Students hold flags as they protest against Texas’ Katy Independent School District’s transgender policy outside the school district’s Educational Support Complex on Aug. 30, 2023, in Katy, Texas. (Photo: Brett Coomer/ Houston Chronicle/Hearst Newspapers via Getty Images)
Jennifer Nuelle is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation.
A federal judge in Louisiana has temporarily blocked four more states from expanding the Biden administration’s new Title IX policy to protect LGBTQ+ students. The Biden administration’s new Title IX policy outlined federal protections for LGBTQ+ students and victims of sexual assault while expanding the definition of sexual harassment for schools and universities.
The new Title IX provisions collide with Louisiana’s Women’s Safety and Protection Act, which requires individuals to use the bathroom based on their sex, prohibiting transgender people from using bathrooms and other close-quartered facilities corresponding with their gender identity, according to the court documents.
Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty, the first judge to block the new Title IX rule, referred to it as an “abuse of power” and “a threat to democracy,” according to the court documents. The three supporting states are Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho, all of which joined in on the lawsuit, overstepping the Education Department’s authority.
Doughty sided with Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill’s lawsuit, State of Louisiana et al v. U.S. Department of Education et al. The suit states that the original Title IX statute uses the language of “both sexes” or “one sex,” implying that it was referring to strictly biological men and women.
“This a victory for women and girls. When [President] Joe Biden forced his illegal and radical gender ideology on America, Louisiana said NO! Along with Idaho, Mississippi, and Montana, states are fighting back in defense of the law, the safety and prosperity of women and girls, and basic American values,” Murrill said in a statement.
🚨TITLE IX INJUNCTION: This a victory for women and girls. When @JoeBiden forced his illegal & radical gender ideology on America, Louisiana said NO! Along with Idaho, Mississippi, & Montana, states are fighting back in defense of the law, the safety and prosperity of women &… pic.twitter.com/65C8YGFkfx
— Attorney General Liz Murrill (@AGLizMurrill) June 13, 2024
The new rule wipes the changes former Trump administration Education Secretary Betsy DeVos made, including undoing specific sexual assault policies at U.S. colleges and universities. DeVos shared her opinions on social media, stating the new rule is a “regulation no one needed and very few wanted.”
“This regulation is an assault on women and girls. It makes it a federal requirement that men be allowed to play women’s sports, putting their safety, privacy and competitive opportunity at risk. And it makes it a federal requirement that feelings, not facts, dictate how Title IX is enforced,” DeVos said in a thread on X.
In April, the Biden administrationplanned to implement a new policy preventing schools from creating a ban on transgender athletes. This rule has been delayed, and instead, the administration shifted its focus on undoing the sexual assault rules put in place by the Trump administration, according to multiple reports.
On Monday, Bush-appointed Texas Federal Judge Reed O’Connor blocked the administration’s attempt to change Title IX to include “gender identity.” Leaders in several other red states are taking a stand, claiming that the Education Department is illegally expanding the definition of the word “sex.” In 2022, the Eastern District of Tennessee blocked Biden’s initial push to rewrite Title IX and include gender identity and sexual orientation.
The Department of Education didn’t immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
Below is my column in The Hill on the renewed attacks on Justice Samuel Alito after a liberal activist secretly taped a dinner conversation with him and his wife. The feigned outrage of pundits and politicians is absurdly unconnected to anything even remotely surprising or unethical in the comments.
Here is the column:
In a world of moral relativism, Lauren Windsor may reign supreme. The Democratic activist recently lied to justices in order to record answers at a dinner.
In an interview with CNN, the filmmaker (who has been lionized by many in the media for her dishonesty) cheerfully explained that she lies to “elicit truths that serve the greater public good.” The “greater good” is to contribute to a campaign of harassment and attacks on Supreme Court justices by academics, the media and Democratic members. The chief target of these efforts lately has been the author of the decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, Justice Samuel Alito.
For years, the left has maintained a well-funded, unrelenting campaign against the court and its conservative majority. This has included an effort by such figures as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) to pack the court immediately with a liberal majority. Warren declared that the court must be packed because it is daring to oppose “widely held public opinion.”
The statement, of course, ignores that the court was designed to resist public pressure (and even members of Congress) in order to protect the constitutional rights and liberties of minority groups.
Unsurprisingly, the usual suspects have assembled again to call for resignations and impeachments after Windsor’s surreptitious taping of both Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts. That includes Warren, who declared that “Alito is an extremist who is out of touch with mainstream America. His rising power on the Supreme Court is a threat to our democracy.”
It did not matter that what Windsor captured on her secret recording was neither surprising nor unethical. Pretending to be a religious conservative at a dinner of the Supreme Court Historical Society, Windsor successfully induced the deeply religious Alito to say . . . wait for it . . . that he believes the country should return to a place of “godliness.”
It was an otherworldly moment as this notoriously anti-conservative activist asked an unsuspecting Alito why the nation was so filled with rage. In the recording, Alito laments the divisions in the country, stating, “I wish I knew. I don’t know. It’s easy to blame the media, but I do blame them because they do nothing but criticize us. And so, they have really eroded trust in the court…American citizens in general need to work on this to heal this polarization because it’s very dangerous.”
When pushed on what the court can do, Alito again answered honestly: “I don’t think it’s something we can do. We have a very defined role, and we need to do what we’re supposed to do. But this is a bigger problem. This is way above us.”
There is nothing even slightly controversial there. But the quote being repeated, often in isolation, was when Alito acknowledged that, while “there can be a way of working, a way of living together peacefully…it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised. So, it’s not like you are going to split the difference.”
Warren and others already prove that very point on the left, as do many on the right. Again, this is not at all controversial. We are divided because people hold irreconcilable beliefs on which they are unwilling to compromise. Imagine the reaction of liberals if Justice Sonia Sotomayor suddenly “compromised” on abortion rights.
But pundits and politicians have since lined up, feigning vapors at the thought of a justice saying privately that he believed in “godliness” and had little hope of “compromise” on many issues.
Warren seemed beside herself with shock, acting as if Alito’s bland, obvious observation were some clear sign of political bias: “I am most concerned about the appearance that Justice Alito has prejudged cases that will come before him. That is one of the biggest sins that a judge or justice can commit.” Bear in mind, these are the words of a senator seeking to pack the court with an ideological majority to give predictable rulings on major cases.
Likewise, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) declared the tape to be proof that Alito is “a movement activist,” while Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D.-Conn.) denounced Alito’s “outrageous” behavior. Of course, the lying democratic activist was not outrageous, but the justice was outrageous in sharing his observation in a private conversation that the nation is irreconcilably divided on major issues.
Warren, Whitehouse, Blumenthal and many of the same pundits were strangely silent when liberal justices such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg engaged in actual partisanship, as when she openly opposed the election of Donald Trump and discussed cases and controversies that might come before her. There was no demand for a resignation when Justice Sonia Sotomayor called upon students to politically oppose pro-life laws after acknowledging, “they tell me I shouldn’t.” There were no vapors at the thought of justices expressing their political sentiments from the left.
Media even cleaned up interviews for liberal justices. Katie Couric famously deleted disparaging comments made by Ginsburg about players kneeling during the National Anthem at NFL games, even though that matter could have ended up before the Supreme Court.
What is most galling is the pile-on over not just this manufactured controversy, but the earlier controversy over flags. Years ago, one of the best reporters at the Washington Post investigated a report that the Alitos had flown an upside-down American flag, to see if it was a political statement associated with Trump. Robert Barnes interviewed neighbors and concluded that it was not Justice Alito but his wife Martha-Ann who had hoisted the flag. Mrs. Alito, he learned, was responding to an ongoing spat with a neighbor.
Barnes and the Post responsibly decided not to run the story. That type of journalistic restraint is now anathema in our age of rage, with reporters denouncing the Post for failing to run a “blockbuster” story.
This was then amplified when the public was told that Mrs. Alito had also hoisted at one of their properties the Revolutionary War-era “Appeal to Heaven” flag, which has enjoyed something of a revival since it featured in the introductory sequence of the acclaimed 2008 miniseries on the career of President John Adams.
It is not clear how that story was a “blockbuster” — that a justice has a wife with a flag fetish, which includes flying the historic Pine Tree Flag. (Tellingly and amusingly, after the left added that flag to its list of Alito’s transgressions, Democratic politicians suddenly had to scramble to remove it from their own buildings to clear the way for the outrage.)
Of course, Windsor also targeted Mrs. Alito in her secret recordings at the dinner. The media again pounced on a line where she complained of “feminazi” critics and added, “Don’t get angry. Get even!”
That statement followed her suggestion that they may sue for defamation, and that “there’s a five-year defamation statute of limitations.” She also added that her husband had tried to keep her from flying her flags and getting into neighborhood spats, but that “he never controls me.” Indeed, she said he had prevailed on her not to fly a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag, but that she was not giving up the ghost even on that flag.
Windsor generously allowed that a Supreme Court spouse “certainly” has a right to speak, before adding that expected “but!” Such liberty, she asserted, may not apply to Mrs. Alito “when your spouse is one of the most powerful men in the country, you know, with his fingers on the scale, literally, of justice. I mean, are we going to say that we are going to do away with impartiality, the bedrock principle of our democracy, of our jurisprudence? Is it okay?”
Well, the answer is yes, Miss Windsor. It is okay.
We do not require justices to divorce outspoken or irascible spouses. We do not punish them for speaking freely in private conversations with bottom-feeding gotcha activists who secretly record them at dinners. Justices are even allowed to have strong opinions about controversial issues in dinner conversations. Strong personal opinions do not on their own constitute conflicts of interest.
None of this will matter, of course. Democrats will continue to chase Alito around the Beltway like a scene out of Lord of the Flies. The absurd demands for meetings with justices and threats of subpoenas will continue to thrill liberal voters. It is all part of the threats made by Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on the steps of the Supreme Court. Schumer threatened the conservative justices, “You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
It is an extension of the pledge by activists to change the court “by any means necessary.” While thankfully denouncing the attempted assassination of Justice Bret Kavanaugh, liberals have proposed “more aggressive” targeting of justices at their homes, bribing conservatives to retire, and literally cutting off the justices’ air conditioning.
As Windsor explained, it is all just for “the greater good.”
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School. He is the author of The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage (Simon & Schuster 2024)
We have previously discussed the view of Michigan Law Professor and MSNBC legal analyst Barbara McQuade on free speech. We have strikingly different views on free speech. McQuade just published “Attack from Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America” and calls free speech our “Achilles heel.” My book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, is out in the coming days with a more robust view of free speech.
Notably, McQuade’s call to limit free speech is justified as needed to combat disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation. Yet, McQuade just went public with a full-throated defense of what the U.S. government now calls a “conspiracy theory.” She maintains that the Hunter Biden laptop should still be discounted or dismissed as Russian disinformation.
In her comments, Professor McQuade joins the Post’s Philip Bump as one of the last dogs in this fight. Most media figures have long accepted the view of the U.S. government that the Hunter Biden laptop is “real” and authenticated.
I have previously disagreed with Professor McQuade on issues such as her belief that former president Donald Trump could be charged with manslaughter over the January 6th riot. Yet, those disagreements represent materially different understandings of the operative legal standards. Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe went even further in arguing that Trump could be charged with attempted murder. Academics can disagree on such matters and free speech allows us to hash out our differences.
However, I was still surprised by the effort to resurrect the Russian disinformation claim. Professor McQuade noted that the agent at the Biden trial could not say with certainty that nothing was changed to the laptop before it was obtained by agents from the computer shop. However, FBI agent Erika Jensen said that there was no evidence tampering.
That space, however, was big enough to drive a conspiracy theory through on X:
Trying again!
This week, FBI Agent Erika Jensen testified at the trial of Hunter Biden about the abandoned laptop that a repair shop owner gave to Robert Costello, attorney for Rudy Giuliani, shortly before the 2020 election. At the time, 50 former senior intelligence officers…
As noted by @emptywheel, however, questions remain about the chain of custody of the laptop, and [FBI] Agent [Erika] Jensen testified that she was unable to say whether the laptop was tampered with before the FBI obtained it.
And, as @AshaRangappa has noted, even if the content was authentic, it still may have been a Russian influence operation, just like the DNC hack-and-leak operation, designed to sow discord. If so, mission accomplished! […] Therefore, it remains unknown whether Russia was involved with the scheme, and it is still correct to say that the laptop has “all of the hallmarks of a Russian intelligence operation.”
Under this theory, any negative stories found in documents or electronic sources can have “the hallmarks of a Russian intelligence operation” in any given election. That same skepticism, of course, did not apply to the Steele dossier, which was secretly funded by the Clinton campaign and found by U.S. intelligence as containing possible Russian disinformation.
It is a variation on proving a negative. McQuade and others appear to be arguing that you must prove that there was no Russian involvement before giving weight to the damaging contents of the laptop.
Of course, there still has been no showing of any fake file or email. To the contrary, the most damaging emails on influence peddling and other potential criminal conduct have been verified. Yet, McQuade is repeating the claim that “even if the content was authentic, it still may have been a Russian influence operation.” There is also the more obvious explanation that Hunter abandoned his laptop at a computer shop and it was given to the FBI.
What is striking is how advocates are now abandoning the claims of false emails and files in favor of an argument that it may be true but still disinformation. This is consistent with the positions of many academics and the Biden Administration. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) maintains this position.
CISA head Jen Easterly declared that her agency’s mandate over critical infrastructure would be extended to include “our cognitive infrastructure.” That includes not just “disinformation” and “misinformation,” but combating “malinformation” – described as information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”
The chain of custody argument continues to be used in Congress despite the federal court and federal agencies recognizing the authenticity of the laptop. The Delaware jury also did not appear persuaded by the claims of Hunter Biden’s defense counsel. It is, in my view, transparently evasive. The issue remains the files on the laptop detailing a massive influence peddling operation and a myriad of criminal acts committed by the President’s son. None of those files have been challenged by evidence of tampering or planting.
Ironically, the continued effort to keep this theory alive seems precisely the type of disinformation that Professor McQuade has cited in justifying limits on free speech.
There are obviously many media and academic figures who are heavily invested in what the government now calls a “conspiracy theory.” I previously discussed how the Bidens have succeeded in a Houdini-like trick in making this elephant of a scandal disappear from the public stage. They did so by enlisting the media in the illusion. Houdini knew the trick would work because the audience wanted the elephant to disappear.
Top Stories • Supreme Court Rejects Challenge From Pro-Life Doctors to Abortion Pill, Babies Will be Killed and Women Injured • Supreme Court Decision Means Women Will be Harmed by Dangerous Abortion Pills • Donald Trump is Looking at Several Pro-Life Advocates as His VP Running Mate • Planned Parenthood Covers Up Evidence That It Traffics Teens to Other States for Secret Abortions
More Pro-Life News • The Abortion Pill Case is Not Over, The Fight to Protect Women Continues • Democrats Try to Shut Down Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers • Our Laws Should Protect Pregnant Women and Unborn Children From Abortions • Abortionists Care More About Selling Abortions Than Women • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
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.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Democrats and their media claim Trump will do to them what they are doing to him through their lawfare and abuse of the legal system. Those who broke the law and stepped out of the constitutional guidelines may have to worry.
NBC News Reports ‘Deep State’ Plot to Facilitate a ‘Military Coup’ Against Trump Amidst Fear for Alleged ‘Retribution’ if Re-Elected
By Jim Hoft – Jan 14, 2024
Concerns are intensifying among far-left national security “experts” and Pentagon insiders over the possibility that former President Donald Trump might leverage the U.S. military to enforce his political will if he returns to the Oval Office. In a detailed report, NBC News inadvertently admitted the existence of a “Deep State,” allegedly working to facilitate a military coup against former President Trump if he is freely and fairly elected by Americans. The NBC article paints a portrait of a left-wing plot to disrupt military allegiance to civilian control.
Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist wrote, “NBC reports the left is plotting ways to have military not be under civilian control. This dangerous and unconstitutional usurpation of power is being framed by NBC as good because it will undermine Trump if he is freely and fairly elected by Americans.” READ MORE…
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump. READ MORE…
Top Stories • Indiana Sees Incredible 98% Drop in Abortions Thanks to Abortion Ban • Donald Trump: “We Have to Defend Religious Liberty and Innocent Life” • Vatican Hosts Summit On Protecting Human Life From “Climate Change” With Pro-Abortion Governors • Andrew Cuomo Faces Hearing for Killing Thousands of Nursing Home Residents
More Pro-Life News • Chuck Schumer Makes June “Abortion Month” to Promote Killing Babies • Teacher Calls in Sick, Takes Student for Secret Abortion Without Parents Knowing • Premature Baby Born 17 Weeks Early and Weighing 8 Ounces Heads Home • Arkansas is Creating a Memorial to Honor the 65 Million Babies Killed in Abortions • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
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.
During a virtual town hall event last week, Paula Collins, who is challenging Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., suggested that supporters of former President Trump be sent to “re-education camps,” according to audio obtained by the Post Millenial.
Collins, a marijuana tax attorney, argued that even if a majority of Democrats are elected to Congress in November, there will still be a need for re-education camps to “put[] it all back together again” after “this MAGA nightmare.”
The uncontested Democrat nominee for NY-21 said, “Even if we were to have a resounding blue wave come through, as many of us would like, putting it all back together again after we’ve gone through this MAGA nightmare and re-educating, basically — that sounds like a, rather, a re-education camp.” She told voters on the call they will need to find “another way to phrase” the concept of “re-education camps” with the general public.
New York Democrat Paula Collins suggests Trump supporters need a “reeducation camp” after the election.
Collins is running for Congress and made the comments in a town hall meeting. pic.twitter.com/6VGNmtlcY7
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) June 6, 2024
Her remarks have drawn comparisons to a 2016 CNN interview of former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, during which she said Trump supporters need “deprogramming.” Clinton said, “At some point, you know, maybe there needs to be a formal deprogramming of the cult members, but something needs to happen.” On her campaign homepage, Collins notes the comparison to Clinton, saying she is honored.
Stefanik called for Democrat leadership to condemn the comments. Stefanik said in a press release, “Joe Biden, Hakeem Jeffries, and Chuck Schumer must immediately condemn this statement.”
My statement calling on Joe Biden, Hakeem Jeffries, and Chuck Schumer to immediately condemn NY Democrat congressional candidate's call to force Trump voters into re-education camps: pic.twitter.com/WPYEsg0Jrx
Instead of retracting and apologizing, Collins blamed the media for airing her controversial remarks. Collins claimed Stefanik is attacking her because she is “panicked.”
The left-wing candidate is using the controversy to fundraise, asking for $250 campaign donations. Asking for campaign donations, Collins writes on her website, “Help me end the MAGA mania.” “Far-right politics” is listed as one of her top issues on her campaign website.
Ratings on Ballotpedia describe Stefanik’s district as “Solid Republican,” based on data from three political analysis organizations.
Federal Election Commission filings highlight the weak chances of New York’s 21st congressional district flipping blue. Collins has just $6,337.93 cash on hand and $11,130 in campaign debt. Meanwhile, Stefanik, who is reportedly under consideration as Trump’s running-mate, boasts nearly $5 million in available funds.
Arianna Villarreal is a summer intern at The Federalist.
