeffersonโs famous phrase will find that Jefferson himself refutes them at every turn.
After many years as Chapel Hill’s Prayer Leader, Ruth Esther is focusing her passion for prayer in other ways. We thank her for the dedication to this blog. Praying is timeless and so are these writings. We hope you will feel God’s presence when reading these words.
While doing research on the Internet for statistics after prayer and the Ten Commandments were taken from schools, I found conflicting statistics. You can sway the numbers to portray your agenda. Check out the resources at the end of my blog.
Beginning in 1964, for 18 years, the SAT scores dropped drastically until the 1980’s when Christian schools opened for competition. (1) The higher scores of the private Christian Schools helped stabilize the scores. The clientele of families enrolling in schools has become more diverse with people from many countries immigrating to the U.S.A.. Less rural and more urban families have caused a shift in the cultural dynamics of each community. (4) Then the SAT Test underwent several changes to dumb down the test so more people would pass. No longer can you compare the test results from the beginning until now.
I decided to take a different slant and explain what has happened to our country since those fateful decisions were enforced. I made a chart for clarity. Imagine youth who were not grounded in the application of the Ten Commandments in their daily lives, how this has warped our perspectives on life. No wonder we spend more money on inmates that educating students.
The Ten Commandments
Results of not being taught the Ten Commandments
1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
Church attendance has continued to decline. People are into Horoscopes, witchcraft, zombies, and communicating with the dead. Atheism is rising. People choose sports or extra-curricular activities over church events.
2. You shall not make idols.
Sports figures, movie stars, musicians, and rich people are held in more esteem than God. Illegal drug usage is up 6000%. (2)
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Foul language is allowed on television, radio, and movies. The youth embrace swearing in music and daily speaking because they were not taught to honor God.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Businesses are open on Sunday to make a profit and people choose work over attending church. Sporting events, movies, and other activities take people away from their homes so they can’t rest.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
The home does not expect respect of mothers and fathers. The divorce rate has sky-rocketed. Many women choose to raise their children without a father. Blended families struggle to unify. Same sex families and transgender families are on the rise. More elderly parents are forgotten. Child abuse cases increased 2300%. (2)
6. You shall not murder.
The crime rate is unbelievable. Youth are bringing guns to school to kill people who made them angry. We hear of a murder every day. Television, movies, and video games have glamorized killing, thus numbing the senses of our youth to respect each person as the creation of God. Teen suicide is up 450%. (2)
7. You shall not commit adultery.
Divorce continues to rise even in the Christian communities. We have become self-centered-it’s-all-about-me-and-my-needs. People lack commitment. Divorce rates have increased 350%. Teen pregnancies escalated. (2)
8. You shall not steal.
People have come to the point where when they see something they want, they find a way to steal it instead of work for it. Criminal arrests of teens increased 150%. (2)
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
All we have to do is look at our government leaders who demonstrate that lying is acceptable, just don’t get caught. Violent crimes increased 350%.
10. You shall not covet.
Our society wants to keep up with their neighbor’s home, vehicle, clothes, and private school, in order to look good at work or in their community. Back-biting at work, to get a promotion, is a form of coveting. Bullying may be a form of coveting others in reverse. The bully thinks he is cooler, smarter, and better in every way. Pray for their hearts to be healed of hate.
I began teaching in 1971, retired in 2008, and have been a Title 1 Tutor ever since. I have seen too many changes to mention. The biggest change is the lack of respect for authority, peers, and parents. A larger per cent of students show little regard to being truthful and co-operative. Their crude, rude language reflects the way they dress and act. The Founding Fathers of the United States predicted this would happen if education was no longer based of Christian principles.
“The Philosophy of the school room in one generation . . . will be the Philosophy of Government in the next.” Abraham Lincoln (3)
Below is my column in The Hill on last weekโs cases and the sharp contrast to the handling of the Trump case in Manhattan. Two of these cases hold particular resonance with some of us who criticized Braggโs prosecution.
Here is the column:
In 1976, Saul Steinburgโs hilarious โView of the World from 9th Avenueโ was published on the cover of the New Yorker. The map showed Manhattan occupying most of the known world with wilderness on the other side of the Hudson River between New York and San Francisco. The cartoon captured the distorted view New Yorkers have of the rest of the country.
Roughly 50 years later, the image has flipped for many. With the Trump trial, Manhattan has become a type of legal wilderness where prosecutors use the legal system to hunt down political rivals and thrill their own supporters. New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) ran on a pledge to bag former president Donald Trump. (She also sought to dissolve the National Rifle Association.)
Manhattan District Attorneyย Alvin Braggย also pledged to get Trump. Neither specified how they would do it, but both were elected, and both were lionized for bringing controversial cases against Trump.
Just beyond the Hudson River, the response to these cases has been far less positive. James secured an obscene civil penalty of almost half a billion dollars without having to show there was a single victim or dollar lost from alleged overvaluation of assets.
Through various contortions, Bragg converted a dead misdemeanor case into 34 felonies in an unprecedented prosecution. New Yorkers and the media insisted that such selective prosecution was in defense of the โrule of law.โ
This week in the Supreme Court, a glimpse of the legal landscape outside of Manhattan came more sharply into view. It looked very different as the Supreme Court, with a strong conservative majority, defended the rights of defendants and upheld core principles that are being systematically gutted in New York.
In Gonzalez v. Trevino, the court held in favor of Sylvia Gonzalez, who had been arrested in Castle Hills, Texas in 2019 on a trumped-up charge of tampering with government records. She had briefly misplaced a petition on a table at a public meeting.
This was a blatant case of selective prosecution by officials whom Gonzalez had criticized. She was the only person charged in the last 10 years under the stateโs records laws for temporarily misplacing a document. She argued that virtually every one of the prior 215 felony indictments involved the use or creation of fake government IDs.
Although the charges were later dropped, the case reeked of political retaliation and selective prosecution. There is no evidence that anyone else has faced such a charge in similar circumstances. Yet when she sued, the appellate court threw her case out, requiring Gonzales to shoulder an overwhelming burden of proof to establish selective prosecution for her political speech. The justices, on the other hand, reduced that burden, allowing Gonzalez togo back and make the case for selective prosecution.
Unlike the Trump case, the criminal charges against Gonzales were thrown out before trial. For Trump, selective prosecution claims were summarily dismissed, even though no case like Braggโs appears to have ever been brought before.
The Bragg case is raw political prosecution. No one seriously argues that Bragg would have brought this case against anyone other than Trump. Indeed, his predecessor rejected the case. Yet people were literally dancing in the streets when I came out of the courthouse after the verdict against Trump. In fact, the selectivity of the prosecution was precisely why it was so thrilling for New Yorkers.
Another case decided this week was Erlinger v. United States. The justices ruled 6-3 (and not along the standard ideological lines) to send back a case in which Paul Erlinger had been convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon. He was given an enhanced sentence for having three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses. However, the court denied him the right to have a jury rule on the key issue of whether these prior offenses occurred on different occasions.
The court ruled that a jury had to decide this issue unanimously under a standard of beyond reasonable doubt. This is in contrast to how the Trump case was handled, in which jurors could disagree on key aspects of the crime yet still convict the defendant.
In Trumpโs trial, Judge Juan Merchan effectively guaranteed a conviction by telling jurors that they did not have to agree with specificity on what had occurred in the case to convict Trump. The only way to get beyond the passage of the statute of limitations on the dead misdemeanor for falsifying business records had been to allege that the bookkeeping violation in question occurred to conceal another crime. Bragg did not bother to state clearly what that crime was, originally alluding to four different crimes.
It was not until the end of the case that Merchan would lay out three possible crimes for the jury. All the way up to the final instructions in the case, legal analysts on CNN and other outlets expressed doubt about what the actual theory of the criminal conduct was in the case.
Despite spending little time on these secondary crimes at trial, Merchan told the jury that they could convict if they believed that invoices and other documents had been falsified to hide federal election violations, other falsification violations or a tax violation.
Those are very different theories of a criminal conspiracy. Under one theory, Trump was hiding an affair with a porn actress with the payment of hush money before the election. Under another theory, he was trying to reduce a tax burden for someone else (that part was left hazy). As a third alternative, he might have falsified the documents to hide the falsification of other documents, a perfectly spellbinding circular theory.
If those sound like they could be three different cases, then you are right. Yet Merchan told the jurors that they did not have to agree on which fact-pattern or conspiracy had occurred. They could split 4-4-4 on the secondary crime motivating the misdemeanors and just declare that some secondary crime was involved.
That was all that is required in New York when in pursuit of Trump.
Neither of these two cases is controlling in the Trump case, although there are two others pending on the use of obstruction (Fischer v. United States) and presidential immunity (Trump v. United States) that could affect some of the cases against Trump. But Gonzales and Erlinger demonstrate the high level of protections that we normally afford criminal defendants. A court with a 6-3 conservative majority just ruled for the rights of all defendants in defense of the rule of law.
That is not how the law is seen from 9th Avenue.
