Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for June, 2024

Democrats Won’t Benefit from Their Republic-Destabilizing Lawfare


By: Josh Hammer | June 07, 2024

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/06/07/democrats-wont-benefit-their-republic-destabilizing-lawfare/

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.

COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM

Category:

Law, Political

Tagged with:

Victor Davis Hanson Op-ed: The Myth That Biden Had Nothing to Do With the Prosecutions of Trump


Victor Davis Hanson | June 07, 2024

Read More At https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/06/07/the-myth-that-biden-had-nothing-to-do-with-the-prosecutions-of-trump/

Joe Biden wears a navy-blue suit and speaks at a podium in front of American flags.
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.

(C) 2024 Tribune Content Agency LLC

Category:

Opinion, Political

Tagged with:

Laptop Deniers in Delaware: The Media Shrugs as the Biden Laptop is Authenticated in Federal Court


By: Jonathan Turley | June 7, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/06/07/laptop-deniers-in-delaware-the-media-shrugs-as-the-biden-laptop-is-authenticated-in-federal-court/

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.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

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


A.F. Branco – 80th Anniversary of D-Day

A.F. BRANCO | on June 6, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-80th-anniversary-of-d-day/

02 D-Day 80 CI 1080
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

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… 

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

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump. READ MORE…

Category:

Patriotic

Tagged with:

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report


Thursday, June 6, 2024

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

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

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

Democrats “Right to Contraception” Bill Pushes “Trans Surgeries” on Children

Canadian Court Will Hear Case of Woman Who Might be Euthanized Because She Has Autism

MORE PRO-LIFE NEWS FROM TODAY

Indiana Fights in Court to Keep Abortion Ban, Which is Saving Babies From Abortions

Soros Funneled $19M Into Leftist Groups Attacking Justice Alito

Senator Challenges Democrats to Support Moms and Babies Instead of Pushing Abortion

Premature Triplets Reunite With Their NICU Nursing Team 18 Years Later

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.

Liberals Can’t Say They Support Women When They Defend Sex-Selection Abortions

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”

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.

Category:

ABORTION/PRO LIFE

Tagged with:

Tucker Carlson asserts ‘demonic’ forces at work, World War III ‘really close’


By Jon Brown, Christian Post Reporter Wednesday | June 05, 2024

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/tucker-carlson-asserts-demonic-forces-at-work-in-world-affairs.html/

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.”

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

Category:

Spiritual, War

Tagged with:

80 Years After D-Day, Remember the Men Who Liberated the World


BY: TIM GOEGLEIN | JUNE 06, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/06/06/80-years-later-remember-the-d-day-invasion-that-liberated-the-world/

Soldiers coming ashore at Normandy on D-Day.

Author Tim Goeglein profile

TIM GOEGLEIN

MORE ARTICLES

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 told the 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 address to 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 poll found 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).

Category:

Patriotic

Tagged with:

Just One Justice System? Why Not Two?


By: Deroy Murdock | June 06, 2024

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/06/06/just-one-justice-system-why-not-two/

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.”

Category:

Law, Political

Tagged with:

Just Ask Mookie: Hunter Biden Has No Defense Other Than Nullification


By: Jonathan Turley | June 6, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/06/06/just-ask-mookie-hunter-biden-has-no-defense-other-than-nullification/

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.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Garland’s Moment of Truth: With the Perjury Referral, the Attorney General Faces a Clear Choice Between Principle and Politics


By: Jonathan Turley | June 6, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/06/06/garlands-moment-of-truth-with-the-perjury-referral-the-attorney-general-faces-a-clear-choice-between-principle-and-politics/

“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.

Category:

Crime, Political

Tagged with:

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


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Guard on Duty

A.F. BRANCO | on June 6, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-on-guard/

The GOP Has No Teeth
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

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…

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

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump. READ MORE…

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report


Wednesday, June 5, 2024

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

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

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

MORE PRO-LIFE NEWS FROM TODAY

Abortion Is Not Health Care. Health Care Helps Patients, It Doesn’t Take Innocent Lives

A Grieving Father Holds His Aborted Son After a Late-Term Abortion

Bogus “Right to Contraception” Bill Funds Planned Parenthood, Creates “Right” to Abortion Drugs

Autistic Woman is Refusing to Eat So She Can be Euthanized

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.