A Hamas spokesman accused U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken of being “part of the problem” as he urged the group to accept a cease-fire deal with Israel, Breitbart reported. The spokesman was not identified in the story. Blinken has been on a diplomatic mission in the Middle East following a United Nations Security Council resolution that formalized the Biden administration’s ceasefire and hostage release proposal, which Israel had accepted under U.S. pressure while maintaining its goal to dismantle Hamas’ military and governing capabilities.
The Biden administration has been pressing Hamas to accept the deal, urging countries with influence over the group to apply pressure. However, Hamas has continued to reject the proposal, demanding additional concessions. The State Department stated last week the current proposal is “virtually identical” to past Hamas proposals. As Breitbart News pointed out, Hamas had previously rejected similar plans when President Joe Biden announced the proposal.
Hamas’s primary objection is the lack of an explicit guarantee of a permanent cessation of hostilities from Israel. For weeks, the group has insisted on a written guarantee of a permanent ceasefire from the U.S.
Earlier this week, Hamas expressed approval of the U.N. Security Council resolution but emphasized the need for ongoing negotiations. Subsequently, the group released a formal statement on Tuesday outlining additional requirements, such as gaining authority over the Gaza-Egypt border.
Additionally, they sought adjustments to the schedule for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza.
On Wednesday, Blinken criticized Hamas’ response during a press conference in Doha with Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, the Times of Israel reported.
“Hamas has proposed numerous changes to the proposal that was on the table. Some of the changes are workable, some are not,” Blinken said. “A deal was on the table that was virtually identical to the proposal that Hamas made on May 6 — a deal that the entire world is behind, a deal Israel has accepted.
“Hamas could have answered with a single word: ‘Yes.’ Instead, Hamas waited nearly two weeks and then proposed more changes, a number of which go beyond positions that had previously been taken and accepted.”
On the other hand, Hamas refuted the notion that its demands were new.
Following his visit to Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Qatar, Blinken is expected to return to the U.S. without securing a deal. He has vowed to continue efforts to broker an agreement.
Jim Thomas is a writer based in Indiana. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Political Science, a law degree from U.I.C. Law School, and has practiced law for more than 20 years.
Attorney General Merrick Garland—seen here returning from a break in testifying before the House Judiciary Committee on June 4—is catching heat from House Republicans. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Attorney General Merrick Garland has been held in contempt of Congress.
The vote in favor of contempt was over Garland’s refusal to hand over audio recordings related to President Joe Biden’s interview about classified documentswith Justice Departmentspecial counsel Robert Hur.
The vote was by party line with one Republican voting against, Rep. Dave Joyce of Ohio, according to Fox News’ Chad Pergum.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said Wednesday before the vote that the action had to be taken because Garland is refusing to comply with a “lawful subpoena.”
This week, Attorney General Merrick Garland will be held in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a lawful subpoena.
— Speaker Mike Johnson (@SpeakerJohnson) June 12, 2024
During a House Judiciary Committee hearing on June 4, Republicans demanded that Garland hand over the audio recordings. The Hur interviews with the president were prompted by the charge that Biden mishandled classified documents after his time as vice president.
A transcript of Hur’s discussions with Biden has already been released. However, the president has withheld the audio recording, claiming executive privilege. Republicans argue that the full audio recordings would give the public a full picture of Biden’s mental state. That’s because the special counsel recommended not prosecuting Biden because he came off in the lengthy interview as an “elderly man with a poor memory” and saidthe president’s “diminished faculties” mean he was less likely to have willfully violated the law.
Garland also refused to hand over the audio, which is what prompted Republicans in the House to move for holding him in contempt.
Two former aides to former President Donald Trump, Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon have been sentenced to jail for being held in contempt of Congress. However, former Attorney General Eric Holder, who was held in contempt of Congress while serving under President Barack Obama, did not face prosecution. Obama’s DOJ inspector general refused to prosecute Holder.
Garland has said that the Justice Department went to great lengths to cooperate with Congress on the Hur investigation, but that the request for audio constituted a larger attack on the DOJ.
“There have been a series of unprecedented and, frankly, unfounded attacks on the Justice Department,” Garland said in a press conference in May, the Associated Press reported. “This request, this effort to use contempt as a method of obtaining our sensitive law enforcement files is just the most recent.”
Republicans argued in debates on the House floor that withholding information from Congress interferes with the legislative branch’s ability to provide a check on the power of the president. Rep. Jim Comer, R-Ky., chairman of the House Oversight and AccountabilityCommittee, said on the House floor on Wednesday that Biden misled the American people about his handling of classified documents and that the president needs to be held accountable.
🚨Chairman Comer Speaks on House Floor in Support of Resolution to Hold Attorney General Garland in Contempt
"President Biden has lied to the American people about his mishandling of classified documents.
“President Biden’s Department of Justice appears to be taking every step to insulate him from the consequences—whether it’s hiding these audio recordings or attempting to give Hunter Biden a sweetheart plea deal to shield Joe Biden from facing any accountability for his role in his family’s influence-peddling schemes,” Comer said. “That is unacceptable.”
Congressional Democrats have opposed the attempt to retrieve the special counsel’s audio recording.
“This is what they want to do, because they don’t have the votes to impeach Joe Biden, right? That’s why they did Merrick Garland,” Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., said, as reported by Fox News. “That’s why they went after [Hunter Biden]. It’s all trying to please their base because Congress doesn’t want to do what Donald Trump wants, which is to impeach Joe Biden, so they can have even scores.”
For months, I have been expressing disbelief that Hunter Biden and his defense team were going to take the gun case to trial. Even on the eve of the trial, I thought that the defense might snap into sanity and plead out the case. The reason was simple. A guilty plea would have materially improved the chances that Hunter could get probation and avoid jail by accepting responsibility. Conversely, a trial in a case with overwhelming evidence of guilt would make it less likely that a judge would depart from the guidelines at sentencing. Nevertheless, Hunter went forward with a nullification strategy and, in so doing, it may have nullified his best chance to reduce the risk of jail time.
After the verdict, I have been stating that jail time is a real possibility in this case despite the fact that this is a first offender. Frankly, I do not see any real need for incarceration in this type of case and many judges would be likely tempted to grant “downward departures” in sentencing or disregard any recommended prison sentence.
It is also important to note that, after the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Booker, sentencing guidelines are discretionary. Judge Maryellen Noreika could sentence him to probation in light of his struggle with his addiction and his status as a first offender (as well as the absence of other aggravating factors).
Yet, while many view this as a relatively minor offense, the sentencing guidelines do not.
Judges regularly sentence people to prison for these offenses. The sentencing guidelines put the recommendation at 15 to 21 months in prison. Moreover, over 90 percent of those convicted are sentenced to prison time.
The chances of probation are increased with guilty pleas, which generally allow for a downward departure of two levels for taking responsibility. That may not seem like a lot, but it could prove determinative for a judge on a marginal call over the need for incarceration. By pursuing the nullification strategy, Hunter lost that benefit and now would have to belatedly accept responsibility just before sentencing after putting the court and public through a trial.
If the defense reviewed Judge Noreika’s past cases, they would have seen that she takes a tough approach on gun cases. In May, she sentenced defendant Zhi Dong to a year in jail for lying about his address on a gun form. Notably, that was twice the recommended sentence of the prosecutors.
One point of distinction is that Dong purchased 19 pistols and 10 “lower receivers” rather than the single gun purchased by Biden. It is also notable that the prosecutors were only seeking six months of incarceration in that arguably more serious case.
The defense strategy also makes it more difficult for Special Counsel David Weiss, who has shown remarkable lenience at critical stages of his investigation. It was Weiss who allowed the most serious tax offenses to lapse under a statute of limitations (despite reportedly having an agreement to extend the period). It was Weiss who sought to give Hunter an obscene sweetheart deal that would have avoided any jail time and given him immunity for all crimes.
Many remain skeptical of Weiss and his actions in this case. For that reason, the failure to plead guilty puts Weiss in a box. Given the sentencing guidelines of prison time, any recommendations for probation would be read as more favoritism for the president’s son. Weiss may feel compelled to follow the recommendations to show that Hunter is being treated the same as other defendants.
Given the calculation for the three felonies, the defense had to know that they were increasing the chances of prison time by pursuing a nullification defense. The hope was that Wilmington is Bidentown and no local jury would convict the son of the favorite son of Delaware.
It didn’t work out that way. The team seemed to overplay its hand with defenses that were so implausible as to be insulting for the jury. They suggested that Hunter might not have checked the box or signed the form during a brief window where he was not using drugs. The prosecutors demolished those defenses within two days of the trial.
Accepting responsibility after a trial does not guarantee a downward departure. For example, in U.S. v. Womack, a defendant sought a departure for accepting responsibility before trial as a drug dealer. However, he still went to trial on other issues and the trial judge refused any departure on the basis of his earlier admissions of guilt. It found that he was still minimizing his responsibility for the underlying crimes. That decision was upheld on appeal.
Now, Hunter may have painted both the prosecutors and the court into a corner. In a play for a hung jury, Hunter may have hoisted himself on his own petard. Guilt was never in doubt, but his efforts also removed any question of accepting responsibility before he was facing actual sentencing for his offenses.
The book has been 30 years in the making. The book explores our struggle with free speech and why we continue to grapple with the meaning of this core, defining right. It does so in part through the stories of courageous figures who refused to yield to the demands of others to be silent, even at the risk of their own lives. The book seeks to reexamine the essence of this right and how, after a brief moment of clarity at our founding, we abandoned its true foundation as a natural or autonomous right. Many agree with Justice Louis Brandeis that free speech is indispensable but not why it is indispensable. That lack of proper foundation has left the right vulnerable to continual tradeoffs and contractions, particularly in what is now arguably the most dangerous anti-free speech period in our history.
Here is an excerpt from the book for those interested in obtaining a copy:
Free speech is a human right. It is the free expression of thought that is the essence of being human. As will be discussed in chapter 2, free speech is often justified in functionalist terms; it is protected because it is necessary for a democratic process and the protection of other rights. That is certainly true. Brandeis’s view of the right’s indispensability was due to the fact that most rights are realized through acts of expression, from the free press to association to religious exercise. However, it is more than the sum of its practical benefits. It is the natural condition of humans to speak. It is compelled silence or agreement that is unnatural. That is why it takes coercion or threats to compel silence from others.
We rarely teach the philosophy of free speech to young students. They largely learn a rote understanding of the First Amendment and a functionalist explanation on how the free speech right protects other rights. If students even receive civics lessons, there is little time or inclination to teach the relationship of speech to the essential qualities of being human. Natural and autonomous theories tie free speech to a preexistent or immutable status. As such, it is not the creation of the Constitution, but rather embodied in that document. There remains considerable debate over how natural rights theory motivated the Framers. What is clear is that these men were moved in the eighteenth century to create something that was a radical departure from what came before it.
As historian Leonard Levy observed, “liberty of expression barely existed in principle and practice in the American colonies,” let alone other nations around the world. What possessed James Madison to draft the First Amendment in absolutist terms was likely a mix of the experiential and the philosophical. The Framers had experienced the denial of free speech at the hands of the Crown, but it would have been an easy matter to expressly protect political speech. Rather than replicate what came before, the Framers spoke of protecting all speech from abridgment from the government. These were men who often spoke of the “unalienable” rights of humans in defining the role of the government. A transcendent right to free speech was consistent with the concepts of natural rights that emerged from the Enlightenment.
One of the most influential philosophers for the Framers (and a host of later philosophers like Voltaire) was John Locke. In 1689, Locke published his masterpiece, Two Treatises of Government, on the foundation for civil society and government. He described a “state of nature” and how God created the Earth with all that creation left in common for the use of mankind. Locke then presented his “labor theory” of property as a natural right that flowed from this divine gift. According to Locke, people have a right to property by removing something found in nature and mixing it with their labor. Through his labor, man becomes a creator by “join[ing] it to something that is his own.” In other words, God gave Man the ability to create and claim the creations “mixed with his labor” as his own. What was left in common for the use of all was converted into private property through individual enterprise. Yet Locke added a “proviso” that you must still leave “enough and as good” for others. Many writers have explored both the labor theory and the proviso in defining the right to property, particularly against efforts of government to distribute wealth. It also raises a question of why God would leave everything in common and then allow Man to “make it his own property.” The reason, I suggest, is that humans are themselves creators with a common need to express themselves in the world around them. Putting aside the desire to procreate as itself an act of creation, the desire to create objects or expressions is irresistible for most people, from the simple act of doodling to the construction of the Great Wall of China. It is seen from the drawings in the cave of Lascaux from 17,000 BCE to the graffiti on walls in New York City in the twenty-first century. Creation is the expression of ourselves, the projection into the world of our values and visions.
Consider the center of Michelangelo’s magnificent Sistine Chapel. People have debated for centuries of what the image of God touching Man was meant to depict. For many, the image is taken as giving life or an element of divinity. However, what is the divinity passed to Man? Perhaps that touch is not the act of creation but the power of creation. After all, the scriptures maintain that Man is both the creation of God but also made in the image of God. What is divine is the ability to change the world around us, to create. When Renaissance painter and writer Giorgio Vasari described Michelangelo, he used “the divine Michelangelo” to capture the provenance of his creations. The very terms create, and creation are semantically and conceptually tied to the ultimate “Creator.” To again bring in Locke, it is to use what is left in common to express ourselves in unique ways. Just as Man was created from clay, God left us clay to form our own creations from the state of nature.
To be human is to create, and these creations are a form of speech. Under this view, whether it is a column or a cake or a cathedral, creation is a quintessentially human act. Without such expression, we are human in form alone; realized clay, but clay alone, from the original act of creation.
What makes us human is obviously a subject heavily infused with subjectivity and religiosity. How one views the essential elements of humanity depends on how one views the potential and position of humans. Like other animals, we procreate; we experience pain and pleasure. We share chemical, muscular, and emotive impulses with other animals. There is even some evidence that other species have sentience. New studies indicate that other animals have an awareness of their existence and cognitive abilities long assumed to be uniquely human. We share 98.7 percent of our genetic sequencing with great apes like chimpanzees and bonobos. Does that make us more conversant, less hairy apes? We also share 80 percent with a cow, and 61 percent with a fruit fly. There is even a 60 percent overlap with a banana. The effort to distinguish a human from a banana is easy with comparisons from color to complexity. However, it is easier to explain why we are not a banana than it is to explain what makes us human beings.
Humans are more than talking bananas, despite our shared genetic sequencing. Whether that is due to the “divine touch” captured in the Sistine Chapel or some other element will continue to occupy philosophers and theologians for centuries to come. Yet understanding the essence of humanity is not entirely a debate over metaphysical points. There are some physical elements that distinguish humans in how we interact with the world around us. In her book The Creative Brain, neuroscientist Nancy Andreasen notes that the human brain is wired to all nonlinear thought and “when the brain/mind thinks in a free and unencumbered fashion, it uses its most human and complex parts.”
Neurological studies suggest that the human brain is hardwired for expression. The evolution of innovative capabilities offered a survival advantage, including the ability to communicate and motivate through pictures and words. These include “basic biological needs in animals such as live-or-die (dire necessity), physical energy conservation, and survival through deception.” This may have been responsible for creating the drive for innovation and expression in humans: “Given adaptive evolutionary processes, it is reasonable to assume that all of these have become interwoven into the underlying brain mechanisms of creativity in humans.”
The frontal lobe was the last part of the human brain to evolve and addresses the complex cognitive functions that are closely associated with being human. The oldest part of the brain is often called the reptilian brain containing the brain stem and the cerebellum. Much as in other animals, it controls our bodily functions, from heart rate to balance. The limbic brain added key components for creative thought and high cognitive functioning. Containing the hippocampus, the amygdala, and the hypothalamus, the limbic brain gives us our powerful emotions and memories. Scientists have long identified the neocortex, including the frontal lobe, as affording humans higher capacities for language, imagination, and abstract thought. Neuroscientists believe that “subcortical brain circuits” evolved late in the development of “the forebrain bundle” and are the key to our curiosity and creativity.
Our early understanding of these physiological differences often came from intentional or accidental denials of stimulus or speech. It also came from the loss of the function of brain areas. Much of this early knowledge came from tragic stories like that of Phineas Gage and his tamping iron.
In September 1848, Gage, twenty-five, was working as a railroad foreman in Cavendish, Vermont. His crew was removing rock to lay track and, as the foreman, it fell to Gage to set the charge. A hole was drilled, and explosives stuffed into the bottom. The next step was to pack sand over the TNT using a tamping iron. The iron was 43 inches long, 1.25 inches in diameter, and weighed 13.25 pounds. Gage shoved it down the hole but accidentally sparked the explosive. It was a nearly lethal mistake. Gage had built an effective cannon out of rock and was staring directly down the barrel. The rod shot straight out of the hole and entered Gage’s left cheek and passed through the top of his skull. Brain matter and blood covered Gage as he was blown a fair distance from the hole. The crew was horrified.
They assumed Gage was dead and were shocked when he regained consciousness and walked to a nearby oxcart to be taken to a doctor. In the cart, Gage was seen writing in his workbook, and he could recognize figures like Dr. John Martyn Harlow, who came to treat him. Despite Gage’s extraordinary demeanor, Harlow expected his patient to die. That prognosis was understandable given the massive wound and the bleeding, which continued for two days. Gage then developed an infection that left him semiconscious for a month. His friends prepared a coffin for him. However, Gage did not die. The rod had blown away part of his brain’s frontal lobe. Harlow recognized that this was a unique opportunity to better understand the function of that body part by observing changes after its removal. It was clearly not necessary for life, but it was necessary to being fully human. Even on the evening of the accident, Gage was conversant and could remember names and other details.
After a month, Gage was able to travel to New Hampshire to continue his convalescence at his parents’ home. Yet, more than just the loss of sight in one eye, Gage was an altogether changed man. He was more aggressive and had problems maintaining relationships. He became abusive and a heavy drinker. He had a hard time holding down a job. Despite being described as a model foreman, the mining company did not want him back. Gage would take various jobs including driving coaches in Chile and would even travel with his rod as a human curiosity with American showman P. T. Barnum. He would eventually die from what was described as epileptic seizures in 1860 at the age of thirty-six.
Some changes in Gage’s personality were clearly related to the trauma of having a metal rod blown through his head. Moreover, some of the changes in Gage dissipated over time. Yet there remained lasting changes. His friends stated that his personality was different, and some described him as more impulsive, socially inappropriate, and as possessing what were described as “animal propensities.” In his study, Dr. Harlow recounted how Gage’s supervisors:
regarded him as the most efficient and capable foreman . . . considered the change in his mind so marked that they could not give him his place again. . . . He is fitful, irreverent, indulging at times in the grossest profanity (which was not previously his custom), manifesting but little deference for his fellows, impatient of restraint or advice when it conflicts with his desires. . . . A child in his intellectual capacity and manifestations, he has the animal passions of a strong man. . . .His mind was radically changed, so decidedly that his friends and acquaintances said he was “no longer Gage.”
Some of these changes have been tied to the loss of parts of the brain connected to emotional processing. The tamping iron is now believed to have destroyed roughly 11 percent of the white matter in Gage’s frontal lobe and 4 percent of his cerebral cortex. Later studies showed evidence of damage to the left and right prefrontal cortices. Studies of traumatic brain injury (TBI) show how creativity can be lost with these areas of the brain. Gage’s wound not only removed part of the frontal lobe but caused traumatic injury to much of what remained after the rod was blown through his head.