It all comes down to the legal map. As even CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig observed, this case of contorting the law for a selective prosecution would not have succeeded outside of an anti-Trump district.
On the New Yorker map circa 2024, once you cross the Hudson River eastward, you enter a legal wilderness.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University School of Law.He is the author of โThe Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rageโ (Simon and Schuster, 2024).
Will Rogers once said that โif you ever injected truth into politics, youโd have no politics.โ In Wales, it appears that the government is challenging that assessment. However, if the new legislation criminalizing political lies is successful, the Welsh are likely to find themselves with the same abundance of lies but little free speech.
A proposal in the Welsh parliament (or the Senedd) would make it the first country in the world to impose criminal sanctions for lying politicians. Adam Price, the former leader of the liberal Plaid Cymru Party is pushing for the criminalization, citing a โcredibility gapโ in UK politics.
Astonishingly, this uniquely bad idea has received support from a key committee. Once on track for adoption, this is the type of law that can become self-propelling through the legislature. Few politicians want to go on record voting against a law banning political lies. The free speech implications are easily lost in the coverage.
The new law would make it a criminal offense for a member of the Senedd, or a candidate for election to the Senedd, to willfully, or with intent to mislead, make or publish a statement that is known to be false or deceptive. There is a six-month period for challenges to be brought. The law allows a defense that a statement could be โreasonably inferredโ to be a statement of opinion, or if it were retracted with an apology within 14 days. If guilty, the politician would be disqualified from being a Senedd member.
The defense is hardly helpful. It creates an uncertainty as to which statements would be deemed an opinion and which would be treated as a statement of fact. It invites selective and biased prosecutions. After all, what does it mean to accuse a politician of trying to โmisleadโ the public?
Winston Churchill said โa politician needs the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didnโt happen.โ
It is a standard heavily laden with subjectivity and potential selectivity in prosecution. It is more likely to determine not whether lies can be told but which lies can be told. The government and the majority of the public are likely to hold certain โmisleadingโ claims of politicians to be true or opinion while holding a harsher view of the claims of the opposition.
Consider the massive censorship system in our own country. During Covid, you were labeled a liar, conspiracist, or racist for holding views now viewed as credible. For example, academics joined this chorus in marginalizing anyone raising the lab theory.ย One studyย cited the theory as an example of โanti-Chinese racismโ and โtoxic white masculinity.โ As late as May 2021, the New York Timesโ Science and Health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli was calling any mention of the lab theory as โracist.โ Mandavilli and others made clear that reporters covering the theory were Covidโs little Bull Connors. She tweeted wistfully โsomeday we will stop talking about the lab leak theory and maybe even admit its racist roots. But alas, that day is not yet here.โ
Now federal agencies have stated that they believe that the origin of the virus was indeed the Chinese lab. If this law were in place, politicians could have been charged with lying and barred from the legislature โ would have only served to diminish dissenting views further in the government.
Politicians have long been accused of lying to the public. In this country, presidents routinely lie on matters great and small. Many of those lies cost citizens dearly, fromย โkeeping your doctorโ under ObamaCareย toย losing your life in Vietnam. Criminalizing lies in campaigns because of the spread of disinformation or disorder is a slippery slope that vests unprecedented power in the Justice Department.
There is obviously an abundance of statements from politicians that could be deemed as intentionally misleading. Officials can then simply pick and choose which politicians they want to tar with the allegation and potentially bar from office.
Scotland recently passed a new crime law covering โstirring up hatredโ relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex. That crime covers insulting comments and anything โthat a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive.โ
Free speech is in a free fall after years of criminalization of speech. Generations have been shaped in the educational system to fear free speech. The alliance of government, media, and academic forces have created generations of speech phobics. The anti-free speech movement in the United Kingdom should be a cautionary tale for every American. The tide of this movement has reached our shores and the same alliance is working to reduce the protections for free speech.
As I discuss in my new book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, this international movement has left free speech in tatters in the West. Now there are law professors calling for the First Amendment to be rewritten to remove its โexcessively individualisticโ protections.
The free speech community in the United Kingdom has fought bravely to preserve this right against all odds. Wales is a reminder that this remains a global struggle that requires free speech advocates to unite against this rising tide.
A.F. Branco CartoonโMinnesota has an ever-growing fraud problem. The Feeding Our Future estimate is the one provided by the U.S. Department of Justice almost two years ago. Despite adding two dozen more defendants over the years, the original estimate has not been updated. My own estimate places the final figure at double that amount.
Tracking Minnesotaโs growing fraud problem
By Bill Glahn โ June 22, 2024
There are many examples of Minnesotans defrauding the federal government directly (PPP, small business loans, etc.). These cases are not included. The Feeding Our Future estimate is the one provided by the U.S. Department of Justice almost two years ago. Despite the addition of two dozen more defendants over the years, the original estimate has not been updated. My own estimate places the final figure at double that amount. The child care (CCAP) fraud estimate is one provided by a whistleblower in the case. About the estimate, the legislative auditor wrote the following back in 2019: READ MOREโฆ
A.F. Branco Cartoon โ On Wednesday, Republican Gov. Jeff Landry of Louisiana ignited leftist outrage by signing a bill that requires all the stateโs public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments.
Leftists Cry โSeparation of Church and Stateโ Over New Ten Commandments Law โ Hereโs a History Lesson for Them
By Michael Schwarz โ June 21, 2024
Rarely have seven innocuous words, misinterpreted and then amplified, caused so much mischief. On Wednesday, Republican Gov. Jeff Landry of Louisiana ignited leftist outrage by signing a bill that requires all the stateโs public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments. Predictably, opponents of the bill cited a paraphrased version of a line that appeared in an 1802 letter written by President Thomas Jefferson: โwall of separation between church and state.โ
As we shall see, the use of that โseparationโ phrase to attack Louisianaโs law amounts to an act of sophistry.
No doubt anticipating such objections, Louisiana earmarked no state money for the mandateโs implementation, relying instead on private funds. Likewise, to affirm that the mandated display constitutes an acknowledgement of the Ten Commandmentsโ historical significance, not an endorsement of a particular religious creed, the law also requires a four-paragraph context statement tying the Ten Commandments to American foundational documents. READ MOREโฆ
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 โThe Washington Post.โ He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh DโSouza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
Louisianaย made news this weekย for passing a law that mandates the Ten Commandments be displayed on the walls of every public-school classroom, including elementary schools, middle and high schools, and all public college classrooms.
The law defies a 1980 Supreme Court ruling that struck down a similar law in Kentucky, so this is certain to be challenged in court โ a prospect supporters of the legislation are counting on. โI canโt wait to be sued,โ said Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, who has been rather open about one of the purposes of the law: to challenge Supreme Court precedent on the First Amendment, specifically regarding the establishment clause, which for the past half-century has been used to excise nearly all formal recognition of religion from Americaโs public schools.
As a vehicle for challenging bad precedent, the law seems sufficient. But another purpose for it, at least according to Landry and other Republicans, is to instruct and mold students. โIf you want to respect the rule of law,โ the governor said, โyouโve got to start from the original lawgiver, which was Moses.โ
This is true as far as it goes, but it doesnโt go very far. The idea that posting the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms will do anything to inculcate in students a respect for the rule of law, to say nothing of basic morality, is pure fantasy. You might say itโs necessary but not anywhere close to sufficient.
If you want to teach students to respect the rule of law and understand that just laws are based on objective moral standards, then youโre going to have to do more than post the Ten Commandments. Youโre going to have to get to the root cause of why these things are not taught in public schools anymore โ in fact the opposite is taught, that objective morality is oppressive and that the rule of law is systematically racist.
That means youโre going to have to do something about the teachers and administrators. Itโs no secret that public school teachers all over the country tend to be far more left-wing than the average American and that no matter how small or conservative your community might be, its teachers and librarians and public-school administrators are among the most radical people in it. They are supported by powerful teacher’s unions and come out of an education and credentialing pipeline that exists to put left-wing ideologues in classrooms and school bureaucracies.
If you really want students to learn about the importance of the Ten Commandments โ to say nothing of Christianity, Western philosophy, or the American founding โ then youโd better be ready to take on the teachers’ unions and dismantle the teacher’s colleges and credentialing programs.
All of those things are of course well within the mandate of state legislatures. If the GOP-controlled Louisiana legislature has enough votes to mandate the Ten Commandments be displayed in every classroom in the state, surely, they have enough votes to shut down the teacher’s colleges and repeal the laws requiring that every public-school teacher be credentialed from such colleges.
Itโs all well and good to pass laws with a view of changing Supreme Court precedent on establishment clause jurisprudence, but that doesnโt really strike at the root of the problem. Even if the Ten Commandments are allowed to remain on the walls of Louisiana classrooms, students arenโt going to learn anything about them unless theyโre taught by teachers who themselves understand the importance of the Ten Commandments.
Therein lies the problem. The institutions that were once supposed to safeguard our education system have been taken over and transformed by leftist radicals who hate the very things we need them to teach our students โ like respect for the rule of law or what the Ten Commandments are and where they came from.