Christian Employers Should Beware of Democrat Bill Forcing Them to Fund IVF

New York Bill Would Legalize Killing People in Assisted Suicide

Indiana Abortions Drop 98% as Abortion Ban Saves Hundreds of Babies

West Virginia Abortions Drop 98% as Abortion Ban Saves Babies

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.

Category:

ABORTION/PRO LIFE

Tagged with:

In Blow to Biden Plan, Hamas Leader Demands Full End to Gaza War


Wednesday, 05 June 2024 03:49 PM EDT

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/world/globaltalk/war-gaza-hamas/2024/06/05/id/1167594/

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. 

© 2024 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.

Read more: In Blow to Biden Plan, Hamas Leader Demands Full End to Gaza War | Newsmax.com

Category:

War

Tagged with:

Can Russian and Chinese Agents Legally Vote in Washington, DC?


By: Terence Jeffrey | June 05, 2024

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/06/05/can-russian-and-chinese-agents-legally-vote-in-washington-dc/

“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.

COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM

Category:

Political

Is Hunter Biden Pursuing a Jury Nullification Strategy?


By: Jonathan Turley | June 5, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/06/05/is-hunter-biden-pursuing-a-jury-nullification-strategy/

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.

Category:

Crime, Law, Political

Tagged with:

Report: J6 Committee Delayed Secret Service Driver From Refuting False Limo Story


By: Jonathan Turley | June 5, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/06/05/report-j6-committee-delayed-secret-service-driver-from-refuting-false-limo-story-of-cassidy-hutchinson/

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.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

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


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Smoke Signal

A.F. BRANCO | on June 5, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-smoke-signal/

Lawfare Raises Trump Poll Numbers and Donations
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

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…

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

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump. READ MORE…

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report


Tuesday, June 4, 2024

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

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

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

MORE PRO-LIFE NEWS FROM TODAY

Christians Should Not Support the Pro-Abortion Pride Movement

Congress Will Hear Stories of Babies Saved From Abortion

Some Women “Communicate” With Their Babies to Justify Aborting Them

North Carolina Judge Strikes Down Abortion Pill Protections, Women Could Die From Botched Abortions

Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.

Arkansas Reports 0 Abortions as Abortion Ban Saves Babies

Catholic Bishops Sue Biden Rule Promoting Abortion: “Promoting Human Dignity Includes the Unborn”

Poll Shows Majority of Americans Supported Harrison Butker’s Pro-Life, Pro-Family Message

Southwest Airlines Defends Firing Stewardess for Her Pro-Life Beliefs

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.

Category:

ABORTION/PRO LIFE

Tagged with:

Lawsuit: Up To 4 Arizona Counties Have More Registered Voters Than Eligible Citizens


BY: BRIANNA LYMAN | JUNE 04, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/06/04/lawsuit-up-to-4-arizona-counties-have-more-registered-voters-than-eligible-citizens/

Sign reading 'Vote Here'

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.”

[READ NEXT: Court Affirms Arizona’s Need To Keep Noncitizens Off Voter Rolls, But Makes It Harder To Do So]

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.

Author Brianna Lyman profile

BRIANNA LYMAN

VISIT ON TWITTER@BRIANNALYMAN2

MORE ARTICLES

Category:

Political

Here’s Everything You Need to Know About Hunter Biden’s Criminal Gun Trial


BY: STEVE ROBERTS, JONATHAN FAHEY, AND ANDREW PARDUE | JUNE 04, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/06/04/heres-everything-you-need-to-know-about-hunter-bidens-criminal-gun-trial/

Hunter Biden

Author Steve Roberts, Jonathan Fahey, and Andrew Pardue profile

STEVE ROBERTS, JONATHAN FAHEY, AND ANDREW PARDUE

MORE ARTICLES

Jury selection for Hunter Biden’s first federal criminal trial began Monday in Delaware. The Biden son is facing trial on three charges: two counts of false statements and one count of unlawful firearm possession, all related to a Colt Cobra 38SPL revolver he allegedly purchased and possessed in Delaware in October 2018. Biden faces up to 25 years imprisonment if convicted of these offenses. 

The case the prosecution intends to prove is relatively straightforward. Biden has struggled with addiction to various narcotics for years and was even discharged from the U.S. Navy Reserve after failing a mandatory drug test in June 2013. In his 2021 book, Beautiful Things, he openly discussed the fact that during the period that is relevant in this case, “[a]ll my energy revolved around smoking drugs and making arrangements to buy drugs — feeding the beast.” Then, amid this addiction, Hunter Biden purchased a handgun.