Whether by divine creation or evolutionary change, humans are creative beings. The loss of parts of the brain has been shown to have profound impacts. Even in monkeys, the removal of prefrontal lobes produced changes in personality. However, for humans, the loss of areas of the limbic and neocortex can limit those functions allowing for creative expression—the very areas that distinguish humans from other primates. Neuroscience studies have found that the “inordinate capacity for creativity [in humans] reflects the unique neurological organization of the human brain.” It was not just that Gage was viewed as having “animal propensities,” he lacked human characteristics. Creative thinking requires the ability to project images; to apply concepts to new forms of application or expression. It necessitates “fundamental cognitive processes such as working memory, attention, planning, cognitive flexibility, mentalizing, and abstract thinking.” These are functions contained in prefrontal areas of the brain. What Gage lost may have been not just part of his brain but part of his essential humanity. Without the ability to be creative and to express himself, the explosion was de-evolutionary, arguably returning Gage to an earlier state of primate. He was still physiologically human but lacked the full capacity for human expression.
That returns us to Michelangelo’s touch. Some have noted the framing over the image of God is in the shape of the human brain. God’s image appears over what can be interpreted as the limbic system, and his right arm extends to the prefrontal cortex, the areas that most distinguish human beings from other primates. Michelangelo was an anatomist who began dissecting corpses at age seventeen. In a 1990 paper published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Frank Meshberger showed how the depiction in The Creation of Adam in the central panel appeared to be an anatomical cross section of the human brain. The anatomical overlay raises the question of what Michelangelo was trying to convey beyond a humanistic element. For example, by literally embedding the Almighty in the human brain, it could be viewed as bestowing the divine gift of creation and transcendent thought.
To be denied the gift of creation is to leave humans in a state far from divine. The Gage story allowed science to judge what happened to creativity and other human characteristics when an actual part of the human body was removed. The loss of certain environmental elements can produce similar effects on humans. As a lawyer that began his career working with prisoners, I have long observed the rapid decline of clients in segregation where inmates are cut off from most human contact or avenues for expression for prolonged periods of time. The impact of such isolation is often immediate and pronounced. Human beings are inherently social animals and require forms of expression or avenues of interaction. In one study of segregation, researchers found dramatically heightened levels of depression, anxiety, hallucinations, and other forms of mental illness. One common complaint is “a perceived loss of identity.” It is a profound by-product of being deprived the interaction with others that we can lose our sense of ourselves, or self-identity. In a curious way, we need others to be ourselves.
Clearly, various elements are in play in segregated conditions that include sensory deprivation, monotonous routine, and strict confinement. However, studies show a need for inmates to be able to break from monotony and have exposure and interaction with different expressive elements. This is not simply psychological but physiological. One recent study looked at the impact of isolation of Antarctic expeditioners. These individuals could speak with each other and work on tasks associated with their expedition, including journals. But the range of intellectual stimulation and expression was sharply limited by the monotonous and confined conditions. Research found evidence of a shrinking hippocampus in the subjects. The seahorse-shaped region embedded in the temporal lobe of the brain is key to memory and creativity. In his work on creativity in the human brain, Dr. Roger Beaty noted that “memory, imagination, and creative thinking all activated the bilateral hippocampus.” The studies on isolation suggest that humans forced into limiting or monotonous existences can experience actual physical losses affecting the capacity for creativity. They can lose their full potential for the range of human creative thought.
Isolation studies do not prove human nature or its essential elements. Yet the question remains: What is uniquely human? There exists a driving desire in humans to create, to express, to invent, and to build. While bees and termites can create intricate structures, humans constantly break from the status quo and seek new forms and concepts. It is not merely an effort to survive. Indeed, the iconic image of the starving artist attests to how this creative drive can be the denial of every other aspect of life. It is an irresistible, even involuntary impulse. Mozart, when once asked about his music composition, admitted “whence and how they come. I know not; nor can I force them.” Nor can many deny them, from artistic to political expression—even at one’s peril. As Dr. Andreasen noted, “[A]t the neural level associations begin to form where they did not previously exist, and some of these associations are perilously novel.”
It is a drive that everyone exhibits in ways that can be grand or gross. Even neighbors who spend weeks creating elaborate Halloween or holiday displays seem to be fulfilling a deeper human impulse. As evidenced by the neurological studies, we are constructed for creative thought, for remembering and imagining, and for projecting thoughts into the future to create new realities. That process involves expression in myriad forms. It is an impulse that is irresistible for many. It is also an impulse that can threaten the status quo, which is why the earlier forms of government sought to control the expression of divergent thoughts.
Below is my column in the New York Post on the conviction of Hunter Biden in Delaware and how his nullification strategy may have backfired. As discussed below, empathy can turn into insult when jurors are given patently implausible theories by the defense. Hunter finally found a group of people who were unwilling to see him as immune from responsibility for his conduct. Hunter literally came up a donut short of a defense in Wilmington.
Here is the column:
The conviction of Hunter Biden on all of the federal gun counts created a surprising new precedent in Delaware … for Hunter Biden. In terms of the law, this was the easiest judgment since the Jussie Smollett verdict. (Actually the Biden jury took a third of the time with a verdict in just three hours.)
For Hunter Biden, though, this was the first time he’s ever been held accountable for any criminal conduct, be it drug use, or prostitution, or tax evasion, or violations of various federal laws. To have that moment come in the hometown of the Bidens likely only magnified the shock.
Last year, I described the growing legal problems of Hunter Biden as the cost of “legal gluttony.” The Bidens have always been adept at avoiding accountability, particularly for the extensive influence-peddling operation that raked in millions in foreign payments.
That appetite for special treatment proved the undoing of Hunter, much like his appetite in other areas of his life. Hunter and his team expected the same level of immunity when he worked with special counsel David Weiss to cut an astonishing deal to avoid any real punishment for these or other crimes. Even before the deal was cut, Weiss allowed major crimes to expire under the statute of limitations (despite having an agreement to extend that period). He also agreed to a deal that would have avoided any jail time and would have given Hunter an immunity bath that would have drowned the entire criminal code. Hunter and his legal team succeeded in securing this sweetheart deal, which shocked many of us.
More importantly, it shocked US District Judge Maryellen Noreika, who only had to question the immunity provision to have the entire agreement fall apart in open court. The prosecutor admitted that he had never seen a plea bargain like this in his long career. That’s when the legal gluttony became even more pronounced. Rather than fight to preserve key elements of the plea agreement, defense counsel said, “Just rip it up.” Later, the special counsel said the Hunter defense team would not agree to a compromise agreement and instead forced the matter to trial.
I wrote before the trial that the defense was insane to try the case rather than plead guilty. A plea would have virtually guaranteed that there would be no jail time in the case. Instead, the defense launched an open jury nullification effort to get the jury to simply ignore the evidence. In the hometown of the Bidens, this was the best jury pool that Hunter could hope for. However, the nullification strategy was another manifestation of a gluttonous appetite.
Hunter Biden was still demanding a pass in a case where guilt was unavoidably and undeniably obvious to everyone. Defense counsel Abbe Lowell made a series of defenses that collapsed within the first two days in spectacular fashion.
Lowell suggested that someone else checked the box on the form and that Hunter may have had a brief window of sobriety or non-drug use. Hunter’s own words played from his audiobook knocked down much of those arguments, and a store employee recounted watching Hunter fill out the form.
In the first interview with a juror, Fox News seemed to confirm that the Biden defense overplayed its hand. The juror raised the text messages showing Hunter trying to score drugs at a 7-Eleven. Lowell suggested that he might have been at the store buying a donut. However, the juror noted that Hunter stated in his book that the 7-Eleven was his favorite spot for buying drugs, just as his texts indicated. He clearly viewed the story as more hole than donut. It is an example of how an all-you-can-eat defense can fail to even get a donut from a sympathetic jury.
The problem now is that this all played out in front of the judge who will now sentence Hunter.
Noreika witnessed the attempt to secure the sweetheart deal and then the disaster in open court. She watched as a defendant not only refused to admit guilt but decided to put on an obvious jury nullification defense.
That history could weigh in favor of a short jail stint for Hunter, a risk that would have been effectively eliminated by a guilty plea.
Hunter will now face an even greater risk in Los Angeles on the more serious counts of tax evasion. It is, again, an open-and-shut case.
I expect that he will plead guilty in that case. If Delaware made any impression on Hunter, it is that there are real costs to allowing your appetite to exceed your limitations.
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
Top Stories • Kamala Harris is Dropping More F-Bombs Because She’s Upset Pro-Life Laws Save Babies • Texas Abortion Ban Saves Tens of Thousands of Babies, Zero Women Have Died • Just 19% of Biden Supporters Say Having Children is a Priority • Pro-Life Mark Houck Brings $4.3 Million Lawsuit Against Biden for Targeting Him
More Pro-Life News • Polls Show Huge Battles on Abortion Up to Birth Amendments, Pro-Life Americans Must Stop Them • Doctor Told Mom, “If You Continue to Carry This Baby, You’re Going to Die.” Mom and Baby are Doing Great Now • We Need More Men Who Step Up and be Fathers Instead of Pushing Abortion • Democrats Claim Women Can Only Succeed by Killing Their Babies in Abortions • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
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.
Over the weekend, thousands of pro-Hamas protesters, many of them masked and some wearing green Hamas headbands, descended on Washington, D.C., surrounding the White House amid chants calling for a victory of “jihad or martyrdom.” At one point, protesters with tents set up an encampment on the Ellipse, while others defaced and vandalized historic statues, including the Andrew Jackson and Marquis de Lafayette statues in Lafayette Square.
The day before, on the other side of the country, three teenagers in Spokane, Washington, were arrested on felony charges for driving their scooters over a painted “pride” crosswalk and leaving some tread marks on the mural.
Spokane, Wash. — 3 teens are each charged with a felony (first-degree malicious mischief) for leaving scooter skid marks on the pride trans BLM flag on the street. Prosecutors asked for a $15k bond & @limebike says it is taking action against the youths. pic.twitter.com/mSWwWSY1Xb
As tempting as it is to call out the hypocrisy here — teenagers hunted down and charged for defacing a pride mural, no punishment at all for a mob of left-wing protesters defacing national monuments — that would miss the point. This isn’t hypocrisy on display, it’s hierarchy.
When you see harsh punishments for those who dissent from the regime on the one hand, but total leniency (and tacit regime endorsement) for those who are essentially regime enforcers on the other hand, what you’re seeing is a display of power. Its purpose is to communicate to the rest of the country who has power and who doesn’t, who is protected and who isn’t.
You see this everywhere lately. Most dramatically, you see it in the lawfare against former President Donald Trump, recently convicted for invented crimes in a farcical trial that made a mockery of the rule of law. Trump’s conviction in New York has made it clear, to friend and foe alike, that the judiciary in certain parts of this country has become nothing more than an instrument to destroy the political enemies of the regime. This isn’t supposed to be a subtle message; you’re meant to understand, explicitly, that there is no equality of justice in the law now, and act accordingly.
As former Trump administration official Brooke Rollins wrote recently in The American Mind, “All this is meant to achieve a singular goal: to use the apparatus of the law and the judiciary to utterly break American opposition to the progressive regime by instilling a climate of fear so pervasive that Americans will no longer defend themselves, no longer defy leftist orthodoxy, and no longer dare to publicly disagree with the regime.”
The criminal trial of President Joe Biden’s son Hunter on federal gun charges should also be understood in this light. As of this writing, the jury is still deliberating. But it hardly matters what the verdict is. If he is acquitted, the message is that the rule of law is a dead letter in America, and you’d better align yourself with the side that can protect you.
If he’s found guilty, the message is that America has a two-tiered justice system that makes only the most feeble attempt to disguise itself. Hunter Biden can run a complex, years-long foreign influence-peddling scheme to enrich his family, and all he’ll ever face are minor, unrelated gun charges — a fig leaf over the corruption that’s right at the heart of the White House. Hunter has never been charged for the many financial crimes related to his time working for Ukraine energy company Burisma, never charged for operating as an unregistered foreign agent or selling influence and government policy.
The federal prosecutor charged with investigating Hunter allowed the statute of limitations to expire on tax evasion associated with Hunter’s Burisma earnings and then simply ignored every other crime connected to the Biden family’s influence-peddling scheme. The gun trial only materialized after a federal judge blew up the prosecutor’s corrupt plea deal. The entire purpose of the trial is to provide a thin veneer of justice served, while the real crimes of the Biden family go unpunished and unacknowledged.
Of course, this hypocrisy-versus-hierarchy framework extends far beyond the justice system. Corporate media this week are breathlessly reporting on remarks Justice Samuel Alito made to a left-wing documentary filmmaker who posed as a religious conservative and secretly recorded the conversation. Rolling Stone reported the story as some kind of scandal because Alito agreed that the United States should return to a place of godliness and that the battle for America “can’t be compromised.” There’s nothing scandalous about that. Indeed, he simply says what leftist radicals say among themselves all the time.
What’s notable about Alito’s remarks, though, is that he goes on to say his power as a judge is limited and defined, and that there are many problems in American life that the Supreme Court can’t address or fix.
The substance of what Alito said isn’t the point, though. The point is the timing of the hit piece, coming right before the end of the Supreme Court’s current term and close on the heels of another fake outrage news cycle centered on Alito’s wife flying a popular historic flag from the Revolutionary War outside their beach house. The media’s current fixation on Alito comes after unrelenting hysterics from the media over Justice Clarence Thomas occasionally taking vacations with wealthy friends — something nearly every Supreme Court justice does.
Why the obsessive, deranged attacks on conservative Supreme Court justices? Because the Supreme Court is one of the last institutions in America that the left doesn’t control, and it’s standing in the way of their revolution. Smearing and discrediting the conservative justices, demanding they recuse themselves for made-up offenses, is part of a longer-term strategy to delegitimatize and ultimately destroy the court.
So, remember that the next time you see a hit piece on a conservative Supreme Court justice, or the book being thrown at a group of people opposed to the regime, or when Trump is actually sent to prison later this summer. It’s not hypocrisy you’re seeing, it’s hierarchy.
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.
A Republican hasn’t carried Minnesota in a presidential election since President Richard Nixon’s 1972 landslide re-election, over a half-century ago. But a new poll in Minnesota shows a competitive race between President Biden and former President Trump in their 2024 election rematch.
The president stands at 45% support among likely voters in Minnesota, with Trump at 41% in a poll conducted June 3-5 for the Star Tribune, MPR News and KARE 11.
Former President Trump headlines the Minnesota GOP’s annual Lincoln Reagan fundraising dinner, on May 17, 2024, in St. Paul. (AP)
Democrat turned independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. stood at 6% support in the survey, with 2% backing “someone else” if the election were held today.
Trump was narrowly edged in Minnesota in the 2016 election by 1.5 points by Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. But four years later, Biden carried the state by seven points as he defeated Trump and won the White House.
“We’re going to win this state,” Trump predicted last month in a speech as he headlined the state GOP’s annual Lincoln Reagan fundraising dinner in St. Paul, Minnesota’s capital city.
The poll pointed to a significant enthusiasm gap, with 63% of Trump supporters saying they were “very enthusiastic” about casting a ballot for their candidate, compared to 31% of voters backing the president.
Eight hundred registered voters in Minnesota were surveyed in the poll, with an overall sampling error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.
Seven crucial swing states that decided the 2020 election (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, which were narrowly won by Biden, and North Carolina, which Trump carried by a razor-thin margin) will likely once again in the 2024 rematch. But both campaigns see opportunities to expand the map.
At a closed-door Republican National Committee retreat for top-dollar donors earlier this spring at a resort in Palm Beach, Florida, senior Trump campaign advisers Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita and veteran pollster Tony Fabrizio spotlighted internal surveys that suggested both “Minnesota & Virginia are clearly in play.”
“In both states, Donald Trump finds himself in positions to flip key electoral votes in his favor,” the survey, which was shared with Fox News, emphasizes.
And both states have sizable populations of rural White voters without college degrees who disproportionately support the former president.
President Biden delivers remarks at the Kempsville Recreation Center on Feb. 28, 2023, in Virginia Beach, Virginia. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Biden’s campaign disagrees that either Minnesota or Virginia are up for grabs.
While noting that they are “not taking any state or any vote for granted,” Biden campaign battleground states director Dan Kanninen told reporters last month that “we don’t see polls that are six or seven months out from a general election, head-to-head numbers certainly, as any more predictive than a weather report is six or seven months out.”
Kanninen highlighted that the campaign has teams on the ground in both states engaging voters.
“We feel strongly the Biden-Harris coalition in both Minnesota and Virginia, which has been strong in the midterms and off-year elections, will continue to be strong for us in the fall of 2024,” he added.
And Biden campaign spokesperson Lauren Hitt, pointing to the president’s current fundraising dominance and ground-game advantage in the key battlegrounds, argued that “Trump’s team has so little campaign or infrastructure to speak of they’re resorting to leaking memos that say ‘the polls we paid for show us winning.'”
But the latest Fox News poll in Virginia indicated Biden and Trump are deadlocked in Virginia.
(Fox News)
The survey, conducted June 1-4, showed the Democratic president and his Republican predecessor in the White House each with 48% support in a head-to-head match.
In a multi-candidate race, Biden stands at 42% and Trump at 41%, with Democrat-turned-independent Kennedy at 9% and Green Party candidate Jill Stein and independent Cornel West each at 2%.
It’s been two decades since a Republican carried Virginia in the race for the White House. You have to go back to President George W. Bush, who won the commonwealth in his 2004 re-election victory.
“Let’s just begin by remembering where we were in 2020 when Joe Biden won Virginia by 10 points, and the fact that we’re having this discussion is a huge turn of events,” Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin said last week in a Fox News Digital interview in New Orleans, as he attended a Republican Governors Association (RGA) conference.
Youngkin emphasized that “we’re here in June and there’s still a lot of water to go under the bridge, but Virginia looks like it’s in play and that’s pretty exciting.”
The United States today, effectively and enduringly, is not one but three nations. There is a “Red America” a “Blue America,” and an “I don’t care” America. Rarely do those in Blue or Red America agree on matters political, or reconcile with friends and family estranged because of politics, and increasingly they do not congregate together.
What used to be differences that were accepted and understood have become breaking points among families and former friends. We are far, far from “civil war” or even 1968 levels of antipathy, but there is a separation between Blue and Red America that is deep and deepening.
This is most manifest in the struggles of the many businesses that purport to “do news.” Only 32% of Americans say they trust the mass media “a great deal” or “a fair amount,” according to Gallup in a survey from last October, a low point equaling the previous bottoming out in 2016 and a small decline since 2021 (36%) and 2022 (34%).
The legacy media’s slow motion credibility crash has led to a collapse in audience and revenue for most such platforms. The core reason seems obvious: The legacy media seethes with contempt for “Red America,” and Red America knows that legacy media is overwhelmingly staffed by Blue America. In turn, “Red America” has walked away from those platforms.
The Red America/Blue America split manifests in the polling in the presidential race, but also on almost every major issue of consequence. Support for Israel is the most salient such issue at this moment, but the same divide separates “pro-life” from “pro-abortion rights camps,” as well as with the divisions over public education’s lurch left, gender ideology and pretty much every cultural and most economic debates.
Before he became one of a handful of the great British statesmen of the 19th, Benjamin Disraeli was a successful novelist. In his “Sybil” from 1845, he wrote about a divide in language that returns to remind us of conditions not just in Victorian England but today in the United States. There existed in the United Kingdom then, Disraeli wrote, “two nations between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy, who are as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts and feelings as if they were inhabitants of different planets.”