What can be done about this? Plenty. Conservatives who actually care about such things are in the minority in America. They donโt wield a lot of institutional power. But Republicans, who count at least some conservatives among their ranks, currently control state legislatures and governorsโ mansions (trifecta control) in 23 states. If the GOP in those states really wanted to fight back against the leftโs control over public schools, it could push for the abolition of teachers’ colleges, or of credentialing requirements, or change them so that public school teachers need not be indoctrinated in Marxist ideology to teach in a Republican-controlled state.
And of course, much more than just that could be done โ if the right wanted to fight back. The key thing is getting over this idea that we must preserve at all costs an outdated and fundamentally flawed notion of neutrality in our public institutions, that public schools, for example, must be silent about religion and morality even as they indoctrinate students in what amounts to a new religion of leftist political activism, bombarding them with lessons derived from critical race theory and LGBT ideology.
The left obviously doesnโt care about neutrality. Every institution and public space they are able to control is immediately used to push a very non-neutral message and agenda. Conservatives are the only ones who even pretend to care about neutrality anymore. Itโs time to change that. Neutrality has always been a luxury good that only a religiously and culturally homogenous society could afford. Once the left weaponized it as part of a campaign to take over institutions, it became folly to adhere to it.
And yet most Republican officeholders still do. They should stop and get serious about getting the Ten Commandments back in public school โ in the curriculum, not just posted on the wall.
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.
“Thereโs something going on in our country, and itโs not an accident,โ Ben Carson, former secretary of housing and urban development, says Friday at the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s Road to Majority conference in Washington. (Photo: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Dr. Ben Carson provided personal anecdotes Friday and encouraged faith in God at the Faith and Freedom Coalitionโs 15th annual Road to Majority conference in Washington, D.C.
โThereโs something going on in our country, and itโs not an accident,โ said Carson, a retired neurosurgeon who was secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in theย Trump administration.ย America is in the way of a one-world government, so โthey need to change us,โ Carson told the crowd at the Washington Hilton. โThatโs why they have gone inside to destroy the moral fabric of the U.S.โ
By removing God from the public square, diminishing the role of the family, and making sexual immorality โnatural, normal, and healthy,โ he said, the Left has been successful in destroying that moral fabric.
To combat this, the celebrated brain surgeon said, conservatives must be willing to be more visible and stand up for what they believe in.
โIโve had a lot of people try to cancel me,โ Carson said. โI donโt care about those people. I only care about God.โ
When he was younger, he recalled, he had a terrible temper. He reflected on the time that, as a teenager, he attempted to stab another boy. That boyโs belt buckle stopped his blade, which broke. Carson promptly locked himself in a bathroom where there wasย a Bible, which he started reading.ย
โThat was the last day that I had a problem,โ Carson recalled, because God โtook the knife out of the hand of an angry teenager and turned it into a scalpel to save lives.โ
Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii (Photo: Steven Ferdman/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON โ Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard accused corporate media outlets of parroting โpropagandaโ talking points from the White House regarding controversial videos of President Joe Biden.
Gabbard, who ran as a candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, spoke with The Daily Signal on Friday at the Road to Majority conference in Washington, D.C., where she addressed the Biden White House dismissing videos highlighting Bidenโs declining mental acuity as โcheap fakes.โ
โIt made me laugh, because Iโm obviously familiar with how the mainstream propaganda media works,โ said Gabbard, who served four terms in the House as a Democrat, but has since become an independent. โAnd when you look at the montage of all of these different people, on many cable networks or broadcast networks, and theyโre literally all using the same talking point. They warn misinformation, disinformationโ[but] they are doing it right now.โ
โWe are not stupid, and I think thatโs the thing that is most fascinating to me. They really think that we are that stupid, to buy their spin on the unfortunate reality of what weโre seeing, which is President Bidenโs deteriorating condition.โ
A number of recent videos of Biden at various public events show the president looking confused, freezing up, or wandering away from the location where heโs supposed to speaking or standing. At a D-Day anniversary event in France, for example, videos show him turning away from a group of other world leaders. Another video, at a campaign fundraiser, shows former President Barack Obama leading him off stage.
The White House has repeatedly claimed that such videos are edited.
Joe Biden highlights in Normandy on the 80th anniversary of D-Day:
– Sits in an invisible chair – Forgets where his seat is – Talks about how many Russians died in Ukraine – Gets pulled away by Docta Jill as Macron greets D-Day veterans. pic.twitter.com/sWFsYpt1o5
โItโs also very insulting to the folks, the viewers who are watching it,โ White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierreย told MSNBC on Tuesday. โAnd so, we believe we have to call that out. Weโve been calling it โcheap fakes.โ That is something that came directly from the media outlets in calling it that, the fact-checkers โฆ calling it that. And so, weโre certainly going to be really, really clear about that as well. And calling it out from where we are, from where we stand.โ
White House spokesman Andrew Bates similarlyย told Fox New Digitalย that the videos are the products of โdiscredited right-wing criticsโ of the president.
โTheir panicked reaction to mainstream reporters, including at The Washington Post, NBC News, and PolitiFact, citing misinformation experts taking anti-Biden cheap fakes apart says more than we ever could,โ Bates told Fox News Digital.
In my new book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, and a recent academic work, I discuss a new rationale being used by administrators to punish free speech: threatening academic collegiality or campus tranquility. I was discussing the Fourth Circuit case of Porter v. Board of Trustees of North Carolina State University, which was unfortunately not reviewed by the Supreme Court. Now, as feared, it is being replicated by the Sixth Circuit in Gruber v. Tenn. Tech. Bd. of Trustees. The result is a new and serious threat to free speech in higher education to curtail speech where it would be โlikely to cause disruptionโ or undermine the โfostering [of] a collegial educational environment.โ
The Porter case involved the targeting of a conservative faculty member who opposed diversity views. Given the purging of conservative professors from faculties and the intolerance on our campuses, the use of collegiality to justify disciplinary action is likely to fall more heavily on the dwindling number of conservatives.
However, Gruber involved professors who spoke out against a conservative colleague. As previously addressed by Keith Whittington, the case involved Professor Andrew Donadio, who serves as the faculty advisor for the local chapter of Turning Point USA at Tennessee Tech University.
Donadio was attacked by Professor Julia Gruber and Instructor Andrew Smith who hold strikingly anti-free speech views that are evident in theย flyersย that they put up around campus denouncing the โhate and hypocrisyโ of โProfessor Donadio and Turning Point USA.โ In addition to saying that his views are โnot welcome at Tennessee Tech,โ they declared that there should be โno unity with racistsโ and that โhate speech is not free speech.โ
Gruber and Smith are only the latest examples of academics who reject free speech rights for others, but still demand that their own views be protected. Fortunately for them, the free speech community supports free speech regardless of its inherent merits or the hypocrisy of speakers.
Provost Lori Bruce disciplined Gruber and Smith under Policy 600, requiring faculty members โto conduct themselves fairly, honestly, in good faith, and in accordance with the highest ethical and professional standards.โ
As with Porter, the use of a lack of collegiality has long been used against those with unpopular views. I previously wrote:
โThe lack of collegiality and professionalism has long been shibboleth for those have sought to block minorities and women from appointments. Many objected to the claims of โlack of collegialityโ and bad โtemperamentโ raised against figures like Justice Sotomayor when she was nominated for the Court. Indeed, the American Association of University Professors has stressed that collegiality is often a coded or biased basis for discrimination. It cautioned against this use since, โ[i]n the heat of making important academic decisions regarding hiring, promotion, and tenure, it would be easy to confuse collegiality with the expectation that a faculty member display โenthusiasm,โ or evince โa constructive attitudeโ that โwill foster harmony.โโ Indeed, collegiality is commonly defined as being โcooperative,โ a virtue that is hard to display when you are a dissenting voice on a matter of intense and passionate debate with your colleagues.โ
Nevertheless, Sixth Circuit Judges Richard Griffin, Helene White, and Eric Murphy upheld the lower court decision supporting the university:
When deciding whether the plaintiff engaged in protected activity, we first determine whether the action constitutes speech on a matter of public concern, and if it does, we apply the โPickeringย balancing testโ to determine whether the plaintiffโs interest in commenting outweighs the defendantโs interest as an employer in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees. The balancing test considers the manner, time, and place of the expressive action, and the pertinent considerations include whether the action (1) impairs discipline by superiors or harmony among coworkers, (2) negatively affects close working relationships for which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary, (3) impedes performance of the speakerโs duties or interferes with the employerโs regular operations, and (4) undermines the employerโs missionโฆ.
TTU does not dispute that the district court properly concluded that the plaintiffsโ speech was a matter of public concern. Even so, as the district also properly concluded, the plaintiffsโ distribution of the flyers was not protected speech because their speech interest was outweighed by TTUโs interest in preventing a disruption to its pedagogical and collegial environmentโฆ.