Every gun owner will be familiar with ATF Form 4473, a document that asks all prospective firearms purchasers a series of questions to ensure they are legally authorized to own a firearm before completing a sale. One of these questions asks whether the purchaser is “an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”

The prosecution will attempt to prove that Biden answered “no” to this question on his Form 4473 when the truthful answer should have been “yes,” and he therefore obtained a gun that he was not legally authorized to possess. In other words, Hunter Biden is not being prosecuted for being an addict; he is being prosecuted for lying about his addiction to unlawfully obtain a firearm and then possessing that firearm as an unlawful user of illegal drugs.

For years, it appeared as if Hunter Biden would avoid accountability for his conduct entirely. After significant public pressure, however, a plea agreement was reached between Biden and the government that would allow him to plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax offenses — despite allegedly failing to pay over $1.4 million in taxes by understating his income and inflating his expenses, offenses that themselves carry a maximum of 17 years in prison — and avoid responsibility almost entirely for his gun offenses by entering into a deferred prosecution agreement. Such agreements are almost entirely unheard of for firearms offenses.

To make the deal even sweeter for Biden, the agreement did not even require him to cooperate with the government, which is often a requirement with plea agreements, particularly in cases where extreme leniency is being offered.

But then something happened in the spring of 2023 that threw a wrench into the deal being worked out between Biden and the government and changed the landscape. Two IRS whistleblowers came forward alleging political interference in their investigation of Hunter Biden’s taxes by officials in the Department of Justice who repeatedly limited the scope of the investigation. A New York Times investigation revealed that the U.S. attorney’s posture on whether to require Hunter Biden to plead guilty to misdemeanor tax offenses as a condition of any deal changed shortly after the IRS whistleblowers came forward.

Then Biden’s team demanded that the plea deal include immunity for “any other federal crimes” he may have committed, even beyond the gun and tax-related matters that were the subject of this investigation. Because this broad immunity request went farther than the prosecution was willing to go, the plea deal fell apart and was ultimately rejected by the federal judge.

The case has also raised interesting questions about the scope of the Second Amendment after Hunter Biden’s lawyers argued that the federal law under which he was charged infringes upon his constitutional right to own a firearm. Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Biden’s attorneys argued that the charges should be dismissed because there is no “historical tradition” in the United States of prohibiting users of illicit substances from obtaining firearms simply upon the basis of their addiction (as opposed to a prior criminal conviction for drug charges, for example).

Federal courts are divided on the constitutionality of this law, and while the argument was not successful in preventing Biden’s case from moving forward to trial, it could still be relevant in an appeal. If Biden’s argument succeeds, that would effectively expand Second Amendment rights to a class of people whose right to own a firearm is not currently protected under federal law.

Hunter Biden’s legal troubles will not end with the conclusion of his Delaware trial. His indictment for failure to pay taxes from 2016 through 2019 is pending. And a congressional investigation into Hunter Biden’s foreign business deals and lobbying is also ongoing. Of course, his legal troubles may all go away after the November election, when, if reelected, President Biden would have the ability to pardon him, likely without serious political ramifications. 

Steve Roberts and Jonathan Fahey are partners at Holtzman Vogel, and Andrew Pardue is a Holtzman Vogel associate.

Category:

Crime, Law, Political

Tagged with:

Merrick Garland Shouldn’t Be Praised. He Should Be Impeached


BY: DAVID HARSANYI | JUNE 04, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/06/04/merrick-garland-shouldnt-be-praised-he-should-be-impeached/

Merrick Garland

Author David Harsanyi profile

DAVID HARSANYI

VISIT ON TWITTER@DAVIDHARSANYI

MORE ARTICLES

It’s no accident that The Wall Street Journal ran an “exclusive” hagiographic piece on Merrick Garland’s “by-the-book, play-no-favorites approach” the day the attorney general is set to be grilled by Congress. The administration wants to paint the AG as a fair-minded dispenser of justice.

In truth, while Garland might occasionally — only when faced with no real options — put the Biden administration in an uncomfortable political position, he has regularly weaponized the agency to target the president’s political enemies, from pro-life protesters to concerned parents to presidential candidates.

Even as I write this, Garland is refusing to hand over audio recordings of Joe Biden’s interviews with former Special Counsel Robert Hur, despite a congressional subpoena. Even as the DOJ stonewalls Congress, it is prosecuting the Republican Party’s presidential candidate for crimes for which the Hur tape supposedly “exonerates” Biden.