This is our condition today, and increasingly any institution that is obviously aligned with one or the other of the two Americas cannot expect the patronage of the other. This legacy media, overwhelmingly, indeed suffocatingly “Blue,” has simply walked away from Red America. Red America noticed. And they have overwhelmingly stopped watching and reading the Blue media.
The assertion that “legacy media” has simply become “Blue media,” cannot be proven because most employees of “Blue journalism” refuse to admit their POVs, but most people I speak with intuitively know the assertion that “legacy newsrooms are Blue” is true. If we gathered all the creative staff of the old networks, plus CNN, as well as the staffs of the old brands in newspapers, and got honest answers to six questions, we could get this “proven”:
For whom did you vote in 2016 and 2020? Are you “pro-life” or “pro-abortion rights”? Do you own a gun? Do you attend church more than six times a year? Are there two genders? Do you support the State of Israel’s right to exist and right to defend itself?
My guess is that more than 90% of the assembled legacy media journalists would provide “Blue America” answers to at least 5 of these 6 inquiries. Red America, by contrast, would prove the opposite answers in at least 4 of the six. If a news organization is overwhelmingly populated by “Blue America” journalists, Red America viewers, readers and listeners are going to walk away. In fact, they already have.
Now the question is: Does legacy media want to survive? If so, it will consciously change its staffing and its subject curiosity and ruthlessly throttle biased coverage. It isn’t hard to diagnose what has gone oh so wrong with legacy media generally, but it does require great resolve to fix.
Former President Donald Trump’s campaign Tuesday, after a Delaware jury convicted Hunter Biden of all three felony charges in his federal gun trial, slammed the proceedings as being a “distraction” from the activities of President Joe Biden and his family members.
“This trial has been nothing more than a distraction from the real crimes of the Biden Crime Family, which has raked in tens of millions of dollars from China, Russia and Ukraine,” Karoline Leavitt, the Trump campaign’s national press secretary, said in a statement about the conviction of the president’s son.
She added that “crooked Joe Biden’s reign over the Biden Family Criminal Empire is all coming to an end on November 5th, and never again will a Biden sell government access for personal profit.”
Hunter Biden’s charges are in connection to the purchase of a handgun in 2018. He was charged with lying on a form while buying the weapon, by saying that he was neither addicted to drugs nor illegally using them.
The verdict was returned in Wilmington, Delaware, after the jury deliberated for about three hours over a two-day time period.
He still faces a trial this September, just two months before the November general election on charges that he failed to pay $1.4 million in taxes, and Republicans in Congress have said they will continue to pursue information about him as part of their impeachment inquiry against his father.
Hamas accepts a U.N. Security Council ceasefire resolution and is ready to negotiate over the details, senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri told Reuters on Tuesday, adding that it was up to Washington to ensure that Israel abides by it.
Hamas accepts the UN security council resolution in regard to the ceasefire, withdrawal of Israeli troops and swap of hostages for detainees held by Israel, he said.
“The U.S. administration is facing a real test to carry out its commitments in compelling the occupation to immediately end the war in an implementation of the UN Security Council resolution,” Abu Zuhri said.
For years, some of us have asked why the Capitol was so poorly prepared for the January 6th riot. As part of the coverage on that day, I remarked at the start of the protests that I had never seen the Capitol so thinly protected for a major demonstration. Some paths to the Capitol were protected by a handful of bicycle officers and thin barriers. Now, a previously unreleased video taken on Jan. 6, 2021, shows then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., admitting that she was responsible for the lack of preparedness.
“We have responsibility, Terri. We did not have any accountability for what was going on there. And we should have. This is ridiculous. You’re going to ask me in the middle of the thing when they’ve already breached…that, should we call the Capitol Police? I mean the National Guard? Why weren’t the National Guard there to begin with?…They clearly didn’t know, and I take responsibility for not having them just prepared for more.”
The video was never released by the J6 Committee, which was criticized for its highly choreographed and scripted hearings with little balance in the presentation of evidence. The lack of emphasis on the security issues was glaring and raised by critics throughout the hearings.
While Democrats and the media dismissed the issue and claims that Trump offered to supply the national guard, it was later confirmed that those offers were made to Congress and rejected. A report from Capitol Police Inspector General Michael Bolton also found that Capitol police were told that they could not use critical riot materials and tactics in preparation for the Jan. 6th protests.
What was so curious about the lack of precautions that morning is that the Capitol had just experienced the violence outside of the White House in the Lafayette Park protests.
To this day, the media and many members continue to repeat false accounts of the Lafayette Park. Many still have stories posted that claim that Lafayette Park was cleared for Trump to hold a photo op in front of a church. I discussed those accounts in testimony before Congress and in columns on the clearing of the Lafayette Park area. NPR still has a story on its website entitled “Peaceful Protesters Tear-Gassed To Clear Way For Trump Church Photo-Op.” More officers were injured in the Lafayette Park protests than on January 6th.
As previously discussed in repeated columns, the House Democratic leadership refused to hold a single hearing with key witnesses on what occurred before the riot. After using a “snap impeachment,” weeks went by without calling such witnesses before the Trump impeachment trial. Such evidence would have challenged the narrative and raised questions over decisions made by Congress that left the Capitol vulnerable to such an attack.
In the Lafayette Park protests, White House officials feared that the compound could be breached by violent protesters who had injured dozens of officers and engaged in arson and attacks around the White House during that weekend. They decided to clear the area to install fencing (which Congress only ordered after the Jan. 6th riot). They also deployed the National Guard and the “heavier, less lethal weapons” that the Inspector General found were denied to the Capitol Police.
Had Pelosi and others accepted National Guard support and installed fencing as was done at the White House, it is doubtful that the riot on January 6th would have occurred, or any disruption would have been far more limited in scope. The fact that the J6 Committee downplayed this major factor in the riot further undermines how the investigation was framed by the Democratic leadership. Pelosi barred the GOP members selected for the committee, hand picking two anti-Trump Republican members.
The absence of any balance on the committee was evident from the start. There was little effort to present alternative explanations or defenses to critical issues raised in hearings. No opposing witnesses were called who might contradict the narrative put forward by the Committee, including witnesses who would debunk the much-repeated, false claim that Trump wrestled with his driver to gain control of the presidential limo to drive to the Capitol.
With the Speaker admitting on tape that she bore responsibility for the lack of precautions, one would think that the J6 Committee, including then Vice Chair Liz Cheney, would consider that relevant for the public to understand the underlying facts. Instead, it was buried with much other countervailing evidence.
Many of us have expressed alarm at the politicization of the criminal justice system in New York by figures such as Attorney General Letitia James and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. It now appears that New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin is angling to get into the lawfare frenzy.
The conviction of Trump on 34 felonies has either thrilled or repelled citizens. For many of us, it is a sign of the degradation of our legal system. Even the chief CNN legal analyst has acknowledged that Bragg contorted the law to bring the recent case against former President Donald Trump in an unprecedented prosecution.
Yet, the use of the legal system for political purposes is clearly popular in New York where people were literally dancing in the street outside of the courthouse after the recent verdict against Trump. Now Platkin’s office has announced that it is “reviewing” whether to pull the liquor licenses for Trump golf clubs since he is now convicted of felonies in New York. It appears that lawfare is nothing if not intoxicating for Democratic politicians.
According to an article in the Hill, the New Jersey Attorney General’s Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control is “reviewing the impact of President Trump’s conviction” on his liquor licenses for the Trump National Golf Club in Colts Neck, Lamington Farm Club, and Trump National Golf Club Philadelphia in Pine Hill.
The latest effort is based on a vague standard governing crimes of “moral turpitude” under New Jersey law:
No license of any class shall be issued to any person under the age of 18 years or to any person who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. A beneficiary of a trust who is not otherwise disqualified to hold an interest in a license may qualify regardless of age so long as the trustee of the trust qualifies, and the trustee shall hold the beneficiary’s interest in trust until the beneficiary is at least the age of majority.
A “crime of moral turpitude” is a familiar, though dated, standard in American law. I teach the standard in torts as one of the traditional “per se” categories for slander under the common law. It was generally used to denote conduct of immorality or serious offenses to norms of society. New Jersey defines it as including “any offense that carries the possibility of one year in jail and involves acts of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowmen, or to society in general.”
Even the New Jersey Alcoholic Beverage Control handbook notes that in “some instances, it may be unclear whether a conviction involves an element of moral turpitude.” Yet, Trump has a way to bringing clarity for his critics whenever they must choose between politics and principle.
For most of us, it is hard to see how falsifying business records would constitute “acts of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowmen, or to society in general.” However, for Democrats, it seems that any act by Trump is by definition base, vile, and depraved.
The piling on of investigations and charges by Democratic officials has reinforced Trump’s long narrative of a weaponization of the legal system against him and his supporters. Polling shows that most citizens view some of these cases as political prosecutions and that they are having diminishing impact on voter preferences. Yet, they remain thrilling for Democratic voters who lionize prosecutors who come up with novel or unprecedented avenues to hammer Trump or hit his businesses. It does not seem to matter that removing the liquor licenses of these clubs can endanger thousands of jobs of citizens or chill other businesses in considering investments in New York or New Jersey.
In the end, the effort is hardly surprising. Lawfare is like binge drinking: the excess is the very measure of its success.
A.F. Branco Cartoon—Stalin would be envious of the Biden presidency and his lawfare efforts against his political opponents. “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.” A Stalinist-type approach is more than obvious here.
Dershowitz: It’s a Day After the Ruling and I Still Don’t Know What the Crime Is – Merchan Took This a Step Further than Stalin
By Jim Hoft – June 1, 2024
Harvard law professor and author Alan Dershowitz weighed in on the Trump convictions by a corrupt court, a biased jury, and and criminal judge on Thursday. Dershowitz pointed out what all of us are wondering – we still don’t know the crime President Trump allegedly committed. As the Democrat operatives’ case against President Trump wound down last week the prosecution still had not defined the alleged criminal act that President Trump allegedly committed. But it didn’t matter. The court was ready to find Trump guilty and send him to prison. READ MORE…
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump. READ MORE…
Top Stories • Donald Trump Says He’ll Work “Side by Side” With Pro-Life Group • Biden Attorney Who Put Pro-Life Grandma in Prison Drops Murder Charge Against Criminal Who Killed Elderly Woman • Arkansas AG Gets NY Company to Stop Advertising Abortion Pills There • Melinda Gates is Now One of the Biggest Promoters of Abortion in the World
More Pro-Life News • Pro-Life Group Leads New Campaign to Stop Pro-Abortion Ballot Measures • No Women Have Died Because of Abortion Bans Since Dobbs • Missouri AG Fighting to Stop Planned Parenthood From Taking Teens Out of State for Secret Abortions • Supreme Court Should Use Environmental Precedents to Stop Mail-Order Abortion Drugs • 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.
NEW DELHI, India — Pastor Josemon Pathrose spent nearly all of February in jail and finally got his confiscated vehicle back after four months. The harassment and criminal charges he’s endured at the hands of Hindu extremists are not uncommon in India.
Pastor Pathrose and another Christian were driving back to their base in Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh state from Uttar Pradesh state on Feb. 3 when they stopped in Khudatpura village, Jalaun District, to visit a family who had attended his online meeting.
As they were having tea, members of the Hindu extremist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Vishwa Hindu Parishad barged in, alleging the 55-year-old pastor was visiting to fraudulently convert people. Police soon arrived and arrested Pastor Pathrose and his companion, seized his vehicle, Bibles and literature and took them and three other Christians to the Madhogarh police station, he said, “They slapped us as they questioned us,” Pastor Pathrose told Morning Star News. “They called me the leader of the ‘conversion racket’ and beat me more than my friend.”
Officers asked them how much money they offered for each conversion to Christianity, how many people had they converted, where they got foreign funds for conversions, how many places had they evangelized, and “Who else is in your gang,” among other questions, the pastor said.
Also arrested was the adult son of the host family and his friend, the pastor said.
A Hindu named Abhishek Singh filed a complaint alleging that Pastor Pathrose and his team offered him 200,000 rupees (US$2,400) “and further benefits” to convert to Christianity, an accusation the pastor roundly denies, but police filed charges unrelated to fraudulent conversion: “Deliberately outraging religious feelings by insulting its religion or religious beliefs” (Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code), “promoting disharmony” (153A), and “statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will” (505-2).
They seized his vehicle and the Bibles under Motor Vehicle Act Section 207, which allows authorities “to detain and take action against vehicles found being driven without the necessary permits and registration. They can, even, seize the vehicle if it is found to be used for any illegal purpose.”
Pathrose runs a Christian literature shop in Gwalior and was carrying the Bibles and literature to display at a 50-day trade fair where he had rented a stall.
Pastor Josemon Pathrose’s vehicle was confiscated for four months. | Morning Star News
“I have been renting a stall in this trade fair for many years. I run the stall every year under the name ‘Bible Shop,’” Pathrose informed the questioning officer. “I have all the required permissions and documentation, and I pay a rent of 25,000 rupees per month.”
The pastor had 13 Bibles, 50 New Testaments and a pack of Christian booklets to display at the stall, he said.
“When the police came to arrest me, I was not preaching, nor carrying a Bible,” Pathrose told Morning Star News. “My Bibles and literature were in my truck. Is it a crime to carry your own religious texts in your vehicle?”
His vehicle, mobile phone, cash and all Christian literature, including the Bibles, were seized, and his friend’s phone and cash were also confiscated.
Pathrose also refuted the complainant’s allegation of fraudulent conversion, saying he had never seen, known or met him before as it was his first visit to Khudatpura village.
For the next two days, local media channels and newspapers branded Pathrose the leader of a “conversion racket” and portrayed all the arrested Christians as “gang members,” he said.
Officers kept the two Christians at the police station for about 30 hours before presenting them before a judge who sent them to Orai jail in Jalaun District without questioning them, Pathrose said.
“It was evident they had orders from authorities not to spare any Christian,” he said. “They had no reason to arrest us, so reasons were being formulated during our interrogation. We were assaulted and interrogated, almost forcing us to say something that would give them a reason to file a case against us.”
Pathrose said police kept the three others arrested separate and also assaulted them. They were presented before a different judge and released the next day; the pastor was unsure if they were required to post bail.
The arrested son of the host and his friend were kept separately. The son was taken from the police station to take his undergraduate annual exam before he and his friend were released without charges, the pastor said.
Jail and legal battle
Pathrose described conditions in the jail as “pathetic,” including “bullying, extortion and mental torture.”
The Jalaun Junior court rejected their bail plea, so their lawyer applied for bail in the Orai District Court, which on Feb. 22 ordered their release on a bail bond of 50,000 rupees (US$600) each. As it was difficult to find sureties in an area unknown to them, they faced a long wait before their release, as “the documents had to pass four stringent tests for validation before they would be considered,” the pastor said.
Pathrose and his friend were finally released on March 1. The same day, he applied to get his confiscated belongings back. Authorities told him he had to get a bond surety of 50,000 rupees (US$600) for his mobile phone, Bibles, literature and 3,500 rupees cash, while his friend had to submit a 25,000 rupees (US$300) surety for his phone and 300 rupees cash.
“It was so hard for us to find two more guarantors,” Pathrose said. “After much persistence, we finally somehow managed.”
When he went to retrieve his vehicle, officials required another surety bond of about 275,000 rupees (US$3,300).
“I felt utterly distressed,” he said.
After hearing his pleas, officials accepted a bond of 125,000 rupees (US$1,500). Arranging this large amount was difficult, but he finally persuaded a Christian to submit papers making his tractor available as surety.
Pathrose went to collect his vehicle, officials told him he couldn’t take it due to a ticket issued for missing papers, though he said his papers were up to date. They forced him to go to the Orai court to pay a 7,000 rupee fine (US$85), but “no receipt was issued,” he said.
When he insisted, “they wrote on a plain paper and gave it,” he said. “Everything seemed fishy.”
After making all payments, when Pathrose finally went to get his vehicle, police told him to return the next day. He continued to try get his vehicle back for three months, riding 95 miles on a motorbike in scorching summer heat every time they had to arrange for bonds and documents.
“From March 1 till May 30, we were called for our stuff several times,” the pastor said.
He finally got his vehicle back on May 30, but in bad shape. “The central locking system was broken, the side mirrors vandalized,” he said. “I felt so sad and miserable that after running from pillar to post, with all my paperwork, I finally got my truck in that condition.”
Repairs will cost him more money.
“The police, lawyer and jail are a bigger torment to us Christians once arrested than the RSS outside the jail,” Pastor Pathrose said. “For us, we suffer both outside and inside.”
While police investigate, the two Christians can appeal in the High Court to dismiss their case. A policeman told the pastor that the host of the house where they were arrested, Har Narayan, is going to testify against them.
Pathrose added, “The host family has been severely threatened, and they have broken all contacts with us. Under pressure, they are giving statements against us.”
India ranked 11th on Christian support organization Open Doors’ 2024 World Watch List of the countries where it is most difficult to be a Christian. The country was 31st in 2013, but its position worsened after Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power.
The hostile tone of the National Democratic Alliance government, led by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), against non-Hindus, has emboldened Hindu extremists in several parts of the country to attack Christians since Modi took power in May 2014, religious rights advocates say.
Morning Star News is the only independent news service focusing exclusively on the persecution of Christians. The nonprofit’s mission is to provide complete, reliable, even-handed news in order to empower those in the free world to help persecuted Christians, and to encourage persecuted Christians by informing them that they are not alone in their suffering.
The reaction to the rescue of four Israeli hostages from Gaza is a microcosm of the past 70 years of this conflict. Every time Palestinians pay the price for acting out in some horrific, irrational, self-destructive, violent way, their defenders want to rewind history to a more convenient moment — this time to Oct. 6, 2023.
Sorry, that’s not how life works. Hamas, the chosen political entity of Gaza — the overwhelming choice of Palestinian civilians, in fact — launched this round of the conflict by massacring, sexually torturing, and kidnapping Israelis whose only sin was attending a music festival. Palestinians took hundreds of these hostages back to the Gaza Strip — a place Arabs have political autonomy over for nearly 20 years — and held them in the middle of densely populated areas hoping to dissuade Israel from liberating them, or, if it did, to create as many martyrs as possible.
Critics of Israel now ask the usual dishonest question: Are four lives worth the alleged 200-plus Arabs that were lost rescuing them?
Israel is the only nation on earth that is tasked with protecting its own people and its enemies. Every innocent lost life is, of course, a tragedy. But if you don’t want to be placed in harm’s way, don’t hold hostages in your homes and neighborhoods, and don’t cheer and support a government that puts your life in constant danger for a lost cause. This is the reality of the world.
Now, if reports are correct, Hamas — and perhaps “civilians” (it’s difficult to tell because terrorists are often dressed as noncombatants) — opened fire on the rescuers. The Israelis, who do not indiscriminately target civilians, fired back, as they should. Whatever the specifics, every lost life is Hamas’ fault.
But, as always, it also needs to be stressed that the casualty numbers that are endlessly repeated by the establishment media are fiction — as everyone in those newsrooms is surely aware. So, we must assume outlets like The Washington Post and CNN — which also detestably contends that the hostages had been “released” — are fellow travelers. One BBC interviewer even asked an IDF spokesman if Israel had warned Palestinians of their sting operation.
Then again, even if there were over 200 dead, it is also surely the case that many of the dead were members of Hamas or holding hostages of their own volition or helping those holding hostages. Avoid doing so if you value your life.