At the outset, the โmannerโ of the plaintiffsโ speech decreased its expressive value and increased TTUโs operational interests. Plaintiffs did not speak in the classroom or through scholarship, where professorsโ โrights to academic freedom and freedom of expression are paramount.โ
Nor is this a simple case of one professor raising a race-related issue with another or expressing disagreement with a groupโs ideology, perhaps one-on-one or in a more private setting. Instead, the plaintiffs posted flyers in an academic building at a time they knew students would be on campus for class and posted an additional flyer the next day. Those flyers were highly likely to cause disruption, and they did so in several ways.
Specifically, the flyers identified Donadio as a โracist college professorโ and branded members of Turning Point USA as โracist students.โ They stated in bold text that the professor and groupโs โhate & hypocrisy are not welcome at Tennessee Tech.โ The dissemination of โdisrespectful, demeaning, insulting, and rudeโ messages targeting a colleague and studentsโregardless of whether some accusations may have had basis in factโto the entire university community undoubtably threatened to disrupt TTUโs learning environment and academic mission.
For one, flyers that publicly attack a colleague as racist and threaten that the colleague is on the anonymous authorโs โlistโ certainly โimpairs โฆ harmony among co-workers.โ {Plaintiffs protest that they did not interact with Donadio professionally, so there was no harmony to impair. But even if the professors did not work closely together, they were nonetheless colleagues on TTUโs faculty, and it was not unreasonable for Bruce to conclude that on-campus and public accusations of racismโeven between colleagues who did not work togetherโcould cause disruption of the universityโs operations.}
Perhaps more critically, by attacking students, the flyers threatened the core of TTUโs educational โmissionโ and undermined the plaintiffsโ ability to perform their teaching โduties.โ The flyers insinuated that, like Donadio, all students who were members of Turning Point USA were racist. The accusations harmed these studentsโ educations.
For example, one Turning Point USA member, having been deemed a racist, missed class because of the fallout. In addition, the accusations affected the plaintiffsโ effectiveness in the classroom. Students in the club, or those considering joining the club, who were taking courses with Gruber and Smith might reasonably fear the potential treatment they would receive in class due to differing political views. This case is thus factually distinguishable from cases like Pickering, where a teacher was disciplined for writing a letter to a local newspaper criticizing the school district that was โin no way directed towards any person with whom [the teacher] would normally be in contact in the course of his daily work as a teacher.โ And most basically, TTU has โan interest in fostering a collegial educational environment.โ Permitting professors to circulate flyers with personal attacks on colleagues and students undoubtably undermines that interest.
To be sure, the flyers were quickly collected and affected only a handful of students and professors. But evidence of widespread disruption is not necessary: it was reasonable for Bruce to believe that, had the flyers remained posted, they could have caused far greater disruption.
Lastly, the โplaceโ of the plaintiffsโ speech undermines their interests even further. Even if they did not undertake this speech pursuant to their official duties, they also did not engage in it away from campus as private citizens. Rather than make their claims on their personal Facebook pages or in a local newspaper, they chose to use TTUโs own property as the billboard for their speech. But public employers have greater interest in regulating speech โat the officeโ (or here on campus) than they do away from the public employersโ property. Indeed, the conclusion that the First Amendment protected the plaintiffsโ speech would mean that TTU remained powerless to remove the flyers off of its property. So this case raises no concern that TTU sought to โleverageโ its employment relationship with the plaintiffs to regulate their speech โoutsideโ the context of its university functions.
All told, theย Pickeringย balancing test weighs against the plaintiffsโ speech being protected. The flyers, which attacked a professor and student organization and stated that they were not welcome on campus, created a reasonable threat of disrupting TTUโs academic mission and is the type of speech that a learning institution has a strong interest in preventing. Under theย Pickeringย balancing test, TTUโs interest in preventing a potential disruption to its pedagogical and collegial environment outweighed the plaintiffsโ interest in distributing the flyers. Thus, the plaintiffsโ speech was not protected, foreclosing their First Amendment retaliation claim.
The allowance for censorship and sanctions for speech โlikely to cause disruptionโ would gut free speech protections on campus. The court suggests that the ability of the university to crack down on the speech was magnified by the fact that others might be particularly interested in their views or exposed to them. It is enough that it threatened the tranquility of campus and the collegiality of the faculty.
This week we discussed an analogous position at Harvard where Lawrence Bobo, the Dean of Social Science, rejected views of free speech as a โblank checkโ and said that criticizing university leaders like himself or school policies are now viewed as โoutside the bounds of acceptable professional conduct.โ
The refusal of the Court to take the Porter decision was crushing for many of us in the free speech community and academia. Hopefully, Gruber will receive a more favorable review in light of the expanding threat to free speech to โfoster a collegial educational environment.โ
Top Stories โขJudge Blocks Bidenโs Plan to Force Employers to Fund Abortions โขDemocrats Block Conscience Bill to Protect Pro-Life Doctors on Abortion โขFederal Court Rules Biden Canโt Force Christian Groups to Fund Abortions โขTrump Leads Biden by 18% in Iowa
More Pro-Life News โขFamily Saves Abandoned Newborn Baby โขโPro-Birthโ is Not the Insult Abortion Supporters Want It to Be โขRepublican Resolution Celebrates Overturning Roe v. Wade, Saving Babies From Abortion โขAbortion is Immoral Just Like Slavery Was Immoral โข Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
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.
In 2023, the legislatureย amendedย theย Minnesota Human Rights Actย (MHRA) to add anti-discrimination protections for โgender identityโ but failed to revise the corresponding religious exemption, effectively attempting to remove it.
This year, โgender identityโ was added to a list of already protected categories of protections in the MHRA. โSexual orientationโ was already protected by the MHRA, but the term โgender identityโ was added explicitly. A religious exemption that had already been in place since 1993 โprohibited the state from forcing religious organizations to comply with the anti-discrimination law provisions with respect to protected categories like sexual orientation when those provisions are inconsistent with a religious organizationโs sincerely held beliefs,โ said Renee Carlson, general counsel for True North Legal. However, the religious exemption was not updated to include the term โgender identity.โ
โWhile we had hoped it was an oversight, the House Judiciary Chair stated on the record that the omission of those words was intentional,โ Carlson said. โA discussion ensued during the committee where Democratic legislators not only refused to accept an amendment to protect religious organizations, but also called the amendment to protect religious organizations โdisturbingโ and โdisgustingโ after hearing a testimony from a diverse group of testifiers.โ
By openly failing to include โgender identityโ in the previously established religious exemption, the Minnesota legislation openly attacked religious freedom, but the attack does not stop there. Churches and religious institutions would be directly impacted by this exemption, but so would many unprotected groups served by religious organizations.
โA threat to religious organizations extends well beyond the churches and ministries that the statute protects. Religious organizations often serve marginalized and underserved communities, such as victims of sex trafficking, homeless families, and youth through programs that help kids graduate high school and even go to college. These religious entities in Minnesota meet individual needs and fill gaps that the government could never achieve on its own. To be sure, this was an unprecedented attack on religion and people of faith, but also on the communities that they serve,โ said Carlson.
The MHRA could even threaten the existence of some religious organizations whose mission and religious beliefs are inseparable, Carlson added. โFor religious organizations and its members, every decision is inextricably bound up in the tenets of its faith tradition. Removing statutory protections for religious organizations from the Minnesota Human Rights Act threatened the existence of all religious entities whose missions are inseparable from their employment practices, catechisms, and governance.โ
According to Jason Adkins, general counsel at Minnesota Catholic Conference, the religious exemption was put in place in 1993 and had functioned without any problems until the bill introducing โgender identityโ protections. The religious exemption was never meant to compromise anti-discrimination law but was intended to protect the freedom of religious institutions.
โThe clear religious exemption provides predictability to religious organizations, potential litigants, and others about the scope of the MHRA and the pluralism of values that it protects, including the autonomy of religious institutions on matters of sexual identity. Anti-discrimination provisions related to sexual orientation and gender identity made it into law in 1993 in part because religious groups did not oppose them due to the inclusion of the exemption. This clarification of law restores the gender identity exemption and ensures that the MHRA is not used as a sword against faith communities,โ said Adkins.
After public backlash, both the Minnesota House and Senate voted unanimously to restore religious protections.
While the restoration of the exemption somewhat protects religious organizations, there are many members of religions working in fields not controlled by religious institutions. Christian workers, including teachers, lawyers, and doctors, fear the need to compromise their religious beliefs in order to do their jobs in a way that respects the MHRA. โOur big concern is that doctors may be punished for declining to provide treatments they believe are unethical or harmful. This is not a tenet of a specific religion, but of natural law and universal human rights,โ said a medical doctor from the Association of American Physicians.
Despite the religious exemption being restored, legal battles to defend religious freedom are constantly raging in Minnesota. Still in effect are the new standards requiring state-licensed teachers to affirm studentsโ gender identities. After the MHRA tried to effectively remove the religious exemption, new amendments to the Minnesota constitution intending to attack religious institutions have been proposed.