Garland’s claims of executive privilege are risible. If Biden’s audio can be withheld from the public simply because someone somewhere might manipulate the tape using AI, then any audio of any president can be denied the public.

Also, why is this DOJ’s concern? Considering the Hur transcript has already been released — and we know that Biden lied about it — there is even less justification for withholding the audio. And considering the DOJ has apparently cleaned up all the “uhs” and “ohs” and garbled words in the transcript, the tape would likely further cement the president as an “elderly man with a poor memory.”

So, the real problem here isn’t the deep fake; it’s the unedited tape. Withholding the audio is obviously politically motivated. Which is unsurprising, since Garland has been one of the most partisan AGs in memory.

While Garland was raiding the home of the former president over a classified document dispute, he was letting the statute of limitations on the foreign influence-peddling by the president’s family run out.

While left-wing pro-Hamas protesters were rioting and targeting Jews, Garland was still fearmongering over the coming MAGA extremist revolution, inflating the threat with bogus statistics.

While Garland did nothing about those (likely) illegally picketing the homes of federal judges and attempting to intimidate them and influence cases — even after an assassin tried to kill Brett Kavanaugh — the DOJ was deploying armed teams to raid the homes of pro-life families and prosecuting elderly anti-abortion protesters for praying in front of “clinics.”

Even as Democrats are yammering about saving democracy, the DOJ has been working to undermine the electoral choices of voters in red states like Texas. Abortion is not a (pretend) constitutional right anymore. The DOJ does not care.

The DOJ is restarting censorship efforts under the guise of stopping foreign interference, and also targeting X owner Elon Musk, who has opened his platform to more neutral speech. It’s quite the happenstance, right?

Not only did Garland form a “task force” to investigate local parents who were protesting authoritarian Covid restrictions and racist curriculums, but he refused to dissolve the effort even after the National School Boards Association apologized for the letter that sparked it.

Of course, it was the Biden administration that prompted the organization to use the term “domestic terrorism” to give the DOJ justification to get involved in the first place. Even The New York Times acknowledged that “Garland did not detail any specific threats of violence or offer reasons for the increase in harassment and threats.” The only reason to get involved was to chill speech and intimidate parents.

No matter.

Even the case against Hunter Biden, used most often by the left to brandish Garland’s alleged Solomonic credentials, is a farce.

Let’s not forget if the Justice Department had its way, the case would have disappeared. To begin with, Garland ignored the law and appointed a counsel from within the government. David Weiss, whose office was filled with Biden allies, was prepared to give Hunter an astonishing immunity deal, not only on felony gun and tax charges, but for a slew of unrelated serious potential offenses, including failure to register as a foreign agent, bribery, and corruption.

It was only because of the whistleblower testimony of Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler that Weiss was forced to ask Hunter to plead guilty to two piddling misdemeanor counts. And the immunity deal was only quashed because Judge Maryellen Noreika, who pointed out there was not a single precedent in which immunity was offered for “crimes in a different case,” rejected it.

In his remarks to Congress today, Garland promised that he “will not back down from defending our democracy,” despite the “repeated attacks” and “conspiracy theor[ies]” regarding the DOJ. Some conspiracy theories exist, no doubt, but most criticisms of Garland’s work are legitimate. Treating criticism of his corrupt tenure as an attack on the “judicial process itself” has it backward.  Demanding no one question the actions of state institutions is authoritarian. If the system were working properly, Garland would be impeached.

But in their efforts to save “democracy” — a concept that’s been stripped of any meaning — Democrats have justified deploying the state to punish and destroy political enemies. For many progressives, the legal system isn’t merely a tool for criminal justice but a way to exact political justice.

Garland is one of the leaders in this fight. Whether it’s because he is a weak man willing to do what’s expected of him or because he is corrupt makes little difference. 

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist, a nationally syndicated columnist, a Happy Warrior columnist at National Review, and author of five books—the most recent, Eurotrash: Why America Must Reject the Failed Ideas of a Dying Continent. Follow him on Twitter, @davidharsanyi.

Category:

Law, Political

Tagged with:

Biden’s Edict on Southern Border Is an Election Year Stunt, Republicans Say


By: Virginia Allen | June 04, 2024

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/06/04/biden-issues-controversial-executive-order-southern-border/

President Joe Biden, seen here May 31 at the White House, signed an executive order on Tuesday, giving himself the authority to close the border after the seven-day average of daily border crossings between ports of entry exceeds 2,500. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

President Joe Biden signed an executive order Tuesday giving himself the authority to close the border when the seven-day average of daily border crossings between ports of entry exceeds 2,500. 