The “Health Ministry” makes no distinction between terrorists and civilians, and in this case there might be little difference. Among those holding the Israelis hostage in their homes in Nuseirat, for instance, were a “journalist” (who apparently worked for Al Jazeera and the U.S.-based Palestine Chronicle, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit) and a “doctor.” The entire neighborhood was ostensibly under UN control. We already know that UN workers had likely participated in the Oct. 7 kidnappings and UNRWA schools are used by Hamas bases of operation.
Even now, there’s a (terrible) ceasefire deal on the table being pushed by Joe Biden (still chumming for antisemitic votes) that Hamas continues to reject. Would we not expect the United States to act the same way as Israel if some homicidal cult had our people?
In the end, of course, this could all end today if the hostages were returned and Hamas would unconditionally surrender. Israel haters, who fashion themselves peaceniks, will blame everyone — Netanyahu, Biden, colonialism, racism, etc., etc. — but the Islamists who are the cause of this war.
Then again, the entire conflict could end if the Palestinians would stop turning to nihilistic theocrats to lead them and accept Israel’s existence.
“For the life of me, I can’t understand why anyone would take a COVID positive patient and put them in a nursing home where, you know, that’s medical malpractice in my mind, and that is a decision I can’t understand…I’m not a lawyer. It’s not necessarily about criminal liability, etc., but if we don’t actually know the truth, we can’t actually help you find closure.” – Representative Ami Bera, M.D. (D-Ca.), former Chief Medical Officer of Sacramento County May 17, 2023, hearing for the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.
Last year, I appeared before Congress at a hearing in Washington, D.C., to talk about how my family and thousands of others in New York lost loved ones to COVID-19 after they contracted the disease in nursing homes.
Tuesday, June 11, will be the most important moment we have had when it comes to our fight for answers and accountability. It will be the first time that our former disgraced governor will sit down and be questioned under oath about his deadly decisions that we believe led to their preventable deaths. That will occur when former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo appears in front of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.
Many of you know how personal this story is for me. My husband lost both of his parents in separate facilities during the spring of 2020 after an executive order was issued, which stood for 46 days, admitting over 9,000 COVID-positive patients into a place where our most vulnerable reside.
Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo will have to answer to Congress about how COVID-19 patients were pushed into nursing homes with deadly consequences. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)
We were never warned of this decision, and there has never been a thorough investigation into why nursing homes were the first and only option to send in COVID-19 positive patients. Because if there is one thing we knew at the very beginning of the pandemic, it was that this virus would be the most dangerous for the elderly. And despite having other options, like the Javits Center, the USNS Comfort and other makeshift provisional hospitals with thousands of empty beds, then-New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo decided instead to unleash COVID-19 into nursing homes and put the most vulnerable lives in danger.
There have been a few government reports and hearings over the years that have never amounted to much in the way of justice. In 2022, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul hired a consulting firm based in Alexandria, Virginia, to look back at the policies and decisions made in New York during the pandemic, but it didn’t have subpoenas, and the contract will expire in just a few days. According to a recent report, the Olsen Group has billed the state for less than half of its allotted $4.3 million. My guess is that document will never see the light of day.
More recently, there has been a proposed bill in Albany that promises hearings and investigations into state records and (most importantly) subpoenas to compel testimony from Cuomo and his former associates. It would seem that the work of the subcommittee in D.C. has finally shamed some of our elected representatives in New York to look like they care about a much-needed after-action review.
One of our biggest questions as the virus ravaged nursing homes is who came up with the March 25 directive that was in place for over six weeks, and then suddenly reversed while magically disappearing from the Health Department’s website.
It doesn’t take a virologist to figure out that putting a highly contagious airborne virus into nursing homes would be a death trap. Interestingly, on June 3, there was a Harvard research paper released (the first of its kind) that studied the “Clinical Outcomes After Admission of Patients With COVID-19 to Skilled Nursing Facilities.” Its conclusion stated:
The Andrew Cuomo book on the New York COVID-19 outbreak. (Getty Images/AP )
“That admission of COVID-19–positive patients into SNFs early in the pandemic was associated with preventable COVID-19 cases and mortality among residents.”
Even Cuomo knew that allowing COVID patients into a nursing home would be a recipe for disaster. One of his most memorable quotes in the early stages of the pandemic was when he addressed the importance of protecting nursing home residents, and said the virus, if allowed into their facilities, would spread like “fire through dry grass.”
We have our suspicions about who was behind the March 25 directive (and we’re confident it wasn’t written by doctors), but the truth won’t come out unless there is a full investigation with access to all state documents, electronic messages and most importantly subpoena power which has never happened until now.
And the other major point that needs to be addressed is why Cuomo and his staff went to such great lengths to cover up the death toll (by the thousands) and (still) continue to lie about it? Did it have anything to do with his $5.2-million book deal that was auctioned off to the highest bidder?
The timeline is very curious, because after a Cuomo commissioned report was released, whitewashing his involvement in the nursing home tragedy, and drastically undercounted the deaths (which to this day has never been corrected on the DOH website), Cuomo then signed his multi-million-dollar book contract. And if we find out that his administration purposely hid information and lied to the public to make money, wouldn’t that be a crime?
The governor, who was elected to serve and protect the people of New York through a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic, instead acted recklessly with deliberate indifference, causing thousands of avoidable nursing home deaths.
One of our biggest questions as the virus ravaged nursing homes is who came up with the March 25 directive that was in place for over six weeks, and then suddenly reversed while magically disappearing from the Health Department’s website.
This man needs to finally answer questions under oath. While we were all locked away and told to avoid the virus at all costs, his administration decided to unleash the lethal illness into senior care residences without warning or protection.
I look forward to hearing Andrew Cuomo finally swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But if he continues to lie, obstruct and blame others, then so help him God. He’s going to need support from a much higher power than the person who believed had all the control in the world during the pandemic: himself.
Janice Dean joined FOX News Channel (FNC) in January 2004 where she currently serves as senior meteorologist for the network. In addition, she is the morning meteorologist for FNC’s signature morning show, FOX & Friends (weekdays 6-9AM/ET) as well as contributes to FOX Weather, FOX News Media’s free ad-supported streaming television (“FAST”) weather service. Click here to listen to “The Janice Dean Podcast.“
President Joe Biden’s approval rating has sunk to its lowest-ever — a dismal 37.4% — with disapproval at a troubling 56.6, according to tracker and opinion poll analyzer Five Thirty Eight. The polling shows signs of dwindling support among nonwhite voters, while progressives have also hammered the White House over its response to Israel’s handling of the war in Gaza in the aftermath of Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack, Business Insider reported.
Biden’s approval began the slide after the United States’ tumultuous withdrawal from Afghanistan and has never recovered. As the Taliban moved swiftly Aug. 15, 2021, into the capital city of Kabul, taking control of the country in a weekend after U.S. forces pulled out, Biden was sitting on a 49% approval rating, according to Gallup. He was just seven months into his presidency. A month later, his approval fell to 43%.
In comparison, former President Donald Trump’s approval rating has ticked up since he left office in the wake of the Capitol riot. According to FiveThirtyEight’s weighted average, Trump has a 41.6% approval rating as he faces a potentially dangerous time after becoming the first-ever former president to be convicted of a felony.
In 2016, Gallup found Trump and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were the least popular presidential candidates dating back to when they began measuring such popularity in 1956, Business Insider reported.
Gallup found in Biden’s most recent quarter in office, which ended April 18, he was at the lowest approval rating in that span in decades. Four other modern presidents had an average sub-50% approval rating at this same point in time. Only one, President Barack Obama, won reelection in November.
Trump, whose Gallup average was 46.8% at this time in 2020, lost to Biden that November.
Various posters on social media have featured a video of a graduating McGill University student appearing to spit on the Dean and another faculty member. She then produced a sign demanding divestment from Israel. As she appeared to spit on the President Deep Saini and the other faculty member, the audience can be heard cheering. The school later reportedly edited out the ugly incident and would not confirm that it will be taking any action against the student.
In the video, the student can be seen making the spitting gestures while wearing a keffiyeh and holding a sign that reads “Divest from death.”
The university did not deny that the incident was edited out and simply stated that “multimedia staff often cut to different angles during the livestream to focus on different aspects of the ceremony, which allows students and their families to celebrate an important milestone.”
The incident is only the latest such protest at graduations. In another protest recently (by an animal activist), interim Harvard President Alan M. Garber was hit by green glitter. Brittany A. Drake, the activist, pleaded not guilty to three counts of felony criminal charges.
McGill has not committed to seeking any discipline, let alone such charges, for the student.
The incident captures the breakdown of civility and respect at our institutions of higher education. This conduct has been reinforced by professors and administrators for years in pushing activism over academics. McGill students have declared that “free speech does not exist outside of its social context” and sought to strip professors of academic titles due to their holding opposing views. There has also been a lack of discipline for students who have engaged in the disruption of events and even classes.
McGill is one of the world’s finest universities, but it has shown little principle or courage in facing disruptive and disgraceful conduct in the past. Simply deleting the scene of the student spitting at the President will do little to address this trend. As academics, we need to reassert control over our campuses and stand firmly against conduct to disrupt events or classes.
Below is my column in The Hill on the latest calls to protect democracy with distinctly undemocratic measures. Former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton insisted that the 2024 election was our D-Day, suggesting that voters would have to fight the GOP like the Nazis in World War II. Clinton previously called on Europe to censor American citizens when Twitter sought to dismantle its censorship program and called her defeat in the 2016 election “illegitimate.” Yet, for many civil libertarians, the “defenders of democracy” are the very threat to democracy going into the 2024 election.
Here is the column:
In 2024, the greatest test for our Constitution may be whether it can survive the “Defenders of Democracy.”
Ronald Reagan often said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” Today, Reagan’s line cannot compare with the line that sends many of us into a fetal position: “I’m a Democrat and I am here to save democracy.”
The jump scare claim is that unless citizens vote for democrats, the end of democracy will begin shortly. In 2022, House Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told “Fox News Sunday” that “democracy will be ending” if Democrats lost the midterms.
The rhetoric has continued to ramp up with the upcoming election.
From President Joe Biden to a host of progressive politicians and pundits, the 2024 election is all about saving democracy. The public has been told that if the Democrats lose power, citizens will be living in a tyrannical hellscape. Vice President Kamala Harris stated in one interview that 2024 “genuinely could be” the last democratic election in America’s history. Dozens of Democrats have said that democracy will end if Biden is not reelected.
The Washington Post even ran an op-ed titled, “A Trump dictatorship is increasingly inevitable. We should stop pretending.”
Many Americans have tuned out the overheated rhetoric, as shown by Donald Trump’s continuing lead in many polls even after his conviction in Manhattan. The warnings also ignore that our system has checks and balances that protected democracy for centuries as the world’s oldest and most successful constitutional system. These dire predictions would require all three branches to fail in an unprecedented fashion.
While these figures cite the Capitol riot on Jan 6., 2021 as evidence of the pending collapse of democracy, the system worked as designed on that day. Congress refused to be deterred by the riot and virtually every court (including many presided over by Trump-appointed judges) rejected challenges to the election.
The most obvious threats today to the democratic system are coming from the left, not the right.
Democratic secretaries of state sought to block Trump from the ballot in 2024, and Democratic members sought to bar roughly 120 colleagues from their respective ballots. It seemed that the greatest threat to democracy was its exercise by voters. Fortunately, a unanimous Supreme Court rejected the theory and added, “Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos.”
There has also been a push by Democrats to keep third-party candidates off ballots. Again, the last thing democracy needs is for voters to have more democratic choice.
In New York, Democratic congressional candidate Paula Collins even suggested that, after the election, the focus must be on “re-education” of MAGA voters, although she acknowledged that “that sounds like a rather, a re-education camp. I don’t think we really want to call it that. I’m sure we can find another way to phrase it.”
Democratic operatives are using the same rationalization to call for biased reporting to help Biden get reelected.
Democratic strategist James Carville this week demanded more “slanted” media coverage against Donald Trump to save democracy. Carville was triggered by New York Times editor Joe Kahn suggesting that the newspaper report the news in a fair and neutral manner. The suggestion sent many pundits into vapors at the very thought of reembracing objectivity in journalism.
“I don’t have anything against slanted coverage,” Carville insisted. “I really don’t, I would have something against it at most other times in American history, but not right now. F— your objectivity. The real objectivity in this country right now is we’re either going to have a Constitution or we’re not.”
It was particularly galling to hear the call for “slanted coverage” in the same week that the Hunter Biden laptop was authenticated and used as evidence in his Delaware trial. The government has called the widely reported claim that the laptop was “Russian disinformation” a debunked “conspiracy theory.” Carville was making his pitch for more biased reporting to the very media that buried the laptop story before the last election and spent two years in denial of its authenticity.
Yet, many journalists agree with Carville. Some journalism schools have been teaching that reporters need to dump concepts of objectivity and neutrality to achieve political and social reforms.
This week, reporters were irate after Washington Post publisher and CEO William Lewis issued a blunt message that the newspaper could not survive after losing half of its readership and tens of millions of dollars last year. He told the staff: “People are not reading your stuff. Right. I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”
The fear that these newspapers might cover Biden and Trump in a fair and balanced way was immediately denounced as . . . wait for it . . . a threat to democracy. After Carville’s meltdown, the Washington Post’s Margaret Sullivan warned Kahn and others that “our very democracy is on the brink, and how the Times covers that existential threat is of extraordinary importance.” She then asked whether the paper will “forthrightly identify the problems posed by a radicalized Republican Party that is increasingly dedicated to lies, bad-faith attacks and the destruction of democratic norms.” Sullivan expressed alarm that the media would “try to cut the situation straight down the middle as if we were still in the old days — an era that no longer exists?”
The “era” appears to be the golden age of journalism when most Americans respected and patronized the same media outlets. Now, citizens are fleeing mainstream media, and polls indicate that they view reporters as pursuing the very political agendas embraced by figures like Carville and Sullivan.
Many voters are also responding to what they see as the politicalization of the criminal justice system, particularly with Trump’s recent trial in Manhattan. Again, these cases are being embraced as key to “defending democracy” when many citizens view them as the very antithesis of a nation committed to the rule of law.
This glaring disconnect was evident when President Joe Biden spoke on the top of the Point-du-Hoc in Normandy on the 80th anniversary of D-Day. Biden again used the event to suggest that democracy was in danger in the United States with the upcoming election. Yet, Biden has overseen widespread government censorship with federal agencies targeting those with opposing views on everything from elections and climate change to COVID-19 and transgender policies.
As Democratic secretaries of state sought to bar Trump from ballots, Biden refused to oppose the efforts. When liberal law professors and members demanded to pack the Supreme Court to guarantee a liberal majority, Biden refused to denounce it during the last campaign.
This is why some in the country may view Biden and the Democrats as existential threats not just to democracy, but to themselves. They see a party that is engaged in efforts to cleanse ballots (of Republicans), censor dissenting voices and prosecute political opponents. That is not exactly what propelled those men to climb the cliff of Pointe-du-Hoc in 1944.
Fortunately, our democracy does not depend on any president. It was designed by James Madison to withstand the worst, not the best, motivations of our leaders. After all, Madison wrote in Federalist #51, “If Men were angels, no government would be necessary.”
The system that he designed has withstood political, economic and social crises, including a civil war. It may even protect us from today’s “defenders of democracy.”
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Six-figure salaried St. Paul mayor thanks Joe Biden for forgiving his student loans despite raking in at least $129,000 per year, Melvin Carter’s federal loans were forgiven.
Six-figure salaried St. Paul mayor thanks Joe Biden for forgiving his student loans
By Evan Poellinger – June 4th, 2024
Despite raking in at least $129,000 per year, Melvin Carter’s federal loans were forgiven.
St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter is off the hook for his federal student loans, and he has credited President Joe Biden for his good fortune. In a May 29 tweet, Carter posted a screenshot of his account on federal student loan servicer MOHELA with zero-dollar figures in his “payments due” category with the attached caption, “Thank you, Mr. President!” Carter’s post included a quote-tweet of Biden which bragged, “the Supreme Court tried to block me from relieving student debt. But they didn’t stop me. I’ve relieved student debt for over 5 million Americans. I’m going to keep going.” READ MORE…
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump. READ MORE…
The American College of Pediatricians just put out a 🔥🔥🔥 statement calling out all the major medical associations by name for pushing the gender transition craze on kids.
They ask for these groups to "IMMEDIATELY stop the promotion of social affirmation, puberty blockers,… pic.twitter.com/Rba8HDLkoM
The American College of Pediatricians just put out a statement calling out all the major medical associations by name for pushing the gender transition craze on kids. They ask for these groups to “IMMEDIATELY stop the promotion of social affirmation, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries for children and adolescents who experience distress over their biological sex.” The full
“Therefore, given the recent research and the revelations of the harmful approach advocated by WPATH and its followers in the United States, we, the undersigned, call upon the medical professional organizations of the United States, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry to follow the science and their European professional colleagues and immediately stop the promotion of social affirmation, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries for children and adolescents who experience distress over their biological sex. Instead, these organizations should recommend comprehensive evaluations and therapies aimed at identifying and addressing underlying psychological co-morbidities and neurodiversity that often predispose to and accompany gender dysphoria. We also encourage the physicians who are members of these professional organizations to contact their leadership and urge them to adhere to the evidence-based research now available.” They link to MANY studies on their site: https://doctorsprotectingchildren.org
Having problems reading this email? To read the news, visit LifeNews.com.
Top Stories • Texas Resident Ryan Hamilton Claims His Wife Was Denied Care for a Miscarriage, But That’s False • New Bill Would Stop Biden From Forcing Americans to Fund Abortions • Pope Francis: Overpopulation is a Myth, The World Needs More Children • WHO Partners With Radical Pro-Abortion Group to Push Abortion Worldwide
More Pro-Life News • Pastor: Christians Have an Obligation to Save Babies From Abortion • Economic Elites Pour Millions into Abortion Advocacy • Arkansas Reports 0 Abortions as Abortion Ban Saves Babies • New Billboards Expose How People Survived Abortion or Were Pressured to Have Abortions • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
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.
Former President Donald Trump waves to supporters May 30 as he exits the courtroom for a break during his since-ended criminal trial in New York City. The trial, with the deck stacked against Trump, is widely seen as an example of Democratic “lawfare” against their chief opponent. (Photo: Justin Lane/AFP/Getty Images)
Nearly 14 months after the first of four unprecedented criminal prosecutions against former President Donald Trump commenced in earnest, the Democrat-lawfare complex got its man: The Soviet show trial in “Justice” Juan Merchan’s dingy New York City courtroom produced its preordained “guilty” verdict.
It is perhaps hackneyed to observe that, in convicting and seeking to incarcerate a former president and current leading presidential candidate, we have “crossed the Rubicon.” Well …
Did we not cross a Rubicon when the demonic Obama administration sued the nuns—yes, literal nuns—of the Little Sisters of the Poor to try to force them to subsidize abortifacients?
Did we not cross a Rubicon when Democrats threw out 4,000 to 5,000 years of “innocent until proven guilty” civilizational norms to try to derail the U.S. Supreme Court confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh?
Did we not cross a Rubicon when then-vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris solicited funds to bail out anarchic Antifa-Black Lives Matter street hooligans?