Doug Seaton, a lawyer at Upper Midwest Law, emphasized the constant need for vigilance in an environment where religious liberty is always under attack. โWe have to be constantly fighting these assaults in the dark and bringing them to the light. This attempt ended in success, but it is a lesson in how eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.โ
In a Denver suburb, the St. Vrain school district uses a “Gender Identity Guidance” form asking whether parents know their child thinks he or she is transgender. (Photo illustration: Ilkercelik/Getty Images)
A Colorado school district uses a form asking staff whether a studentโs parents know their child identifies as transgender and support that decision.
St. Vrain Public Schools,ย in a Denver suburb,ย developed a so-called Gender Identity Guidance form for โcounselors, interventionists, and administrators to support students dealing with issues related to gender identification.โ
The document, found on the school districtโs website and reviewed by The Daily Signal, includes questions about studentsโ preferred name, birth name, sex at birth, and gender identity. A section asks whether parents are aware of their childโs gender identity and if they support that, as well as who can advocate on behalf of the child if his or her parents wonโt.
โDo I understand the parent/guardian support and am I able to identify other supports for the student?โ the form asks.
Follow-up questions on the school districtโs form include:
โ โDo studentโs parents/guardians know of the gender identity?โ
โ โDo parents/guardians support the gender identity?โ
โโWho can advocate or support the student if not the parents/guardians?โ
โโWhat are the communication methods/issues/challenges between school and home?โ
โโWho are the adult contacts at school for support, concerns, etc.?โย
Gender policies such as this one at St. Vrain Public Schools, which allows children to hide their gender identity from parents, undermine parental authority and rights, Lori Gimelshteyn, executive director of the Colorado Parent Advocacy Network,ย told The Daily Signal.ย
โAs parents, our priority is our childrenโs well-being and safety,โ Gimelshteyn said. โNo institution should intervene between us and our children, especially during critical times like mental health crises.โ
St. Vrain Public Schools did not respond to The Daily Signalโs request for comment about whether the district conceals studentsโ gender transitions from parents.
Another section of the Gender Identity Guidance form inquiries about othersโ awareness of a studentโs gender identity.ย The school employee who fills out the form must indicate the status of the child,ย who currently knows about the childโs transition, whether the transition is public or private, and who else needs to know.ย
The form lays out how schools in the St. Vrain district should handle communication related to the childโs gender, including how to discuss the transition in an โage appropriateโ manner with classmates.
The form also tracks a childโs preferred personal pronouns and how to refer to that student in school records.
A bill in the Colorado House of Representatives would require educators statewide to call students by their preferred name upon request. The Gender Identity Guidance form reviews a studentโs use of facilities to determine whether the child isย using restrooms and locker roomsย in line with his or her gender identity.ย
The St. Vrain district also connects students with โoutside resources,โ such as Rocky Mountain Equality, the Human Rights Campaign, and other LGBTQ activist groups.ย Rocky Mountain Equality offers programs for LGBTQ youth ages 11 to 18. Only those under 12 need parental permission to participate. The group provides children with โgender-affirming clothesโ such as chest binders. (โBinders are reserved for those ages 11 to 18,โ theย website says.)
The school districtโs form considers โthe social dynamics with other students/families/staffโ and addresses potential challenges with extracurricular activities, such as sports and clubs. The Colorado High School Activities Association reviews studentsโ requests to play sports in accord with their โgender identityโ if it โdiffers from their sex assigned at birth.โ
A bill requiring student athletes to play sports in line with their biological sex failed to pass the Colorado House last year.
In my book out this week, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, I write about the anti-free speech movement that has swept over higher education and how administrators and faculty hold a view of free speech as harmful. Now Harvard is again at the heart of a free speech fight after Lawrence Bobo, the Dean of Social Science, rejected views of free speech as a โblank checkโ and said that criticizing university leaders like himself or school policies are now viewed as โoutside the bounds of acceptable professional conduct.โ
Bobo warns that public criticism of the school could โcross a line into sanctionable violations.โ
โA faculty memberโs right to free speech does not amount to a blank check to engage in behaviors that plainly incite external actors โ be it the media, alumni, donors, federal agencies, or the government โ to intervene in Harvardโs affairs. Along with freedom of expression and the protection of tenure comes a responsibility to exercise good professional judgment and to refrain from conscious action that would seriously harm the University and its independence.โ
The column adopts every jingoistic rationale used by anti-free speech critics today, including the invocation of the Holmes โcrowded theaterโ analogy:
โBut many faculty at Harvard enjoy an external stature that also opens to them much broader platforms for potential advocacy. Figures such as Raj Chetty โ00, Henry Louis Gates Jr., Jill Lepore, or Steven A. Pinker have well-earned notoriety that reaches far beyond the academy.
Would it simply be an ordinary act of free speech for those faculty to repeatedly denounce the University, its students, fellow faculty, or leadership? The truth is that free speech has limits โ itโs why you canโt escape sanction for shouting โfireโ in a crowded theater.โ
First and foremost, the ability of faculty to speak out on public disputes should not depend on whether you are more popular or visible. However, it is the theater analogy that is most galling.
I have an entire chapter in The Indispensable Right that addresses the fallacies surrounding this line out of the Holmes opinion. It is arguably the most damaging single line ever written by a Supreme Court justice in the area of free speech.
I have previously written about the irony of liberals adopting the analogy, which was used to crack down on socialists and dissenters on the left.
One of the most telling moments came in a congressional hearing when I warned of the dangers of repeating the abuses of prior periods like the Red Scare, when censorship and blacklisting were the norm. In response, Rep. Dan Goldman, D-New York, invoked Oliver Wendell Holmesโ view that free speech does not give a person the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. In other words, citizens had to be silenced because their views are dangerous to others.
When I attempted to point out that the line came from a case justifying the imprisonment of socialists for their political viewpoints, Goldman cut me off and โreclaimed his time.โ
Other Democrats have used the line as a mantra, despite its origins in one of our most abusive anti-free speech periods during which the government targeted political dissidents on the left.
Dean Bobo is now the latest academic to embrace the theater rationale to justify the silencing of dissent. At Harvard, he is suggesting that the entire university is now a crowded theater and criticizing the university leadership is a cry of โFire.โ It is that easy.
By punishing criticism of the schoolโs leadership and policies, Bobo believes that they can look โforward to calmer timesโ on campus. It is precisely the type of artificial silence that academics have been enforcing against conservatives, libertarians, and dissenters for years. It is the approach that reduced our schools to an academic echo chamber.
The reference to Professor Steven Pinker is particularly ironic. As we have previously discussed, Pinker was targeted for exercising free speech. In past controversies, most Harvard faculty members have been conspicuously silent as colleagues were targeted by cancel campaigns. It was the same at other universities.
As faculties effectively purged their ranks of conservative or Republican members, the silence was deafening. Others either supported such campaigns or justified them. Notably, over 75 percent of the Harvard faculty identify as โliberalโ or โvery liberal.โ
Then the Gaza protests began and some of these same faculty found themselves the targets of mobs. Suddenly, free speech became an urgent matter to address. Fortunately for these liberal professors, the free speech community is used to opportunistic allies. Where โfair weather friendsโ are often ridiculed, free speech relies on โfoul-weather friends,โ those who suddenly see the need to protect a diversity of opinions when they feel threatened.
Boboโs arguments are consistent with years of rationales for silencing or investigating dissenting faculty for years. It violates the very foundation for academia in free speech and academic freedom. The university is free to punish students or faculty for unlawful conduct. However, when it comes to their viewpoints, there should be a bright line of protection.
Of course, this criticism is likely to trigger another common fallacy used to rationalize speech controls: as a private university Harvard is not subject to the First Amendment and thus this is not a true free speech issue.
As discussed previously, free speech values go beyond the First Amendment whether it is a controversy on social media or campuses. For years, anti-free-speech figures have dismissed free speech objections to social media or academic censorship by stressing that the First Amendment applies only to the government, not private companies or institutions. The distinction was always a dishonest effort to evade the implications of speech controls, whether implemented by the government or corporations.
The First Amendment was never the exclusive definition of free speech. Free speech is viewed by many of us as a human right; the First Amendment only deals with one source for limiting it. Free speech can be undermined by private corporations as well as government agencies. This threat is even greater when politicians openly use corporations and universities to achieve indirectly what they cannot achieve directly.
Dean Boboโs desire for โcalmer timesโ would come at too high a price for free speech as well as Harvard.
In Charles Dickensโย Oliver Twist, a court informs the irascible character of Mr. Bumble that it assumes a level of control of his wifeโs conduct. Mr. Bumble responds that โif the law supposes that, the law is a ass โ a idiot.โ The scene came to mind with a decision yesterday when the Wisconsin Supreme Court voted 4-3 inย Sojenhomer v. Village of Egg Harborย that a sidewalk is not a โpedestrian way.โ Lawyers in Wisconsin are already sending around Bumble-like harrumphs to the decision, which is a testament to the ability of judges to ignore plain meaning to achieve desired results.