The order is set to take effect immediately, since the daily threshold has already been met. The border will only reopen if crossings between ports fall to a seven-day daily average of 1,500 or less. 

Biden is drawing on the authority in Title 8 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to temporarily close the border. 

The executive action specifically makes three changes to Biden’s own border policy: 

  1. Illegal aliens who cross the border between a port of entry will “generally be ineligible for asylum.”
  2. Illegal aliens who are being processed for “expedited removal while the limitation is in effect will only be referred for a credible-fear screening” if they express that they are afraid to return to their country of origin. 
  3. The qualification for a “credible-fear” interview is being raised to “reasonable probability of persecution or torture standard.”

Even before Biden issued the order Tuesday, Republican lawmakers criticized the then-anticipated action, saying the order was too little, too late to solve a crisis they say Biden himself caused. 

“On Day One, this president signed dozens of executive orders that caused this border crisis,” Rep. Juan Ciscomani, R-Ariz., said during a press conference on Capitol Hill on Tuesday morning. 

Ciscomani said that since Biden took office in January 2021, he has refused to “take any kind of responsibility or ownership over this crisis. Also since then, [Biden] refused that he had any authority to actually solve or address this crisis that we’re seeing now.”

On Biden’s first day in office, he signed an executive order stopping border wall construction, and rolled back a number of Trump administration border and immigration policies that the Biden administration called “harsh and extreme.” Biden suspended President Donald Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy when he took office, and formally ended the program in the spring of 2021. 

Biden has repeatedly said “Congress must act” to secure the border, but Republicans and Democrats have failed to agree on a border bill. In May 2023, the GOP-led House passed HR 2, a border-security bill that would restart border wall construction, end catch-and-release, and reinstate the “Remain in Mexico” policy. The Senate has yet to take up the bill. 

A Senate border bill, which was touted as “bipartisan” and backed by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., failed in February and again in May as Republicans said the bill would do more harm than good at the southern border by still allowing 4,000 illegal aliens to enter the country daily. 

Republicans have criticized the failed Senate bill and Biden’s new executive action as an election year stunt. After economic issues, immigration is a top concern for American voters ahead of the November presidential election, according to Gallup. 

“Like the Schumer Senate border bill, the exceptions swallow the rule,” Lora Ries, director of The Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center, told The Daily Signal. “Biden simply wants credit for ‘doing something’ five months out from Election Day and to bash congressional Republicans, even though the House did its job,” said Ries, noting the passage of HR 2, “a real border security bill,” last year.

“Joe Biden has had 3 years to secure the border,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Monday. “Why is he just now signing an executive order to fix it? It’s a political play before the election to get the corporate media to gush and say, ‘Things aren’t so bad.’”

During a press conference Tuesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., called Biden’s executive order on the border “window dressing,” adding that if Biden “was concerned about the border, he would have done this a long time ago.”

On the other side of the political aisle, opponents of stronger border enforcement also criticized the president for his executive action, arguing it would harm illegal aliens seeking asylum. 

“A few days into Immigrant Heritage Month … and [Biden] is planning to shut down legal pathway for people fleeing persecution,” the Welcome With Dignity Campaign wrote on X on Monday. 

Laura St. John, legal director of the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, said in a statement that her pro-immigration organization is “deeply dismayed to see the Biden administration enacting further restrictions on asylum.” 

The Border Patrol’s apprehension of illegal aliens has remained high this spring. In April, the Border Patrol apprehended an average of 4,296 illegal aliens between ports of entry daily. Since Biden took office, Customs and Border Protection has encountered 9.5 million illegal aliens at or between U.S. ports of entry. An additional nearly 1.8 million known “gotaways” have crossed America’s borders since Biden took office. 

Related Posts:

  1. DHS Chief Mayorkas’ Budget Request Is an Unserious Response to Threats to Homeland
  2. Where Are the Executive Actions to Secure the Border? A Look Back at 9/11
  3. RIP: The Death Toll of Biden’s Illegal Alien Bloodbath

Category:

Political

“Let’s Not Sugarcoat it … People are Not Reading Your Stuff:” Publisher Drops Truth Bomb at Post


By: Jonathan Turley | June 4, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/06/04/lets-not-sugarcoat-it-people-are-not-reading-your-stuff-post-reporters-outraged-after-publisher-drops-truth-bomb/

Washington Post publisher and CEO William Lewis is being denounced this week after the end of the short-lived tenure of Executive Editor Sally Buzbee and delivering a truth bomb to the staff. Lewis told them that they have lost their audience and “people are not reading your stuff.” It was a shot of reality in the echo chambered news outlet and the response was predictable. However, Lewis just might save this venerable newspaper if he follows his frank talk with meaningful reforms to bring balance back to the Post.