Did we not cross a Rubicon when the American Stasi—sorry, the FBI—raided Mar-a-Lago over a document dispute?
Did we not cross a Rubicon when myriad Trump attorneys, including the renowned scholar John Eastman, were prosecuted for practicing the legal profession?
Did we not cross a Rubicon when Peter Navarro or Steve Bannon (just now) were ordered to jail?
The Rubicon, truthfully, is a shallow, inconsequential river in Italy. That it is so shallow helps explain why Julius Caesar was able to cross it so easily. At this juncture in American history, it no longer suffices to speak of crossing a Rubicon. We are now rapidly crossing great seas—perhaps even circumnavigating the globe. You might call President Joe Biden and the rest of the Democrat-lawfare complex our modern-day Magellans.
Ruinous or not, however, their precedent has now been set. And that raises the obvious question: For Democrats, will all of this, and especially their multifront anti-Trump lawfare, prove to be worth it?
That obvious question, in turn, has an equally obvious answer: absolutely, positively not.
First, Democrats do not seem to be getting much of a bump in the early polls after last week’s verdict. In each of the two major national polls that have been conducted exclusively after the verdict, from pollsters Emerson College and Morning Consult, Trump leads by 1 point. As even the liberal Washington Post conceded on Thursday, “Other polls conducted before and after the verdict suggest between no change and a two-point shift toward Biden. The shifts are quite a bit smaller than pretrial polls suggested they could be.”
Considering that Trump was already leading in most national horse race polling and that the Republican Party currently has a built-in Electoral College advantage wherein its presidential candidate can slightly lose the popular vote while still prevailing in the electoral vote, the Biden-Harris campaign ought to be worried.
Democrats’ lawfare isn’t winning over many swing voters.
Former President Donald Trump sits in the courtroom May 30 during his since-ended “hush money” trial in New York City. Democrats got their preordained “guilty” verdict, but there’s no evidence it gave them the polling bump they hoped for. (Photo: Michael Santiago/Getty Images)
Second, the damage the Democrat-lawfare complex has caused to the American public’s faith and trust in the justice system is simply astronomical—and likely irreparable. Even prior to the onslaught of Trump indictments filed last year, many of us “deplorables” were already convinced we have a two-tier system of justice in this country: Consider the wholly disparate prosecutorial treatment of the BLM-Antifa rioters and the “J6-ers” present during the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol jamboree, for instance.
But the Democrat-lawfare complex’s serial overreaches have now removed any doubt as to the blatant impartiality and patent unfairness of our regnant legal order. It is impossible not to be jaded or cynical. Leviticus 19:15 commands: “You shall commit no injustice in judgment; you shall not favor a poor person or respect a great man; you shall judge your fellow with righteousness.”
Does anyone think this describes America today?
Third, the Right finally seems to be snapping out of its long lull and beginning to gear itself for pitched battle against a domestic foe that wants to punish us, prosecute us, subjugate us, and remove us from the entirety of American public life. That portends poorly for leftists.
My friend John Yoo, the Bush-era Justice Department official and law professor normally a bit less pugnacious than yours truly, opined: “Repairing this breach of constitutional norms will require Republicans to follow the age-old maxim: Do unto others as they have done unto you.”
Megyn Kelly, the influential broadcaster who has had a complex relationship with Trump going back to the 2016 GOP presidential primary, said after the verdict: “I’m going to utter words I never thought I would utter in my life: We need Steve Bannon.” The famously combative Bannon appears headed for an unjust four-month prison sentence in a few weeks, but her point stands.
Democrats have no idea what they have unleashed. Perhaps worse, they don’t even care.
While Democrats deny President Joe Biden and Democrat operatives had a role in any of Donald Trump’s five criminal and civil prosecutions, their behavior suggests otherwise. Pictured: Biden delivers remarks at the White House on June 4, 2024. (Photo: Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
The five criminal and civil prosecutions of former President Donald Trump all prompt heated denials from Democrats that President Joe Biden and Democrat operatives had a role in any of them. But Biden has long let it be known that he was frustrated with his own Department of Justice’s federal prosecutors for their tardiness in indicting Trump. Biden was upset because any delay might mean that his rival Trump would not be in federal court during the 2024 election cycle. And that would mean he could not be tagged as a “convicted felon” by the November election while being kept off the campaign trail.
Politico has long prided itself on its supposed insider knowledge of the workings of the Biden administration. Note that it was reported earlier this February that a frustrated Joe Biden “has grumbled to aides and advisers that had (Attorney General Merrick) Garland moved sooner in his investigation into former President Donald Trump’s election interference, a trial may already be underway or even have concluded…”
If there was any doubt about the Biden administration’s effort to force Trump into court before November, Politico further dispelled it—even as it blamed Trump for Biden’s anger at Garland: “That trial still could take place before the election and much of the delay is owed not to Garland but to deliberate resistance put up by the former president and his team.”
Note in passing how a presidential candidate’s legal right to oppose a politicized indictment months before an election by his opponent’s federal attorneys is smeared by Politico as “deliberate resistance.”
Given Politico was publicly reporting six months ago about Biden’s anger at the pace of his DOJ’s prosecution of Trump, does anyone believe his special counsel, Jack Smith, was not aware of such presidential displeasure and pressure?
Note Smith had petitioned and was denied an unusual request to the court to speed up the course of his Trump indictment.
And why would Biden’s own attorney general, Garland, select such an obvious partisan as Smith? Remember, in his last tenure as special counsel, Smith had previously gone after popular Republican and conservative Virginia governor Bob McDonnell.
Yet Smith’s politicized persecution of the innocent McDonnell was reversed by a unanimous verdict of the U.S. Supreme Court. That rare court unanimity normally should have raised a red flag to the Biden DOJ about both Smith’s partiality and his incompetence.
But then again, Smith’s wife had donated to the 2020 Biden campaign fund. And she was previously known for producing a hagiographic 2020 documentary (“Becoming”) about Michelle Obama.
Selecting a special counsel with a successful record of prior nonpartisan convictions was clearly not why the DOJ appointed Smith.
The White House’s involvement is not limited to the Smith federal indictments.
Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis’s paramour and erstwhile lead prosecutor in her indictment of Trump, Nathan Wade, met twice with the White House counsel’s office. On one occasion, Wade met inside the Biden White House.
Subpoenaed records reveal that the brazen Wade actually billed the federal government for his time spent with the White House counsel’s staff—although so far no one has disclosed under oath the nature of such meetings.
Of the tens of thousands of local prosecutions each year, in how many instances does a county prosecutor consult with the White House counsel’s office—and then bill it for his knowledge?
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s just-completed felony convictions of Trump were spearheaded by former prominent federal prosecutor Matthew Colangelo. He is not just a well-known Democratic partisan who served as a political consultant to the Democratic National Committee.
Colangelo had also just left his prior position in the Biden Justice Department—reputedly as Garland’s third-ranking prosecutor—to join the local Bragg team. Again, among all the multitudes of annual municipal indictments nationwide, how many local prosecutors manage to enlist one of the nation’s three top federal attorneys to head their case?
So, apparently, it was not enough for the shameless Bragg to campaign flagrantly on promises to go after Trump. In addition, Bragg brashly drafted a top Democratic operative and political appointee from inside Joe Biden’s DOJ to head his prosecution.
Not surprisingly, it took only a few hours after the Colangelo-Bragg conviction of Trump for Biden on spec to start blasting his rival as a “convicted felon.” Biden is delighted that his own former prosecutor, a left-wing judge, and a Manhattan jury may well keep Trump off the campaign trail.
So, it is past time for the media and Democrats to drop this ridiculous ruse of Biden’s White House “neutrality.” Instead, they should admit that they are terrified of the will of the people in November and so are conniving to silence them.
Below is my column in Fox.com on the authentication of Hunter Biden’s laptop in the Delaware trial. The government has denounced the Russian disinformation claims as a “conspiracy theory” and put on evidence that there is no evidence of tampering with the laptop. The FBI declared the laptop to be “real” and “authentic” and the court agreed. It was introduced as evidence before many reporters who previously embraced the debunked “conspiracy theory.” As discussed below, Houdini’s elephant was just revealed on stage and most of the audience looked away.
Here is the column:
Watching the coverage this week out of Delaware was like finding oneself in a parallel universe. There were ABC, NBC, CBS, the Washington Post and other news outlets reporting matter-of-factly that the Hunter Biden laptop showed no evidence of tampering and was both real and authentic.
These are the same outlets, and some of the same reporters, who eagerly spread the false claims that the laptop was “Russian disinformation.”
Yet, what followed the testimony of FBI agent Erika Jensen was absolute crickets. There was no effort to track down the signatories of the now-debunked letter from former intelligence officials just before the election. In the letter, figures such as Leon Panetta, former CIA director in the Obama administration, claimed that the laptop had all the markings of a Russian disinformation effort by intelligence services. (Panetta continued to make the assertion even in late 2023 in pushing what the federal government is now calling a “conspiracy theory.”)
There was no attempt by the media to confront associates of the Biden campaign (including now Secretary of State Antony Blinken) who pushed a long effort to get former intelligence officials to sign a letter.
There was no attempt to question President Joe Biden, who made this false claim in the presidential election to deflect any questions about the evidence of corrupt influence peddling on the laptop.
Years ago, I wrote that the Biden campaign had pulled off the single greatest political trick in history. As I wrote back then, the key to this Houdini-esque trick was to get the media to invest in the deception like audience members called to the stage.
Houdini used to make his elephant Jennifer disappear on stage every night because he knew that the audience wanted her to disappear. They were part of the act. The Bidens made the media part of the act, and these reporters have to back the illusion or admit that they were part of the deception. They are all laptop deniers, but they know that there are few who will call them to account for their conspiracy theory. Rather, it is social media where readers can see videos of leading media claiming that the laptop is the work of Russian intelligence.
In 2020, CBS News’ Lesley Stahl literally laughed mockingly at then-President Donald Trump when he raised the Hunter Biden laptop and what it revealed about the Bidens.
Figures like former Chief of Staff at the CIA and Department of Defense Jeremy Bash, who told MSNBC that the laptop “looked like Russian intelligence” and “walked like Russian intelligence.” He dismissed the relevance of the laptop before the election by declaring that “this effort by Rudy Giuliani and the New York Post and Steve Bannon to cook up supposed dirt on Joe Biden looks like a classic, Russian playbook disinformation campaign.”
Bash added that it made Trump an effective agent of Russian intelligence since he kept referencing the laptop: “[when] Rudy Giuliani suddenly comes forward with these mysteriously created emails, probably hacked through a Russian intelligence operation, we have to acknowledge the fact that the President of the United States is supporting, is condoning, is welcoming a Russian intelligence operation in 2020. … This is collusion in plain sight.”
Bash, like others behind the conspiracy theory, was later given an intelligence position by Biden.
The New York Times and The Washington Post both eventually verified Hunter Biden’s laptop after big tech dismissed the New York Post’s bombshell reporting during the 2020 presidential election. The Post reporting was famously censored by Twitter ahead of the 2020 election.
CNN’s Alex Marquardt told viewers, “We do know it is a very active Russian campaign.”
Indeed, the Washington Post has continued to suggest that this reporting was accurate. One of the leading purveyors of this false story was the Post’s Philip Bump, who slammed the New York Post for its now proven Hunter Biden laptop story.
In 2021, when media organizations were finally admitting that the laptop was authentic, Bump was still declaring that it was a “conspiracy theory.” Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Bump continued to suggest that “the laptop was seeded by Russian intelligence.”
After Bump had a meltdown in an interview when confronted over past false claims, I wrote a column about the litany of such false claims. The Post surprised many of us by issuing a statement that they stood by all of Bump’s reporting, including the laptop conspiracy theory. That was in August 2023.
Of course, this trick would not have been possible without the assistance of 50 former intelligence officials who were reportedly organized through Clinton campaign associates to issue the infamous letter. These figures then continued to spread the false claim.
Former CIA Director John Brennan, one of the 50 who signed the letter, also claimed that the laptop bore “the hallmarks of Russian disinformation.”
James Clapper, a former director of National Intelligence and CNN analyst, said the laptop was “classic, textbook Soviet, Russian tradecraft at work.”
Members of Congress also repeated the false claims, including Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., who told the media not to join Giuliani as a “vehicle for Russian disinformation.”
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., former chair of the House Intelligence Committee, insisted that the laptop was clearly “Kremlin propaganda.”
This long-debunked claim was even recently repeated in Congress by Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., who claimed that the laptop could not be authenticated even though it was just authenticated and introduced in a federal prosecution.
All of those who pushed what the U.S. government is now calling a false “conspiracy theory” have flourished in the wake of Biden’s victory. Intelligence officials like Bash received plum positions while others like Clapper were given media contracts. Schiff is expected to be elected to the Senate and is running, ironically enough, on his record with intelligence investigations of Trump.
Conversely, the New York Post and reporters like Miranda Devine have received no recognition for their work in disclosing the contents and defying attacks from politicians and media alike. While reporters were given a Pulitzer for reporting the now debunked Russian collusion story, Devine and others will never receive a Pulitzer for uncovering the true story behind the laptop.
Devine, the New York Post, and others simply refused to get in on the trick. As is often said, there are some facts simply “too good to check” in the media. The Hunter Biden laptop disappeared from the stage like Houdini’s elephant because the media wanted it to disappear.
The reappearance of the laptop in a Delaware courtroom might be awkward for most people, but not the media or intelligence officials or politicians who pushed the conspiracy theory. After all, they were all in on the trick. It was the voters who were played for chumps.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – June 6th 2024 is the 80th Anniversary of D-Day. Where American soldiers died and fought against the very thing Biden and the Democrats represent and advocate today.
HUMILIATION: Biden Awkwardly Hunches Over at D-Day Celebrations… “Is He Downloading in His Diaper?” (VIDEO)
By Ben Kew – June 6, 2024
Joe Biden once again reminded the world how mentally and physically unfit he is for office by randomly crouching down during war celebrations in France. Appearing at D-Day 80th anniversary celebrations with French President Emmanuel Macron, Biden started leaning forward and appeared on the brink of collapse before eventually restoring balance. Both Jill Biden and Brigitte Macron looked on in confusion as the 81-year-old continued to embarrass himself. READ MORE…
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump. READ MORE…
Top Stories • Biden Ignores Hundreds of Cases of Violence Against Pro-Life Christians • Trump Glad Roe Overturned so States Can Pass Their Own Abortion Laws: “It’s a Beautiful Thing • Democrats’ Attempt to Pass Trojan Horse Bill Pushing Abortion is Defeated • Biden Puts Pro-Life Americans in Prison, Hasn’t Arrested Anyone for Firebombing a Pregnancy Center
More Pro-Life News • Teens Who Beat a Couple and Killed Their Unborn Baby Released After Arrest • Couple Banned From Adopting Because They’re Conservative Christians Win First Battle in Court • Abortions Drop to Near 0 in Pro-Life States as Abortion Bans Save Babies • Canadian Court Will Hear Case of Woman Who Might be Euthanized Because She Has Autism • 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.
Journalist Tucker Carlson explained during a recent podcast with Shawn Ryan that he believes humanity is engulfed in a spiritual war. | Screenshot: YouTube/Shawn Ryan Show
Journalist Tucker Carlson explained during a recent podcast with former U.S. Navy SEAL Shawn Ryan that he believes humanity is engulfed in a spiritual war and that World War III could be on the horizon as the final spiritual dividing lines are being drawn.
During a wide-ranging discussion that spanned more than three hours, Carlson spoke to Ryan at length about the spiritual warfare he discerns is taking place in the world, which he believes includes UFOs or so-called “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena,” also known as UAPs.
When Ryan asked him if he believes the world is approaching World War III, Carlson said, “We’re really close to it, as you know. Really, really, really close.”
“The fact that anyone would even consider getting within a thousand miles of f—ing around with a nuclear exchange just shows you that the core impulse here is suicide,” he said. “That’s what all of this is. And that’s why I personally think it’s spiritual. The word ‘demonic’ is suddenly being overused, it’s everywhere, because it’s real.”
“If you see a human movement that’s anti-human — the push toward nuclear war for its own sake is, by definition, anti-human. I would say AI is anti-human, by definition. Transgenderism is anti-human, by definition. Transhumanism is anti-human. Do people act against their own long-term interest? Probably not, actually, so it’s probably not human.”
“Did dogs act against their own collective interest? Do caribou? Do porcupines? Do single-cell amoeba? Do sea cucumbers? No, none of them do. No animal does that, because it’s not natural. Animals are part of nature, they do natural things. People are subject to the supernatural, so they do things that are not natural, like kill themselves.”
“That’s why we’re the only species that kills itself, right?” Carlson continued. “So when you kill yourself, whether slowly or all at once, you’re being acted on by forces outside of you — spiritual forces, obviously.”
The two went on to discuss UAPs, which Carlson has previously suggested are demonic entities that have a relationship with the U.S. government.
Carlson cited Genesis 6, which some biblical commentators have suggested teaches that fallen angels and humans procreated before the Flood, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Conceding that he is a devout Christian who believes other religions are false, Carlson noted that most belief systems teach that supernatural beings can take physical form, a doctrine he said would include the incarnation of Jesus Christ.
“If every culture in the world that we know about has left any kind of written or physical record is reaching the same conclusions about something, maybe there’s something there,” he said. “And maybe it’s not so crazy to think what everyone else has always thought since the beginning of time, which is that there is this combination in cases of human beings and the spiritual realm, whatever that is.”
“I don’t understand the specifics of it, but I know that it has been written about since people have been writing,” Carlson added, noting that modern man seemingly stopped believing in the supernatural largely after 1945, when they proved they were capable of destroying the world.
After Ryan observed that there is seemingly a deepening cultural divide between Christians and overt satanists that might suggest the end of the world is approaching, Carlson predicted religious revival.
“I don’t have too many great insights into things or prophetic feelings,” he said. “I’m very conventional, but the one thing that I really felt strongly a couple of years ago — really strongly, I felt it overwhelmingly like from outside me — was that there’s some form of religious revival coming. I felt that really strongly.”
Carlson said he receives reams of information about the End Times from friends. While he is reticent to formulate a firm opinion on the topic, he said he believes mankind is unmistakably moving toward a crisis point.
“I think history ends, I think we all sort of sense history ends,” he said. “But it’s also really clear that we don’t know when it ends, so I kind of resent that a little bit, because it’s like, ‘What are you? God? You know the future?'”
Acknowledging that humans are incapable of knowing the future, he also said, “We are clearly moving towards something big.”
“Who doesn’t feel that? Everybody feels it, and the divide is spiritual,” he added.
Since his ouster from Fox News in 2023, Carlson has become more open about his beliefs regarding the spiritual nature of the battles afflicting the world. During a speech to members of the Tarrant County GOP in Texas in March, he exhorted his audience to keep the country’s increasingly evident spiritual war in mind amid the approaching election.
“This is not flesh and blood at all. If you’re offended by prayer, you’re taking orders, OK? I don’t see another rational explanation for it,” he said.
“You can reduce all these debates about climate, crime, all the weird sex stuff — I’m not going to dignify it with a name, I’m just gonna call it that ‘weird sex stuff’ — but, if they’re promising you the opportunity to castrate your children, what are they really promising? No grandchildren. The end of your line,” he continued.
“And Solomon [and] David would like instantly recognize that as an act of total war against you and your people, period,” he added. “Because that’s what that is.”