Where the Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland asked, โwhy is a ravenย like aย writing-desk?โ the Wisconsin Supreme Court asked why a sidewalk is not like a pedestrian way. The result is equally maddening.
At issue was the effort of the state to create more sidewalks. Faced with resistance from homeowners, the state was using eminent domain to simply condemn the land and claim it for sidewalks. However, Wisconsin has strong protections for homeowners, including statutes expressly stating that the power of eminent domain must be โstrictly construedโ against the government.
Moreover, there is a statute that expressly bars the use of eminent domain to take property for โpedestrian way[s].โ It defines a โpedestrian wayโ as โa walk designated for the use of pedestrian travel.โ
To every Bumble and non-Bumble alike, that would seem to describe a sidewalk, which is defined by Merriam-Webster as โa usually paved walk for pedestrians at the side of a street.โ
Reading the text of this section as a whole, we find several indications that the definition of pedestrian way does not include sidewalks. For starters, both ยง 346.02(8)(a) and (b) use the terms โsidewalkโ and โpedestrian wayโ in ways that signify that each term has a separate, non-overlapping meaning. โฆ Section 346.02(8)(b) states that pedestrian ways shall be treated โas ifโ they were sidewalks for utility installation and assessment purposes. The phrase โas ifโ signals that one category (pedestrian ways) should receive the same treatment as a different category (sidewalks). That is the same way the legislature used โas ifโ in, for example, Wis. Stat. ยง 53.03, which states that Wisconsin courts โmay treat a foreign country as if it were a stateโ in guardianship proceedings. Just as foreign countries are not states but should be treated as if they were for guardianship purposes, pedestrian ways are not sidewalks, but should be treated as if they were for utility-installation and assessment purposes.
The analogy is a poor one, in my view. The treatment of a foreign state like a domestic state captures the fact that both are governing units with similar inherent functions and powers. That is a far cry from saying a โpedestrian wayโ is NOT a โsidewalk.โ
Justice Dallet then adds:
The language of ยง 346.02(8)(a) also suggests that sidewalks are not pedestrian ways. That paragraph makes the rules of the road pertaining to sidewalks also applicable to pedestrian ways. But if sidewalks are pedestrian ways, then the rules of the road applicable to sidewalks would already apply to pedestrian ways. The point here, to be clear, is not that reading the term โpedestrian wayโ to include sidewalks would result in surplusageโฆ.
However, that may indicate that โpedestrian waysโ are a broader category than just sidewalks. It does not suggest that sidewalks are not pedestrian ways.
That seems to be the point of the dissent by Chief Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler:
The plain language of the statute demonstrates that the term โpedestrian wayโ is broadly defined, and includes sidewalks. A sidewalkโโthat portion of the highway created for the travel of persons on footโโis clearly a subset of pedestrian waysโโwalks set apart or assigned for the use of pedestrian travel. It is a straightforward, common-sense interpretation of the statutory language that a โwalk designated for the use of pedestrian travelโ necessarily includes that part of the highway โconstructed for the use of pedestriansโฆโ
[I]n other words, a closer look at the plain meaning of the statutes reveals that all sidewalks are pedestrian ways, but that not all pedestrian ways are sidewalksโฆ.
What is particularly galling about the decision of the majority is that they avoid the required strict construction of the law against the government as inapplicable by simply declaring that there is no ambiguity in the language of the statutes, a preposterous claim that requires a level of willful judicial blindness.
The creative effort to ignore the obvious is reminiscent of the fictional Canadian case where a horse was declared a bird. Though sometimes cited as a real case, it appears to be an opinion written to show how legal interpretations can take on absurd dimensions to result in desired ends.
In Regina v. Ojibway (8 Criminal Law Quarterly 137 (1965-66)), a Canadian indigenous tribe member puts down a suffering horse but is then charged under a criminal provision for shooting a bird under the Small Birds Act (R.S.O.). Blue, J., delivers the opinion for the court, granting the appeal, saying:
For the purpose of theย Small Birds Act, all two-legged, feather-covered animals are birds. This, of course, does not imply that only two-legged animals qualify, for the legislative intent is to make two legs merely the minimum requirement. The statute therefore contemplated multi-legged animals with feathers as well.
Counsel submits that having regard to the purpose of the statute only small animals โnaturally coveredโ with feathers could have been contemplated. However, had this been the intention of the legislature, I am certain that the phrase โnaturally coveredโ would have been expressly inserted just as โLongโ was inserted in the Longshoremanโs Act.
Therefore, a horse with feathers on its back must be deemed for the purpose of this Act to be a bird, a fortiori, a pony with feathers on its back is a small bird.
In Wisconsin, it appears that the Supreme Court would have simply said that the pony, since a pony can be treated โas ifโ it is a horse, it is not a horse.
A.F. Branco Cartoon โ Democrats are censoring, arresting, election interfering, opening borders, and gaslighting, all to destroy our Democratic, representative constitutional republic in an effort to hang on to power while shouting they are saving democracy.
Newest Insanity From CNN โ Itโs a Conspiracy Theory to Say That America is a Republic and Not a Democracy (VIDEO)
By Mike LaChance โ June 14, 2024
The United States of America is a constitutional republic, but donโt say that to anyone at CNN or they might label you a conspiracy theorist. The far left network recently did an entire segment about the fact that Trump supporters and other people on the right insist (correctly) that we are not a democracy. The left has repeated their canned line about โour democracyโ so many times that CNN is now trying to rewrite history to suit the Democrat party. READ MOREโฆ
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 โThe Washington Post.โ He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh DโSouza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump. READ MOREโฆ
President Joe Biden announced an executive order (EO) Tuesday that awards amnesty to illegal immigrants married to U.S. citizens. And while he dubbed his overreach as keeping โfamilies together,โ it is nothing more than another step in Democratsโ plan to expand their future electorate.
The EO makes it easier for illegal immigrants who married U.S. citizens โ and their children โ to apply for lawful permanent residence status without leaving the country, and after that, U.S. citizenship. An approximate 500,000 illegal immigrants who married a U.S. citizen will benefit from this order along with 50,000 children, according to the White House.
Without providing any explanation as to how, Biden claims this will โstrengthenโ the U.S. economy. Notably, recent data from theย Bureau of Labor Statisticsย (BLS) shows foreign-born workers gained 637,000 jobs year-over-year while native-born workers lost roughly 299,000. The BLS acknowledges foreign-born workers likely include illegal immigrants. As economist E.J. Antoni recentlyย explainedย to The Federalist, the drain illegal migrants place on the economy offsets their production value.
By federal law, โnon-citizens, including permanent legal residents,โ are not allowed to โvote in federal, state, and most local elections,โ according toย USA.gov. But lawful permanent residents are โeligible to become a U.S. citizen after five years of becoming a lawful permanent resident, or three years if you are married to a U.S. citizen,โย accordingย to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Unless there are specific carveouts in Bidenโs executive order prohibiting individuals who came into this country illegally before receiving amnesty from registering to vote, then Biden just gifted Democrats with hundreds of thousands of potential future voters.
Former President Donald Trumpย warnedย that under Bidenโs election-year order, โa deluge of illegals will be given immediate green cards and put on the fast track to rapid citizenship so they can vote.โ
โCouple this with [Bidenโs] previous voter registration EO and it is clear that Biden is attempting to win the upcoming election, not by winning over legitimate American voters, but by attempting to legitimize illegal immigrants,โ said Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen. โHe wonโt stop with this EO. He will keep attempting to dilute the power of the vote of legal Americans.โ
Of course, Biden and Democrats, as my colleague Shawn Fleetwood explained, โwant Americans to believe they arenโt interested in handing out U.S. citizenship and voting rights to foreign nationals like itโs candy on Halloween.โ Yet their actions, including this EO, suggest otherwise.
In fact, Bidenโs EO sends the same message that a trio of Democratic witnesses sent during a Senate Judiciary Hearing in March.ย Not a single Democrat witnessย could resolutely say they believe only citizens should be able to vote in a federal election. And itโs the same message being sent by Democrats nationwide who oppose legislation to ensure only citizens vote in federal elections. As of right now, anyone registering to vote in federal elections must simply check a box affirming he is a U.S. citizen. Individuals โ legal or not โ can simply lie on their registration forms. In other words, our elections hinge on the honor system. Itโs a loophole Republicans are working to close via the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which would amend current law to require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote.
Democrats haveย insistedย the SAVE Act is unreasonable and unnecessary since, according to federal law, itโs illegal to vote in an election if youโre not a U.S. citizen. Itโs also illegal to bum-rush border agents and break into the country.
Only one state, Arizona, requires voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote in state elections. As a result of the federal governmentโs attempt to weaken Arizonaโs proof-of-citizenship law, individuals who cannot prove their citizenship can register as federal-only voters.
During the 2020 election in Arizona, 11,600 voters voted using a federal-only ballot, according to AZ Free News. Biden won that state by 10,457 votes.
Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist.