As someone who once wrote for the Washington Post regularly, I have long lamented the decline of the paper following a pronounced shift toward partisan and advocacy journalism. There was a time when the Post valued diversity of thought and steadfastly demanded staff write not as advocates but reporters. That began to change rapidly in the first Trump term.

Suddenly, I found editors would slow walk copy, contest every line of your column, and make unfounded claims. In the meantime, they were increasingly running unsupported legal columns and even false statements from authors on the left. When confronted about columnists with demonstrably false statements, the Post simply shrugged.

One of the most striking examples was after its columnist Philip Bump had a meltdown in an interview when confronted over past false claims. After 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 false columns on the Lafayette Park protests, Hunter Biden laptop and other stories.  That was long after other media debunked the claims, but the Post stood by the false reporting.

The decline of the Post has followed a familiar pattern. The editors and reporters simply wrote off half of their audience and became a publication for largely liberal and Democratic readers. In these difficult economic times with limited revenue sources, it is a lethal decision. Yet, for editors and reporters, it is still professionally beneficial to embrace advocacy journalism even if it is reducing the readership of your own newspaper.

Lewis, a British media executive who joined the Post earlier this year, reportedly got into a “heated exchange” with a staffer. Lewis explained that, while reporters were protesting measures to expand readership, the very survival of the paper was now at stake:

“We are going to turn this thing around, but let’s not sugarcoat it. It needs turning around,” Lewis said. “We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right. I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”

Other staffers could not get beyond the gender and race of those who would be overseeing them. One staffer complained “we now have four White men running three newsrooms.”

The Post has been buying out staff to avoid mass layoffs, but reporters are up in arms over the effort to turn the newspaper around.

The question is whether, after years of creating a culture of advocacy journalism and woke reporting, the Post is still capable of reaching a larger audience. If you want to read about certain stories, you are not likely to go to the Post, NPR or other outlets.

Likewise, with reporters referring to the January 6th riot as an “insurrection,” there is little doubt for the reader that the coverage is a form of advocacy. Again, such stories can affirm the bona fides for reporters, but they also affirm the bias for readers.

I truly do hope that the Washington Post can recover. The newspaper has played a critical role in our history and a towering example of journalism at its very best from the Pentagon Papers to Watergate. If you want people to “read your stuff,” you need to return to being reporters and not advocates; you need to start reaching an audience larger than yourself and your friends.

As I previously wrote, the mantra “Let’s Go Brandon!” was embraced by millions as a criticism as much of the media as President Biden.  It derives from an Oct. 2 interview with race-car driver Brandon Brown after he won his first NASCAR Xfinity Series race. During the interview, NBC reporter Kelli Stavast’s questions were drowned out by loud-and-clear chants of “F*** Joe Biden.” Stavast quickly and inexplicably declared, “You can hear the chants from the crowd, ‘Let’s go, Brandon!’”

Stavast’s denial or misinterpretation of the obvious instantly became a symbol of what many Americans perceive as media bias in favor of the Biden administration. Indeed, some in the media immediately praised Stavast for her “smooth save” and being a “quick-thinking reporter.” The media’s reaction has fulfilled the underlying narrative, too, with commentators growing increasingly shrill in denouncing its use. NPR denounced the chant as “vulgar,” while writers at the Washington Post and other newspapers condemned it as offensive; CNN’s John Avalon called it “not patriotic,” while CNN political analyst Joe Lockhart compared it to coded rhetoric from Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan and ISIS.

The more the media has cried foul, however, the more people picked up the chant.

It was the public response to how many in the media have embraced advocacy journalism and rejected objectivity in reporting; in their view, readers and viewers are now to be educated rather than merely informed. That included the rejection of “both-sidesism,” the need to offer a balanced account of the news.

Many of us hope that Lewis will rescue the Post from itself in the coming months. It will not be easy after years of orthodoxy and advocacy in the ranks. Yet, the Washington Post is a national treasure worth fighting for. People are still longing for old-fashioned, reliable news. As with the Field of Dreams, if you re-build it, “they will come” back to the Post.