June 6 marks the 80th anniversary of American, British, and Canadian troops landing on the coast of Normandy, France, in the greatest military mobilization in history, also known as D-Day. The New York Times reports that “fewer than 200 veterans of the allied invasion of Normandy, which marked a turning point in World War II, are still alive and sound enough to attend this year’s D-Day reunion in France.”
In the words of Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, whose team had been planning the mobilization for over a year, “These men came … to storm these beaches for one purpose only, not to gain anything for ourselves, not to fulfill any ambitions America had for conquest, but to preserve freedom.”
Eisenhower knew the importance and difficulty of the task ahead. If the mission failed, it would set back Allied efforts to defeat Nazi Germany for at least a year, resulting in the inhumane extermination of millions of more Jews and the deaths of countless thousands of soldiers.
As Winston Churchill and President Franklin Roosevelt believed, the D-Day invasion was essential if freedom were to flourish and Christian civilization — rooted in the inherent respect for and dignity of all humankind — were to be saved.
That is why in the wee hours before the launch of the invasion, Eisenhower toldthe courageous soldiers they were about to “embark upon the Great Crusade” and the “eyes of the world are upon you.”
He then concluded, “Let us all beseech blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.”
The fighting was fierce indeed. More than 4,400 Allied soldiers of the 156,000 deployed from the United States, Great Britain, and Canada would lose their lives. Another 10,200 were injured, including 6,600 Americans. Those who fought later said the waters of Normandy turned red from all the blood spilled.
Forty years later, at the 40th anniversary of D-Day, President Ronald Reagan gave a touching tribute to those men who stormed the Normandy beaches, in particular the most treacherous, Pointe du Hoc, saying:
The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next. It was the deep knowledge — and pray God, we have not lost it — that there is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.
He continued:
You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One’s country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.
Yet, despite the importance of this mission, its memory fades with each passing generation.
President Reagan warned us about this in his 1989 farewell addressto the nation: “You know, four years ago, on the 40th anniversary of D-Day, I read a letter from a young woman writing to her late father, who’d fought on Omaha Beach. Her name was Lisa Zanatta Hehn, and she said, ‘We will always remember, we will never forget, what the boys at Normandy did.’”
He added, “Well, let’s help her keep her word. If we forget what we did, we won’t know who we are.”
But unfortunately, we are not keeping our word. For instance, one pollfound that 12 percent of Americans thought Dwight Eisenhower fought in the Civil War (which ended 25 years before he was born), instead of leading the D-Day invasion! Perhaps even worse, another survey found that only 43 percent of Americans know the real reason we celebrate Memorial Day. These sad statistics are just another example of how neglecting to teach American history in our schools has taken a toll on our national memory.
This is tragic. Perhaps it is our time for us, as parents, to do what else President Reagan encouraged us to do in his farewell address: “An informed patriotism is what we want. And are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world? All great change happens in America at the dinner table. So, tomorrow night in the kitchen I hope the talking begins.”
That is why I wrote my book, Toward a Perfect Union: The Moral and Cultural Case for Teaching the Great American Story, to equip parents to do this, so our children and their children will never forget the bravery of the men who stormed the beaches and climbed the cliffs of Pointe-du-Hoc to preserve freedom. If we do not teach this, the freedom they fought so valiantly for will become a forgotten memory. So, 80 years later, let’s never forget the history of D-Day.
Timothy S Goeglein is vice president of Focus on the Family in Washington, and author of the book Toward a More Perfect Union: The Cultural and Moral Case for Teaching the Great American Story (Fidelis, 2023).
Ever since Donald Trump came down the escalator of Trump Tower in 2015 to launch his first campaign for president, there has been a widespread perception on the Right that the scales of justice have been tipped against them and in favor of the Left and that Lady Justice is anything but blind. (Photo: Vladimir Cetinski/ iStock/Getty Images)
Many things human come in pairs. Eyes, ears, hands, feet, and lungs appear in twos. Even a single nose features two nostrils.
In this context, America’s new, two-track justice system might be perfectly natural: One for the Left—in which they suffer few consequences, if any, for their misdeeds—and one for the Right, in which arrests, trials, and prison sentences are routine.
After the Supreme Court’s current term ends later this month, masons should spend this summer re-chiseling the marble above its columns. Out with “Equal Justice Under Law.” In with “Bipolar Justice for All!”
Black Lives Matter and Antifa thugs on the Left spent the summer of 2020 yanking statues from pedestals, torching police precincts, and otherwise unleashing total mayhem. Then-Sen. Kamala Harris promoted a legal-defense fund to free arrestees. Few paid any price for the “fiery but mostly peaceful” George Floyd riots.
A peaceful demonstrator shares his opinion at a Black Lives Matter march on June 14, 2020, in Los Angeles. Few, if any, of his more violent BLM compatriots suffered any legal consequences for their anything but “mostly peaceful” actions after the killing of George Floyd less than three weeks earlier. (Photo: Rodin Eckenroth/Getty Images)
The Jan. 6 hoodlums on the Right who shattered windows and smashed doors to breach the U.S. Capitol deserve serious prison time. But other protesters naively entered after Capitol Police waved them in.
“Hey, look. It’s open house!” some might have thought.
Many of these accidental tourists are in huge trouble. Arkansas’ Daniel Hatcher entered the Capitol, snapped some photos for two minutes, and walked out. The FBI arrested Hatcher in Little Rock last Feb. 13. He now faces federal charges.
Left-wing Deep State functionaries John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Peter Strzok, and Andrew Weissmann advanced the Russia Hoax, which bedeviled the Trump administration and divided America for three years. Each of these men scored a book contract and a TV deal. Literally.
On the Right, Russiagate ensnared Trump aides Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, George Papadopoulos, Gen. Michael Flynn, and Roger Stone. All were sentenced to prison. Trump pardoned Flynn and Stone. Gates served house arrest. Manafort and Papadopoulos went to the slammer.
The quintessence of these two systems involves 2016’s presidential nominees and how they separately tried to influence that election.
On the Left, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign paid $175,000 to Democratic law firm Perkins Coie, which engaged opposition-research shop Fusion GPS. It hired former British spy Christopher Steele. He wrote a baseless “Dirty Dossier” that hallucinated ties between Trump and the Kremlin. Team Clinton leaked this fraudulent report, which BuzzFeed published. And the Russia Hoax was off to the races.
On the Right, Trump was accused of reimbursing his then-attorney, Michael Cohen, for paying porn star Stormy Daniels $130,000 to clam up about an alleged affair with Trump that both of them have denied.
As former Justice Department official John B. Daukas wrote in the American Spectator: “So, Hillary Clinton is found to be liable for mislabeling payments for the Steele Dossier as legal fees and gets an $8,000 civil fine; Trump has been found guilty of mislabeling nondisclosure payments as legal fees and is a convicted felon.”
As Yogi Berra might have said: “Only in America.”
Clinton went on to write books, deliver lectures, and whine loudly about why she lost to a real-estate magnate and TV personality on his first political campaign. Notwithstanding emotional scars, she is out a whopping eight grand.
Trump, meanwhile, endured a six-week trial that kept him off the campaign trail for four days each week, cost him undisclosed millions in—not to coin a phrase—legal expenses, and added abundant stress to his already high-pressure life. He awaits sentencing on July 11 and could receive four years for each of the 34 counts on which he was convicted. Total: 136 years in the big house.
But is this really so wrong?
If good things come in pairs, perhaps this applies to justice.
Rather than complain about two paths to justice, one Left and one Right, maybe conservatives should celebrate this development. After all, the truth about pectoral muscles also might apply to justice systems: “One is not enough, and three are too many.”
Below is my column in the New York Post on the first day of testimony in the trial of Hunter Biden. Every claim of the defense seemed to collapse in the first two days of the trial. The defense argued that Hunter did not check the box on the gun form, so the prosecutors called the employee who watched him fill out the form. It claimed he was not using drugs at the time, so the prosecutors read texts from the next day in which Hunter sought to buy crack and called a series of witnesses on his continual use of crack during the period. The defense previously claimed the laptop showed evidence of tampering, so the prosecutor called a FBI agent establishing that there is no evidence of tampering and that the laptop is authentic. The defense claimed that Hunter just wandered into the store and was pressured to buy a gun, so prosecutors called an employee who testified that Hunter came in specifically wanting to buy a gun. As previously discussed, the lack of a defense is becoming glaringly obvious as is the nullification strategy.
Here is the column:
On the first day of his trial, Hunter Biden spoke to the jury . . . against himself. The prosecutors in his Wilmington gun trial read long excerpts from Hunter’s book on his long addiction to drugs and his self-proclaimed “superpower — finding crack anytime, anywhere.”
Listening to himself was the President’s son, whose counsel had just suggested that Hunter may have had a brief moment where he was drinking as opposed to snorting or smoking.
Accordingly, defense counsel Abby Lowell suggested, Hunter did not “knowingly” deny that he was using drugs when he purchased a .38-caliber Colt Cobra revolver from the StarQuest Shooters and Survival Supply in Wilmington, Del. Somehow the argument is that — for a brief moment on October 12, 2018 — Hunter forgot that he was a superpowered junkie. The problem is that the next prosecution witness is likely to be, again, Hunter Biden.
The day after he bought the gun, Hunter was texting a guy named “Mookie” to score drugs behind a minor league baseball stadium. Mookie appears to have come through for Hunter since the next day (two days after denying that he used drugs), Hunter allegedly texted Hallie Biden that he was “waiting for a dealer named Mookie.”
Then, two days after the gun purchase, Hunter texted, “I was sleeping on a car smoking crack on 4th street and Rodney.” That corner appears less than a mile and half from the federal courthouse where Hunter is sitting. It is roughly five miles from the gun shop where he denied using drugs.
Hallie will also testify. She was the widow of Hunter’s deceased brother and started an intimate relationship with Hunter after Beau’s death. She was also allegedly doing crack. Yet, when Hallie saw the gun in the console of Hunter’s car, she had the presence of mind to realize he was an unstable addict. She took the gun and threw it into a dumpster behind a restaurant.
The brutal start of the hearing raises the question — again — of why Hunter decided to go to trial. There is no viable defense. The most that the defense can come up with is a claim that someone else may have completed the form, or that he had a moment of sobriety before heading off to meet Mookie.
In his book, Hunter describes an addiction that led him to smoke crack almost every 15 minutes. That would seem likely to come to mind when you are given a form asking, “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”
Certainly his need for drugs was much on Hunter’s mind when he was texting Mookie.
Indeed, not long after the purchase, the Biden family held an intervention at their Delaware home to deal with Hunter’s raging addiction.
These defenses are about as convincing as saying that your client got locked into the bank vault after losing his way to the restroom . . . hours after the bank closed.
So why present unbelievable defenses in Wilmington? Because it is Wilmington. This is Biden’s hometown. The President maintains his residence in the city and remains the town’s favorite son.
As if the jury needed any reminder, First Lady Jill Biden sitting behind Hunter brings home that this is a Biden trial in Bidentown. The combination of sympathy for a reformed addict and identification with the Bidens could be enough for a jury nullification strategy. The defense is not asking the jury to consider the evidence. It is asking the jury to ignore it.
Every juror appeared to confirm knowing someone with a drug addiction, including siblings or other relatives. Given that panel, Hunter could well take the stand to describe his addiction and lack of clarity of thought.
Hunter’s book offers moving descriptions of his struggle with addiction and could sway some jurors, especially given the relatively minor criminal charges. Wilmington for Biden is the opposite of Manhattan for Trump. This is a town that overwhelmingly voted for Biden in 2016 and 2020. It is a great jury pool for the defense. Viewed through a nullification defense, it does not matter how absurd the actual defense is in the case.
It is merely a pretense. Whether it is sympathy for a drug addict or a Biden, the defense clearly hopes that the jury will look beyond the evidence and the crime in this case.
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
“Conscience doth make cowards of us all.” Those words from Hamlet captured the moral dilemma for many of us as we face the costs of conscience.
For each of us, there often comes a moment when our principles are put to an undeniable and unavoidable test. It may be as simple as cheating on a test, shoplifting a product, or admitting to a wrong. It is natural to want to avoid such moments, particularly when we cannot even admit to ourselves that we may not be the person we have long claimed.
For Attorney General Merrick Garland, that moment of truth has finally arrived. Garland has long maintained that he is an apolitical attorney general who does not even consider the political consequences of his actions. Over the last three years, some of us have questioned that commitment in a series of actions or, more importantly, non-actions. Yet, Garland has always been able to evade responsibility by shifting decision-making to others or claiming a lack of knowledge.
Yesterday, Garland ran out of room to maneuver when three House committees (Oversight, Judiciary, and Ways and Means) sent him formal referrals for the perjury prosecution of Hunter Biden and his uncle, James Biden. The evidence of false answers to Congress is overwhelming and Garland’s department has prosecuted Trump associates and others with far less in past cases, including the prosecution of former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
Here is the Committee’s summary of the allegations, which I also previously discussed in a column:
During his deposition, Hunter Biden made false statements about holding a position at Rosemont Seneca Bohai (RSB), a corporate entity that received millions of dollars from foreign individuals and entities who met with then-Vice President Biden before and after transmitting money to the RSB account that then transferred funds to Hunter Biden. After deposing Hunter Biden, the Committees obtained documents showing Hunter Biden represented that he was the corporate secretary of RSB.
Additionally, Hunter Biden during his testimony relayed an entirely fictitious account about threatening text messages he sent to his Chinese business partner while invoking his father’s presence with him as he wrote the messages. Hunter Biden testified he had transmitted this threat to an unrelated individual with the same surname. However, documents released by the Committee on Ways and Means demonstrate conclusively that Hunter Biden made this threat to the intended individual, and bank records prove Hunter Biden’s Chinese business partners wired millions of dollars to his company after his threat. A portion of the proceeds has been traced to Joe Biden’s bank account.
During James Biden’s transcribed interview, he stated that Joe Biden did not meet with Tony Bobulinski, a business associate of James and Hunter Biden, in 2017 while pursuing a deal with a Chinese entity, CEFC China Energy. His statements were contradicted not only by Mr. Bobulinski, but Hunter Biden. Mr. Bobulinski also produced text messages that establish the events leading up to and immediately following his meeting with Joe Biden on May 2, 2017.
These are straight-forward questions and answers. More importantly, both men knew and prepared for these questions. They were widely discussed before their testimony. They appear to have knowingly lied. The question is what Garland is now prepared to do about it.
For Garland, a bill has come due. I supported his appointment as Attorney General because I respected his integrity and intellect as a federal judge. I believed his claim that he would not allow political considerations to cloud his judgment. I grew more critical as I saw Garland struggling to avoid decisions that would work against President Biden or his family.
Now, Garland has what appears flagrant perjurious statements made by the President’s son and brother. Given the fact that these were anticipated questions, the false answers appear premeditated and egregious. Hunter and Jim Biden displayed a sense of impunity in denying facts that the committees (and many commentators) believe are well established on the available evidence. Those facts were highly embarrassing to the Biden family and they allegedly chose to lie rather than admit to them.
The fact that such alleged false statements occurred in the midst of an impeachment investigation only magnifies the concerns. This was an effort to establish the President’s knowledge of a massive corrupt influence peddling operation maintained by his family.
The gun charge in Delaware is a relatively minor criminal allegation. This is far more serious and could impose far greater punishment for the President’s son.
In the Trump cases, the Justice Department moved with impressive speed in going to grand juries against figures for false statements or contempt of Congress. There was little handwringing, no hem and hawing.
So, Garland’s moment of truth has arrived. He will either have to meet it or shrink from it. Either way, the Attorney General is about to give the full measure of himself and his office.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – The reason the Democrats keep exercising Lawfare against Trump and conservatives is that the GOP guards on watch have no teeth or spine to fight back. Oh yes, but they have a loud bark and some sternly worded letters.
Attorney Mike Davis: “Republicans are Weak and Stupid and Democrats Know This – Biggest Wimps on Planet” (VIDEO)
By Jim Hoft – Aug 15, 2023
Mike Davis, the former Chief Counsel for Nominations to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, is the founder and president of the Article III Project (A3P). Mike joined Steve Bannon today on The War Room and was in rare form after the Democrats indicted President Trump on speech charges and 18 of his top officials and supporters. Mike Davis says Democrats get away with this because Republicans are so weak and stupid. We could not agree more. READ MORE…
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump. READ MORE…
Top Stories • Republicans Block “Right to Contraception” Bill That Promotes Abortion, Trans Surgeries on Kids • Kamala Harris Compares Pro-Life Americans to Child Molesters, Slave Owners • Biden Judicial Nominee Can’t Say if Chromosomes Determine Sex: “I Haven’t Studied Biology” • Melinda Gates is Spending $1 Billion Promoting Abortion, But She Claims to be a Faithful Catholic
More Pro-Life News • Pro-Life Doctor: I Oppose Abortion Because Both Mother and Baby are Important • Mom Earns Her Graduate Degree, Takes Her 3-Year-Old Son to the Ceremony • Democrats “Right to Contraception” Bill Pushes “Trans Surgeries” on Children • Biden is Abusing FACE Act To Silence His Pro-Life Critics • 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 leader of Hamas said on Wednesday the group would demand a permanent end to the war in Gaza and Israeli withdrawal as part of a ceasefire plan, dealing an apparent blow to a truce proposal touted last week by U.S. President Joe Biden. Israel, meanwhile, said there would be no halt to fighting during ceasefire talks, and launched a new assault on a central section of the Gaza Strip near the last city yet to be stormed by its tanks.
The remarks by Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh appeared to deliver the Palestinian militant group’s reply to the proposal that Biden unveiled last week. Washington had said it was waiting to hear an answer from Hamas to what Biden described as an Israeli initiative.
“The movement and factions of the resistance will deal seriously and positively with any agreement that is based on a comprehensive ending of the aggression and the complete withdrawal and prisoners swap,” Haniyeh said.
Asked whether Haniyeh’s remarks amounted to the group’s reply to Biden, a senior Hamas official replied to a text message from Reuters with a “thumbs up” emoji.
Washington is still pressing hard to reach an agreement. CIA director William Burns met senior officials from mediators Qatar and Egypt on Wednesday in Doha to discuss the ceasefire proposal.
Since a brief week-long truce in November, all attempts to arrange a ceasefire have failed, with Hamas insisting on its demand for a permanent end to the conflict, while Israel says it is prepared to discuss only temporary pauses until the militant group is defeated.
Biden has repeatedly declared that ceasefires were close over the past several months, only for no truce to materialize. Notably, in February Biden said Israel had agreed to a ceasefire by the start of the Ramadan Muslim holy month on March 10, a deadline which passed with military operations in full swing. But last week’s announcement came with far greater fanfare from the White House, and at a time when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is under mounting domestic political pressure to chart a path to end the eight-month-old war and negotiate the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas.
Three U.S. officials told Reuters Biden, having obtained Israel’s agreement for the proposal, had deliberately announced it without warning the Israelis he would do so, to narrow the room for Netanyahu to back away.
“We didn’t ask permission to announce the proposal,” said a senior U.S. official granted anonymity to speak freely about the negotiations. “We informed the Israelis we were going to give a speech on the situation in Gaza. We did not go into great detail about what it was.”
Hamas, who rule Gaza, precipitated the war by attacking Israeli territory on Oct. 7, killing around 1,200 people and capturing more than 250 hostages, according to Israeli tallies. Around half of the hostages were freed in the war’s only truce so far, which lasted a week in November.