Bogusย Russian dossier peddlerย and Democrat Party problem fixer Marc Elias has again injected himself into a key election integrity case to โdefend the broken status quo.โย Swing-state Nevadaโsย dirty voter rollsย include hundreds of suspect addresses, at bars, strip clubs, empty parking lots, and other commercial addresses, according to anย investigationย by theย Public Interest Legal Foundation.ย Doing so is clearly against the law.ย
โIn Nevada, by the state law, you are required to be registered where you actually live, where you sleep. Not where you work, not at a P.O. Box. So weโre trying to get elections officials to enforce the law,โ Lauren Bis, PILFโs director of communication and engagement, says in a video tracking bad addresses in the Las Vegas area.
To that end, the foundation has filed a petition in Washoe County, Nevadaโs second-most populous county, to force elections officials to investigate and fix commercial addresses on the voter roll. PILF investigators found addresses on the rolls reported as liquor stores, empty lots, and even the Nevada Gaming Control Board, among others.
Baseless Attacks?
Elias Law Group and a band of leftists have sought to intervene in PILFโs petition for a writ of mandamus, arguing that forcing Washoe election administrators to follow the law and clean up the countyโs dirty voter rolls will โthreatenโ voting rights.
The would-be intervenors claim that their members and constituents would be forced to โexpend substantial resources to educate voters and protect them from baseless attacks on their eligibility.โย
Baseless attacks?
As The Federalist recently reported, Bis was greeted with a lot of quizzical looks from employees at the casinos, fast-food restaurants, retailers, post offices, funeral homes, strip clubs, tattoo parlors, and jails where registered voters โ at least according to Nevadaโs dirty voter rolls โ โresided.โ What PILF found was equal parts sad and hilarious, foundation President J. Christian Adams told me on โThe Federalist Radio Hour.โ
The election integrity public interest law firm tracked data from the Nevada secretary of stateโs office, which in the 2022 midterm elections reported 95,556 ballots sent to undeliverable, or โbad,โ addresses. PILF investigators documented commercial addresses purported to be the residences of registered voters, confirming on video that the individuals did not live where they reported residing.ย
โWeโve been to all of the locations. Itโs not some data exercise we see sitting at a computer in Chicago. Weโve actually got boots on the ground looking for the voters, and they donโt exist,โ Adams said.
โDisastrous Elections Systemโ
Making matters worse, Nevada automatically mails a ballot to every active registrant on the voter rolls.
โIโm looking for Ronald or William Phelps,โ Bis says in the video to a bartender wearing a โTacos por favorโ T-shirt at a local watering hole on North Nellis Boulevard in Vegas.ย โI donโt know who that is,โ the barkeep replies.ย
โSo, they donโt live here?โ Bis asks.ย โUh, at the bar? No,โ the bartender says, chuckling. Sheโs clearly amused by the question.ย
Itโs almost as amusing as Elias and friendsโ apparent efforts to stop election officials from following the law under the absurd premise of voter rights. Their court filing offers a dire warning about what will happen if Washoe County is required to do what PILF has done: Washoe Countyโs job.
โIf the Court grants such relief, Respondent Burgess โ and other clerks and registrars acrossย the state โ will be flooded with third-party demands to investigate all manner of alleged peculiarities in the voter rolls, based on unsourced, unverified, and unsworn information,โ the court filing admonishes. โPetitioners are not the only ones making such demands. Nevada is in the midst of a storm of baseless efforts by third parties to force election officials to undertake a rushed purge of registered voters before the November election.โ
Adams called Eliasโ latest lawfare stunt a โcry wolf exercise.โ
โHe does this all over the country. He spools up these progressive astroturf organizations and they file a legal brief, which they have done in our case, which we have to respond to, that says, โOh, if you listen to these evil conservatives, there will be eligible people improperly removed from the rolls.โ Nonsense,โ said Adams, who formerly served in the Voting Section at the U.S. Department of Justice and was appointed to President Trumpโs Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.
โMarc Elias is in the business of defending the riches of a disastrous elections system with universal vote-by-mail that are sending ballots automatically to thousands of bogus addresses,โ Adams added.
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.
Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, head of Lebanon’s Hezbollah, on Wednesday warned that his group will fight with “no rules” and “no ceilings” if a broader war with Israel erupted, and that nowhere in Israel would be safe from Hezbollah’s attacks.
In a televised address, Nasrallah said that included possible targets in the Mediterranean Sea. Nasrallah also threatened Cyprus for the first time, saying Hezbollah could consider it “a part of the war” if it continued to allow Israel to use its airports and bases for military exercises.
The White House reportedly canceled a meeting with Israel after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed the U.S. was withholding military aid in a video message. The meeting was scheduled for Thursday to discuss Iran, but top advisers to President Joe Biden were enraged by the video,ย Axios reported, citing U.S. officials.
“This decision makes it clear that there are consequences for pulling such stunts,” a U.S. official told Axios.
Netanyahu said in the video it was “inconceivable that, in the past few months, the administration has been withholding weapons and ammunitions to Israel.”
President Joe Biden has delayed delivering certain heavy bombs since May over concerns about Israel’s killing of civilians in Gaza. Yet the administration has gone to lengths to avoid any suggestion that Israeli forces have crossed a red line in the deepening Rafah invasion, which would trigger a more sweeping ban on arms transfers.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said they have provided Israel with billions of dollars in weapons and had only paused one weapons shipment.
“We genuinely do not know what he is talking about,” she said.
Netanyahu also claimed Secretary of State Antony Blinken, in a recent visit to Israel, said he was working around the clock to end the delays. However, Blinken said Tuesday the only pause was related to those heavy bombs from May.
“We, as you know, are continuing to review one shipment that President Biden has talked about with regard to 2,000-pound bombs because of our concerns about their use in a densely populated area like Rafah,” Blinken said during a State Department news conference. “That remains under review. “But everything else is moving as it normally would.”
U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein told Netanyahu in person that his accusations were inaccurate and out of line, Israeli officials told Axios. National security adviser Jake Sullivan will still be meeting with his Israeli counterpart, Tzachi Hanegbi. Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant will also be visiting early next week, officials told Axios.
In March, Netanyahu canceled a meeting with U.S. officials after they declined to veto a UN Security Council resolution that mentioned a cease-fire in Gaza.
Information from the Associated Press was used in this report.
Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landryโseen here March 18 outside the Supreme Court speaking with reporters after justices heard oral arguments in a First Amendment caseโon Wednesday signed an expansive Educational Savings Accounts bill into law. (Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post/Getty Images)
Education freedom is on the march.
Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry on Wednesday signed legislation making the Pelican State the 16th state in the nation to enact K-12 Education Savings Accounts and the 11th to offer education choice to every K-12 student, following Alabama earlier this year.
The legislation creates the Louisiana Giving All True Opportunity to RiseโLA GATORโScholarships, which families can use to choose the learning environments that align with their values and work best for their kids. As with other ESA policies, parents can use the LA GATOR Scholarships to pay for private school tuition, textbooks, curricular materials, special-needs therapy, and more.
โThe LA Gator Program puts parents in the driverโs seat and gives every child the opportunity for a great education. When parents are committed to the value of their childโs education, government should never get in the way,โ said Landry, a Republican. โSchool choice is now a reality in the state of Louisiana!โ
Most students will be eligible for scholarships worth about $5,200 annually, which is just over a third of theย average per-pupil spendingย at Louisiana district schools. Students with special needs and children from low-income families can receive higher scholarship amounts.
The scholarships will initially be limited to students who are switching from a district or charter school, are entering kindergarten, or who are from families earning no more than 250% of the federal poverty level. In the second year, families earning up to 400% of the federal poverty line will be eligible, and in the third year, the scholarships will be open to all K-12 students in Louisiana.
More than a quarter of K-12 students nationwide are currently or soon will be eligible for a publicly funded education choice policy. Including privately funded tax-credit scholarship policies, more than 36% of students nationwide are eligible for a private education choice policy.
The new scholarship policy is an example of how the school choice movement has moved in a more free-market and family-centric direction. Instead of relying on bureaucrats to provide top-down accountability, the new policy trusts parents to provide bottom-up accountability.
The LA GATOR Scholarships will replace the stateโs overregulated school voucher program, which produced the nationโs first negative results in a random-assignment study on the effects of a school choice policy on participating studentsโ academic performance.
โEqualitarianโ regulations intended to guarantee access and qualityโsuch as open admissions requirements, price controls, and mandating the state testโbackfired by chasing away high-performing private schools.
Fortunately, Louisiana lawmakers have learned from their stateโsย own mistakes, as well as the success of states such as Arizona and Florida, which have shown that a free-market approach to education does a better job of providing a high degree of access and quality. The new scholarship policy eschews the harmful regulations of its predecessor.
Louisianaโs embrace of universal school choice also shows the success of efforts by conservatives to channel parentsโ frustrations over โwokeโ ideology in traditional public schools into public support for policies that empower parents to choose schools that align with their values.