Category:

Media, Political

Tagged with:

“A Blatant Lie”: The Biden Campaign Falsely Accuses Fox’s John Roberts of Lying About the Insulin Caps


By: Jonathan Turley | June 4, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/06/04/a-blatant-lie-the-biden-campaign-falsely-accuses-foxs-john-roberts-of-lying-about-the-insulin-caps/

Winston Churchill once said that “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” It often seems like the Biden White House and campaign has embraced that warning as an operating principle. The most recent target was the veteran Fox news anchor John Roberts, who was accused of airing “a blatant lie” in questioning Biden’s claim that he was the first president to push through a cap of $35 on insulin treatments. Roberts was entirely correct, but the campaign has still not removed the false attack on his integrity and accuracy.

In the interests of full disclosure, I am a legal analyst for Fox News and I have known Roberts for decades. There is no one who I hold in higher regard for his integrity or his intellect than John Roberts. We have known and worked with each other at different networks through the years. Roberts is an old-school journalist with impeccable credentials.

Yesterday, the Biden campaign launched the attack on Roberts for his questioning of the claim of President Joe Biden that he solely secured the insulin cap. Roberts remarked that he had a recollection that it was former President Donald Trump who pushed the cap.

“I seem to remember that back in May of 2020, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid said that President Trump had signed an executive order to cap the price of insulin for Medicare recipients at 35 bucks. Now, maybe I’m misremembering that, but I think it kind of already happened.”

The Biden campaign then called it “a blatant lie” in a posting on X that has reached over a million people.

Contrary to the Biden campaign’s claims, Roberts’s recollection was entirely correct. Under the Trump Administration, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced in May 2020 that the Part D Senior Savings Model participating plans would cap insulin copays to $35 per month’s supply, and over 1,750 Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D plans applied to offer lower insulin costs.

Trump praised the new policy, which was widely covered by the press.

There was a Rose Garden event where Trump was praised for his actions:

Trump later, in July 2020, signed four executive orders aimed at lowering the cost of insulin. That included Executive Order 13937, which required Federally Qualified Health Centers to pass 340B discounts on to patients. Notably, Biden later reversed Executive Order 13937 before those cost-saving measures could take effect.

This is obviously not the first false statement from the President. However, it is notable that his campaign spread obvious disinformation that was picked up by over a million people but then declined to take down the false claim. The campaign is now in a worse position. To take down the posting is to acknowledge not just that it has lied about Roberts, but that the President lied in taking sole credit for this cap.

This is the same administration supporting the banning, blacklisting, and throttling of those responsible for disinformation. I would not support such censorship of the campaign. This and other columns refuting the false account is sufficient to combat a “blatant lie” by the Biden campaign. Whether it is his uncle being eaten by cannibals or insulin caps, free speech can correct false claims without government regulation. However, President Biden and his administration continue to push for censorship of others accused for false or misleading statements.

The fact that John Roberts was right is hardly surprising. However, there remains a “blatant lie” on the Biden campaign’s social media that must still be corrected.

Category:

Political

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


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Brace for Impact

A.F. BRANCO | on June 4, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-brace-for-impact-2/

01 Lettters CI 1080
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

A.F. Branco Cartoon – After the Democrats have implemented a steady barrage of weaponized lawfare at Trump and the Conservatives, the only thing the GOP can muster is some feckless, strongly worded letters.

Maria Bartiromo GOES OFF on Spineless and Silent GOP Lawmakers: ‘Let Me be Clear Viewers are Sick and Tired of Hearings, Letters… They Want Action’ While Trump Sits in Trial All Day Long (VIDEO)

By Jim Hoft – May 11, 2024

FOX News anchor Maria Bartiromo held nothing back as she confronted Congressman Russell Fry (R-SC) during an interview, expressing her frustration—and that of the public—at the inaction of the GOP lawmakers and lack of accountability amid the ongoing witch hunts against former President Donald Trump.