Israel’s military assault on Gaza has killed more than 36,000 people, according to health officials in the territory, who say thousands more dead are feared buried under the rubble.
ISRAEL LUKEWARM
Although Biden described the ceasefire proposal as an Israeli offer, Israel’s government has been lukewarm in public. A top Netanyahu aide confirmed on Sunday Israel had made the proposal even though it was “not a good deal.” The full details have not been published, but Israel insists that it would not sign up to any proposal that requires it to halt the war before Hamas is completely destroyed. The militants, meanwhile, have shown no sign of surrender and their main leaders are still at large.
“The outline allows Israel to realize all of the objectives: to destroy Hamas militarily and its governing capabilities, to bring home our hostages, and ensure that Gaza can never form a threat to us again,” Israeli government spokesman David Mencer said on Wednesday of the ceasefire proposal.
Far-right members of Netanyahu’s government have pledged to quit if he agrees to a peace deal that leaves Hamas in place, a move that could force a new election and end the political career of Israel’s longest-serving leader. Centrist opponents who joined Netanyahu’s war cabinet in a show of unity at the outset of the conflict have also threatened to quit, saying his government has no plan.
NEW ASSAULT IN CENTRAL GAZA
Meanwhile, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said there would be no let-up in Israel’s offensive while negotiations over the ceasefire proposal were under way.
“Any negotiations with Hamas would be conducted only under fire,” Gallant said in remarks carried by Israeli media after he flew aboard a warplane to inspect the Gaza front. Israel announced a new operation against Hamas in central Gaza on Wednesday, where Palestinian medics said airstrikes had killed dozens of people.
The armed wings of Hamas and Islamic Jihad said they had fought gun battles with Israeli forces in areas throughout the enclave and fired anti-tank rockets and shells.
“The sounds of bombardment didn’t stop all night,” said Aya, 30, a displaced woman in Deir Al-Balah, a small city in the central Gaza Strip, now the only major population center in the enclave yet to be stormed by Israeli tanks.
Two children were among the dead laid out on Wednesday in the city’s Al Aqsa Martyrs Hospital, one of the last hospitals functioning in Gaza. Mourners said the children had been killed along with their mother, who had been unable to leave when others in the neighborhood did.
“This is not war, it is destruction that words are unable to express,” said their father Abu Mohammed Abu Saif.
“Starting in 2024, qualified non-citizen District of Columbia residents may vote in local elections,” say instructions posted online by the D.C. Board of Elections. Pictured: A “vote” sign is seen on East Capitol Street in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Washington, D.C., on Nov. 8, 2022. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Suppose Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping made an agreement: All their personnel stationed in Washington, D.C., would vote for the same candidates running in Washington’s local elections.
How many votes would this hypothetical alliance deliver? Perhaps not many—but more than a few.
The New York Times reported last July that the number of Russians working at their D.C. embassy had dropped significantly.
“In recent years, as many as 1,200 Russian personnel worked in the embassy compound,” said the Times. “The State Department will not say how many remain—staffing levels here and at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow are now a sensitive topic—but in January 2022, Mr. [Anatoly] Antonov [the Russian ambassador] put the number at 184 diplomats and support staff members.”
The website of the Chinese Embassy in Washington does not appear to mention how many Chinese nationals are deployed there. But it does talk about the massive size of the embassy building. “It covers an area of 10,796 square meters with a floor area of 39,900 square meters,” it says.
So, how can the Chinese nationals who work there—for a communist government—get away with voting in an American election?
How can Russians, working at the direction of Putin, do the same?
The D.C. government enacted a law that allows it.
On Oct. 18, 2022, the D.C. Council voted 12 to 0—with one member absent and not voting—to approve the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act. Despite this one-sided vote, Mayor Muriel Bowser did not support it.
“Mayor Bowser expressed opposition by withholding her signature on the Act—something she has done only a handful of times over the course of her tenure,” said a report on the act published by the House Oversight and Accountability Committee.
The Washington Post also opposed it—in an editorial published a day before the council vote.
“Voting is a foundational right of citizenship,” said the Post. “That’s why we oppose a bill, poised to pass the D.C. Council this week, that would allow an estimated 50,000 noncitizen residents to cast ballots in local elections.”
The Post also pointed out that this bill would allow both illegal aliens and foreign nationals working at foreign embassies to vote in D.C. elections.
“The proposal has been expanded to give voting rights in local elections to all noncitizen adults, regardless of whether they are in the country legally, so long as they’ve resided in the District for 30 days,” said the Post.
“There’s nothing in the measure,” the Post said, “to prevent employees at embassies of governments that are openly hostile to the United States from casting ballots.”
The House committee report repeated these points.
“On November 21, 2022, the District government enacted the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act … which allows noncitizens, including illegal immigrants, to vote in D.C. local elections,” said the report. “The Act makes no exception for foreign diplomats or agents voting in the District. These individuals often have interests separate from, or opposed to, the interests of Americans. This D.C. Act dilutes the votes of American citizens and could have a ripple effect across other large U.S. cities.”
The D.C. Board of Elections has posted online instructions for how foreign nationals can vote in D.C. elections.
“Starting in 2024, qualified non-citizen District of Columbia residents may vote in local elections,” say the instructions.
“Specifically, under District of Columbia law, non-citizen residents may vote in District of Columbia elections held for the offices of Mayor, Attorney General, member(s) of the DC Council, member(s) of the State Board of Education, or Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner(s), or to vote on initiative, referendum, recall, or charter amendment measures that appear on District of Columbia ballots,” say the instructions.
“Non-citizens cannot vote for federal offices,” they warn.
In its editorial opposing the bill, The Washington Post had made a key point about this last provision. “The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly prohibit what the D.C. bill seeks to do, but a law signed in 1996 by President Bill Clinton bans noncitizens from voting in federal contests,” said the Post. “The proposed law presents logistical nightmares that will require the Board of Elections to print separate ballots so that noncitizens don’t vote in federal races.”
Republican Rep. James Comer of Kentucky introduced a resolution in January 2023 to nullify this D.C. voting law. When it came up for a vote on Feb. 9, 2023, then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy spoke in support of it.
“Last year, Washington, D.C., passed a law that would give the vote to illegal immigrants,” McCarthy said on the House floor. “The law makes no exceptions for foreign diplomats or agents who have interests that are the opposite of ours. Under this bill, Russian diplomats would get a vote and Chinese diplomats could get a vote.”
“The [Chinese Communist Party] is already infiltrating our culture, our farmland, and our skies,” said McCarthy, “but the D.C. Council would let them infiltrate our ballot boxes.”
The resolution to nullify this D.C. law passed the House 260-162—with 42 Democrats joining 218 Republicans. But it went nowhere in the Senate.
On May 23, the House again approved a bill to stop noncitizens from voting in D.C. elections. This time the vote was 262 to 143—with 52 Democrats voting for it.
Yet, this week, our nation’s capital had its first local primary election where Russian and Chinese agents could legally vote.
Below is my column in The Hill on the start of the Hunter Biden trial and the elements of a classic jury nullification strategy by the defense. It is not clear that it will work in an otherwise open-and-shut case, but it might. What is clear is that it may be all that Biden has short of the Rapture.
Here is the column:
There was an interesting development this week in the Hunter Biden gun trial: the fact that there will indeed be a Hunter Biden gun trial. That development is surprising only because there do not appear to be any facts in dispute in this case. And the primary witness against Hunter Biden will be Hunter Biden himself.
The sole issue in this case is whether Biden filed a false gun form (ATF Form 4473) in which, as a condition for his purchase of a .38-caliber Colt Cobra revolver from the StarQuest Shooters and Survival Supply in Wilmington, Del., he stated that he was not a user of drugs.
Biden’s counsel, Abbe Lowell, previously suggested that his client may have had a window of sobriety when he signed the form, but then returned to his addiction afterward. But then Hunter himself blew that theory away with his public comments and books. Lowell then suggested in court that someone else may have checked the box on the form.
In the interim, Lowell has brought a litany of challenges. At one point, he claimed that the government must fulfill a prior dead plea agreement. At another, he adopted an argument of the National Rifle Association challenging the underlying statute.
The defense also failed this week to call a last-minute witness who would testify that Hunter may not have known that he was an addict. The defense was accused of essentially hiding the ball with the expert’s expected testimony so Judge Maryellen Noreika barred the appearance of the Columbia professor.
Yet, again, Hunter Biden himself would have destroyed the defense. The form asks if Hunter was a user of drugs, not just an addict: “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”
Hunter wrote how he was a user of a wide array of drugs for years. It is hard to imagine he thought himself as clean as a clergyman in Wilmington in 2018.
So why wouldn’t Hunter just plead guilty? Even without his earlier plea deal, a guilty plea could significantly reinforce a request to avoid jail time in the case. It would also avoid an embarrassing trial for himself and his father during a presidential election.
While Hunter could always throw in the towel before the start of testimony, there is currently no discernible strategy beyond hoping that a pending case in the Supreme Court might undermine the indictment.
There may also be another possible strategy in play: jury nullification.
Unlike Donald Trump in Manhattan, Delaware is Biden country. The chance that he will get strong supporters of his father on the jury is an almost statistical certainty. In 2020, Joe Biden received roughly 60 percent of the vote over Donald Trump in the state. Having first lady Jill Biden, who is extremely popular, at the trial will only reinforce the connection.
In addition to a favorable jury pool, Biden may be hoping that testimony on his travails with drugs will prompt one or more jurors to ignore the law and vote to acquit. Notably, virtually all of the selected jurors have said that they know of someone who has struggled with drugs.
Indeed, Judge Noreika already appears to suspect such a strategy. Noreika rejected the effort of the defense to introduce an altered version of the federal firearms form created by the gun store employees. They argue that the alteration showed a political bias on the part of the prosecutors. The court found the document “irrelevant” and chastised the defense team for pursuing “conspiratorial” theories and an effort to confuse or mislead the jury.
She noted that the use of the altered form would be “unduly prejudicial and invites (jury) nullification.”
Jury nullification arguments have long been banned or discouraged in many courtrooms. Nevertheless, jury nullification has its advocates. For example, Georgetown Law Professor Paul Butler has called for Black jurors to refuse to convict Black defendants of drug crimes. Butler has said that “my goal is the subversion of the present criminal justice system.”
Hunter Biden is obviously not the primary concern of Professor Butler in the impact of drug prosecutions on the Black community. However, he has also argued that “jury nullification is just part of an arsenal of tools to end the failed “war on drugs.”
Biden’s case has all of the characteristics of a nullification defense. Even if he cannot secure acquittal, the combination of political and social elements at play in Delaware could produce a hung jury.
Trying a Biden in Delaware is a challenge for any prosecutor, even without the potential sympathies for a reformed drug addict. With the first lady sitting behind him, the family ties will be on full display. There is an understandable parental desire to show emotional support for Hunter, but prosecutors cannot be thrilled by the potential effect on jurors in the pro-Biden state.
Wilmington is President Biden’s hometown, where he still maintains a family residence. In Wilmington itself in 2020, Biden received 26,698 votes to Trump’s 3,580.
The hope is that, as President Biden once said, “Delaware is about getting everyone in the room, no matter how tough the problem, no matter how big the disagreement, and staying in the room until we figure it out.” Most everyone is in the courtroom and the hope is that at least some of these jurors will “figure it out” in their favor.
Perhaps Hunter put it best: “The single best thing is, family comes first. Over everything. I can’t think of anything that has been more pervasive and played a larger part in my life than that simple lesson.”
The defense may be hoping that, for some jurors, “family [will] come first … over everything,” particularly over the evidence.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
Just the News is reporting that the January 6th Committee rebuffed repeated efforts from a Secret Service agent to refute the false story related by Cassidy Hutchinson alleging a violent episode with Trump in the presidential limousine during the Capitol riots. The J6 Committee staff repeatedly delayed the testimony of the agent to disprove the widely reported allegation.
Rep. Barry Loudermilk, the chairman of the House subcommittee that is investigating the Jan. 6 riot, has obtained a transcript of the driver’s interview that was conducted months after he first offered to testify. However, it turns out that committee staff were asked repeatedly by counsel for the agent to let him present evidence debunking the claim. Despite being reported by virtually every news outlet, the Committee slow walked his appearance as the story went viral.
The transcript of the driver’s testimony contains express objections by the lawyer that his client had offered to testify in July, August and September of 2022, but was “rebuffed” by the committee.
The account reaffirms a major criticism of the committee. After Democrats refused to allow the GOP to pick its members (as a long-accepted practice in the House), the Democrats selected two anti-Trump Republicans who did little to push for a full and fair display of witnesses and facts. The Committee was chaired by Rep. Benny Thompson, a Democrat, with Rep. Liz Cheney, as Vice Chairwoman.
Cheney and the committee members clearly knew that Hutchinson’s account was debunked by the very driver who allegedly struggled with Trump. Yet, they allowed the media to report the incident for months while rebuffing the requests of the driver. Loudermilk is quoted as saying “We’re talking about the driver of the limousine, and the head of the entire protective detail. They were brought in by the select committee to testify, but they weren’t brought in until November.”
The false account was given by Hutchinson in June of that year.
The Secret Service driver testified Trump never tried to reach for or grab the wheel of the SUV.
Notably, the transcript shows Cheney trying to explain the delay as due to the need for the Secret Service to produce all documents in the January 6 investigation.
Yet, she had no problem with making the false story public through Hutchinson before such supporting material was supplied. She also did not suggest any countervailing testimony or witnesses on the issue as the media ran with the account. Instead, Cheney publicly teased the claim that they had much more evidence of crimes against Trump, which never materialized. Cheney ended one hearing by calling for more officials to come forward and noting that Trump family members and former officials have now come forward with their own public “confessions.”
Many of us support the effort to bring greater transparency to what occurred on Jan. 6th and these hearings have offered a great deal of important new information. Indeed, it has proven gut-wrenching in the accounts of lawyers and staff trying to combat baseless theories and to protect the constitutional process.
Yet, the heavy-handed approach to framing the evidence by the Committee was both unnecessary and at times counterproductive. The strength of some of this evidence would not have been diminished by a more balanced committee or investigation.
We previously discussed the highly scripted and entirely one-sided presentation of evidence in the Committee. Indeed, witnesses were primarily used to present what Speaker Nancy Pelosi referred to as “the narrative” where their prior videotaped testimony was shown, and they were given narrow follow-up questions. They at times seemed more like props than witnesses — called effectively to recite prior statements between well-crafted, impactful video clips. It had the feel of a news package, which may be the result of the decision to bring in a former ABC executive to produce the hearings.
That framing led to glaring omissions. The Committee routinely edited videotapes and crafted presentations to eliminate alternative explanations or opposing viewpoints like repeatedly editing out Trump telling his supporters to go to the Capitol peacefully.
What is striking was that offering a more balanced account, including allowing the Republicans to appoint their own members (in accordance with long-standing tradition), would not have lessened much of this stunning testimony. Yet, allowing Republicans to pick their members (yes, including Rep. Jim Jordan) would have prevented allegations of a highly choreographed show trial. It would have added credibility to the process.
If the Committee had a single member with a dissenting or even skeptical viewpoint, testimony on issues like the fight in the presidential limo could have been challenged before it was thrown before the world.
That was clearly not in the interests of the J6 Committee or the media, which eagerly spread this false account.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Biden’s lawfare scheme appears to have backfired. They had hoped to use it to destroy Trump’s path to the White House (election interference), but it seems to have had the opposite effect. Trump’s poll numbers continue to rise along with millions in campaign donations.
WAYNE ROOT: Democrats Just Woke the Sleeping Giant, Proved Who the Real Dictator is, and Turned Trump into “America’s Nelson Mandela”
By Wayne Allen Root – By Assistant Editor – May 31, 2024
Remember what the Japanese Admiral Yamamoto said after his airmen had destroyed Pearl Harbor and sent over 3,000 young Americans to their death in a sneak attack. His men cheered their resounding victory. But he solemnly stated, “I fear we have awakened the sleeping giant.” Like Pearl Harbor, yesterday was a day that will live in infamy. And Democrats have awakened the sleeping giant.
First, there is no question Democrats will regret this day. They’ve crossed a line that has never been crossed in the history of America. They’ve touched “the third rail.” They’ve destroyed the justice system and “the rule of law.” They’ve turned America into a combination of a Banana Republic, the Soviet Gulag and 1930s Nazi Germany. READ MORE…
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump. READ MORE…
Top Stories • Indiana Abortions Drop 98% as Abortion Ban Saves Hundreds of Babies • West Virginia Abortions Drop 98% as Abortion Ban Saves Babies • Elderly Pro-Life Woman Going to Prison for Two Years Just for Protesting Abortion • Comparison Between Trump and Biden is Clear: Biden Wants Abortions Up to Birth, Trump Does Not
More Pro-Life News • Professors Sue Biden Admin: We Won’t Give Students Excused Absences for Killing Babies in Abortions • Judge Mocks Elderly Woman’s Christian Faith Before Putting Her in Prison for Protesting Abortion • Vermont Revokes Couple’s Foster Care License Because of Their Christian Beliefs • America’s Foundation is Crumbling But Not Lost, We Must Fight for It • 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.
As many as four Arizona counties have more registered voters on their rolls than eligible citizens as the state fails to conduct voter list maintenance in compliance with federal law, a lawsuit filed by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club alleges.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club, along with Arizona GOP Chair Gina Swoboda and Steven Gaynor, a registered voter, allege in a suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona that Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes has failed to comply with Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). The NVRA requires that states conduct list maintenance to remove ineligible voters.
Fontes told the state legislature that a federally required list maintenance program is “in development,” according to the suit. Fontes’ comment, plaintiffs allege, indicates “that the general maintenance program required of states by the NVRA does not currently exist in Arizona.”
Because of the state’s failure, according to the suit, as many as four counties — Apache, La Paz, Navajo, and Santa Cruz — have more registered voters than eligible citizens.The plaintiffs compared the total number of registrants on each county’s voter rolls to the Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) reported by the U.S. Census Bureau and concluded that Apache County had a 117 percent registration rate, while Santa Cruz County had a registration rate of more than 111 percent.La Paz and Navajo Counties both exceeded the 100 percent mark when comparing the number of registrants with the Census Bureau’s 5-year American Community Survey from 2017-2021.
The suit also alleges that all counties in the state but one have “implausibly high …registration rates that far exceed the national and statewide voter-registration rates in recent years.”
In total, the suit alleges that the state has at least 500,000 registered voters on their rolls who are ineligible due to a change of residence or death.
“In looking at Arizona deaths compared to voter file removals, from December 2020 to the end of November 2022, there were approximately 20,000 to 35,000 registered voters who died and were not removed from Arizona’s voter rolls,” the suit alleges.
The suit asks the federal court to find that Fontes violated the NVRA and compel him to remove ineligible voters in accordance with the NVRA.
“Election integrity is a serious issue in our nation,” President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club Scot Mussi said in a statement. “Ensuring that Arizonans can have faith in the integrity of our election system and representative government starts with clean voter rolls that leave no doubts about who is able to cast a ballot.”
“Unfortunately, most Arizona counties continue to have voter registration rates far exceeding the national average,” Mussi continued. “We hope that the court compels Secretary Fontes to comply with his obligations under the NVRA to clean up Arizona’s voter rolls.”
Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist.
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Opinion
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
You Version
Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more
Political
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Spiritual
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Bible Gateway
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
By 
By 
By 
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.