โOur people seek government that reflects their values,โ said Landry during his Jan. 8 inauguration. โThey demand that our children be afforded an education that reflects those wholesome principles, and not an indoctrination behind their motherโs back.โ
Louisiana Governor JEFF LANDRY: "Our people seek government that reflects their values. They demand that our children be afforded an education that reflects those wholesome principles, and not an indoctrination behind their motherโs back." pic.twitter.com/x1WiJdEdSQ
— Corey A. DeAngelis, school choice evangelist (@DeAngelisCorey) January 10, 2024
The same week that the Louisiana Legislature gave the green light to the LA GATOR Scholarships, it also approvedย legislationย curbing the ability of โwokeโ teachers to indoctrinate students in radical gender ideology behind parentsโ backs.
Similar toย Given Name Actย policies inย other states, Louisianaโsย HB 121ย would prohibit public school employees, including teachers, from referring to children by pronouns that are inconsistent with their sex, or any name other than the studentโs legal name or common derivatives thereof.
Too often, school officials have begun the process of โsocially transitioningโ confused children all while keeping their parents in the dark. Going forward, Louisiana schools will no longer be able to subvert and supersede parents by making decisions concerning their childrenโs physical, mental, and emotional well-being without their knowledge and consent.
Another bill,ย HB 122, restricts discussion in government-run schools about sexual orientation and gender identity โin a manner that deviates from state content standards or curricula developed or approved by public school governing authorities.โ
The bill properly recognizes that public school teachers are not free agents, but rather public employees hired by the public to perform a particular job. Parents and the public at large expect teachers to carry out the job they were hired to do without exploiting their position to indoctrinate a captive audience of children in a radical ideology.
Louisianaโs school choice win is also evidence that advocatesโ short-term hyperpartisan strategy will pay bipartisan dividends in the long term. If Republicans gain an electoral advantage over Democrats by embracing school choice, eventually the Democrats will have to embrace school choice, too. Weโre already seeing the signs in places like Louisiana.
When the Louisiana House of Representatives on April 8ย passedย the bill to create the LA GATOR Scholarships, the vote was 71-32, including six Democrats. That might not sound like a lot, but thatโs one-fifth of the Democratic caucus. Moreover, whereas bipartisan efforts to advance school choice legislation typically involve bills to create small, targeted, and overregulated policies like the one the LA GATOR Scholarships are replacing, these Democrats voted for a Republican-led effort to enact education choice for all.
Louisiana Democrat Rep. Jason Hughes ON FIRE:
"As I watch children in poverty, trapped in failing schools, who can hardly read, I'd be damned if I will continue to defend the status quo."
— Corey A. DeAngelis, school choice evangelist (@DeAngelisCorey) April 8, 2024
Thereโs still a long way to go. After all, most of the Louisiana House Democrats and all the state Senate Democrats voted against school choice. But as education choice policies become the norm and not just the exception, it will be increasingly difficult for members of any political party to stand in their way.
There is a controversy in Oregon over a proposed change in the ethics rule from the Oregon Medical Board. At issue is the use of โmicroaggressionsโ to discipline doctors and to make reporting such transgressions mandatory for all doctors. It seems before you can give stitches, you have to join snitches under one of the most ambiguous categories of prescribed speech.
I have been a critic of microaggression rules on college campuses and discuss this trend in my book out this week, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage. In past debates over this category of offensive speech, I have objected that it is hopelessly vague and highly controversial.
:ย a comment or action that subtly and often unconsciously or unintentionally expresses a prejudiced attitude toward a member of a marginalized group (such as a racial minority)
A digital photo project run by a Fordham University student about “racial microaggressions” features minority students holding up signs with comments like “You’re really pretty โฆ for a dark-skin girl.”โJinnie Spiegler
There is a real and worthy conversation taking place in this country now, particularly among young people, around the idea of microaggressionsโslight, often unintended discriminatory comments or behaviors.โCharles M. Blow
also: behavior or speech that is characterized by such comments or actions
โฆ argues that the power of microaggression lies in its invisibility to the perpetrator, who typically finds it difficult to believe that he or she possesses biased attitudes.โEmily Skop
That ambiguity creates a threat to free speech through a chilling effect on speakers who are unsure of what will be considered microaggressive. Terms ranging from โmelting potโ to phrases like โpulling oneself up by your own bootstrapsโ have been declared racist. Some of those have been identified by Columbia professor Derald Wing Sue, cited by Oregonโs state government as a โmicroaggressions expert.โ
Professor Sue considers statements like โEveryone can succeed if they just work hard enough!โ as an example of a microaggression. Sueโs work on โmicroassaults,โ โmicroinsults,โ and โmicroinvalidationsโ are being effectively adopted by the Board.
Notably, when I have objected to this category, advocates have insisted that they are merely voluntary and instructive, not mandatory. I have long argued that they are used in a mandatory fashion by triggering investigations of professors and would inevitably be made mandatory.
That appears to be happening in Oregon. A couple of conservative sites have covered the controversy.
Under the new ethics rule from the Oregon Medical Board, โunprofessional conductโ (over which a doctor can lose his or her license) will include microaggressions:
โIn the practice of medicine, podiatry, or acupuncture, discrimination through unfair treatment characterized by implicit and explicit bias, including microaggressions, or indirect or subtle behaviors that reflect negative attitudes or beliefs about a non-majority group.โ
The new section โJโ ranks microaggressions with fraud, sexual assault, and ordering unnecessary or harmful surgeries.
Oregon Medical Board states that
โThe proposed rule amendments update the definition of โunprofessional conductโ to include discrimination in the practice of medicine, podiatry, and acupuncture, which would make discrimination a ground for discipline. The proposed rule may favorably impact racial equity by making discrimination a ground for discipline for OMB licensees. It is not known how the other proposed rule amendments will impact racial equity in the state.โ
The incorporation of microaggressions under the new ethic rules is precisely what some of us have been warning about for years. As is often the case, activists begin by insisting that language monitoring is purely instructional and optional before codifying those rules in mandatory terms.
We have seen the same trajectory in other areas like land acknowledgments where the line between the optimal and the mandatory is hard to discern. As discussed in my book:
โWhat began as voluntary statements have become either expressly or implicitly mandatoryโฆGeorge Brown College in Toronto requires faculty and students alike to agree to a land acknowledgment statement to even gain access to virtual classrooms. While such statements are portrayed as optional, they are often enforced as compulsory. The University of Washington encouraged faculty to add a prewritten โIndigenous land acknowledgmentโ statement to their syllabi. The recommended statement states that โThe University of Washington acknowledges the Coast Salish peoples of this land, the land which touches the shared waters of all tribes and bands within the Suquamish, Tulalip and Muckleshoot nations.โ
Computer science professor Stuart Reges decided to write his own statement. He declaredโฆโI acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.โ โฆ He was told that, while the university statement is optional, his statement was unacceptable because it questioned the indigenous land claim of the Coast Salish people. Regesโs dissenting statement was removed, and the university emailed his students offering an apology for their professorโs โoffensiveโ opinion and advising them on โthree ways students could file complaints againstโ him.โ
Federal courts have ruled in favor of academics in disputes over microaggression rules, but the movement is expanding beyond campuses, as shown in Oregon.
I have no objection to the sharing of views of others on how certain phrases are received. I have dropped certain terms or phrases even though I did not see why a term or phrase is insulting. When others have a reasoned basis for objecting to language, I err on the side of caution to avoid making others uncomfortable. Yet, this category of speech was created to encompass a broad, ill-defined range of speech that falls below outright discriminatory or harassing language. That makes for a dangerously vague standard for a mandatory reporting rule.
The free speech concern is how such microaggressive terms can be used to curtail or punish speech, including supporting complaints for formal investigations. Disciplinary actions often seem based on how language is received rather than intended. Schools need to be clear as to whether microaggressive language can be the basis for bias complaints and actions.
Consider again the language from the Oregon Medical Board. It would encompass any โindirect or subtle behaviors that reflect negative attitudes or beliefs about a non-majority group.โ The standard is heavily laden with subjectivity. (Notably, it does not include making such comments about any majority group, presumably whites or males).
The board then amplifies the standard by making it mandatory for other doctors to report colleagues. Under the proposed ruled,
โa licensee must report within 10 business days to the Board any information that appears to show that a licensee is or may be medically incompetent or is or may be guilty of unprofessional or dishonorable conduct or is or may be a licensee with a physical incapacity.โ
So, doctors will have to police any โindirect or subtle behaviorsโ that โreflect negative attitudes or beliefsโ . . . or face discipline themselves.
The Hippocratic oath is based on the pledge that doctors will โfirst do no harm.โ Unfortunately, that pledge does not appear to apply to free speech in Oregon. Rather than merely publish opinions on phrases or practices that can be seen as microaggressive, the Oregon Medical Board is about to impose an ambiguous speech regulation that is likely viewed by some doctors as turning them into social-warrior snitches.
The Oregon Medical Board should remove the microaggressive provision. Sometimes the best treatment is the least intrusive.
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Opinion
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
You Version
Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more
Political
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Spiritual
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Bible Gateway
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online โ all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.