As Trump faces these politically motivated witch hunts—with nearly 100 felony counts across four jurisdictions—Bartiromo voiced the exasperation of a public weary of what they see as political theater without substantial outcomes. The counts against Trump carry a potential for roughly 700 years of combined incarceration. READ MORE…

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

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump. READ MORE…

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report


Monday, May 3, 2024

Top Stories
• Arkansas Reports 0 Abortions as Abortion Ban Saves Babies
• Catholic Bishops Sue Biden Rule Promoting Abortion: “Promoting Human Dignity Includes the Unborn”
• Poll Shows Majority of Americans Supported Harrison Butker’s Pro-Life, Pro-Family Message
• Southwest Airlines Defends Firing Stewardess for Her Pro-Life Beliefs

More Pro-Life News
• Republicans Should Go After Democrats for Wanting Abortions Up to Birth
• Biden Supports Abortions Up to Birth at Taxpayer Expense, He Must be Exposed
• Supreme Court May Ban Mail Order Abortions, Protecting Women and Babies
• Notre Dame Alumni Demand University Rescind Award Given to Joe Biden
• Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

Arkansas Reports 0 Abortions as Abortion Ban Saves Babies

Catholic Bishops Sue Biden Rule Promoting Abortion: “Promoting Human Dignity Includes the Unborn”

Poll Shows Majority of Americans Supported Harrison Butker’s Pro-Life, Pro-Family Message

Southwest Airlines Defends Firing Stewardess for Her Pro-Life Beliefs

Republicans Should Go After Democrats for Wanting Abortions Up to Birth

Biden Supports Abortions Up to Birth at Taxpayer Expense, He Must be Exposed

Supreme Court May Ban Mail Order Abortions, Protecting Women and Babies

Notre Dame Alumni Demand University Rescind Award Given to Joe Biden

MORE PRO-LIFE NEWS FROM TODAY

Former Trump Spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany Will Headline Pro-Life Conference

WHO Promotes Teen Abortion as It Meets to Settle Pandemic Agreement

Faithful Christians Continue Fighting to Protect Babies From Abortion

Research Confirms 95.9% of Abortions are Killing Babies as Birth Control, Just .4% for Rape

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.

Texas Supreme Court Protects Babies With Disabilities From Abortions

UK is Killing More Babies With Down Syndrome in Abortions

Joe Biden is the Least Popular President in 70 Years, Time for Him to Go

Joe Biden Puts Elderly Woman in Prison for 25 Months for Protesting Abortion

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.

Category:

ABORTION/PRO LIFE

Tagged with:

Joe Biden’s Fingerprints Are All Over the Criminal Prosecutions of Donald Trump


BY: MARGOT CLEVELAND | JUNE 03, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/06/03/joe-bidens-fingerprints-are-all-over-the-criminal-prosecutions-of-trump/

Joe Biden

Author Margot Cleveland profile

MARGOT CLEVELAND

VISIT ON TWITTER@PROFMJCLEVELAND

MORE ARTICLES

In response to Americans’ outcry over the political prosecutions of Donald Trump and a Manhattan jury convicting the former president on 34 felony counts, President Joe Biden declared, “It’s irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged, just because they don’t like the verdict.” Coming from the Commander-in-Rigging, this proclamation means nothing.

Biden and those seeking to ensure his re-election have their hands all over Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of the former president. A lead prosecutor for Bragg during the trial was Matthew Colangelo. In December 2022, Colangelo left the Biden Department of Justice to “jump start” the criminal case against Trump. Biden had previously named Colangelo his acting associate attorney general—the third highest-ranking official in the DOJ.

There’s Plenty More Where That Came From

Colangelo’s role in prosecuting his former boss’s political opponent provides the most obvious evidence of the Biden administration’s involvement in the Manhattan D.A.’s criminal targeting of Trump, but the rigging started much earlier. As I previously reported, the incestuous relationship between the Manhattan D.A.’s office and Team Biden began as early as mid-February 2021. Then, “Bragg’s predecessor, District Attorney Cyrus Vance, arranged for private criminal defense attorney and former federal prosecutor Mark Pomerantz to be a special assistant district attorney for the Manhattan D.A.’s office.”

As The New York Times reported at the time, Pomerantz was to work “solely on the Trump investigation” during a temporary leave of absence from his law firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, and Garrison. “But even before being sworn in as a special assistant to the Manhattan D.A., Pomerantz had reportedly ‘been helping with the case informally for months.’” Even Democrats’ most reliable Old Grey Lady (of the evening) acknowledged, “the hiring of an outsider is a highly unusual move for a prosecutor’s office.”

Soon after the Manhattan D.A. hired Pomerantz, two of his colleagues, Elyssa Abuhoff and Caroline Williamson, also took leaves of absence from Paul, Weiss to serve as special assistant district attorneys on the Trump investigation. “For a law firm to lend not one but three lawyers to the Manhattan D.A.’s office seems rather magnanimous, until you consider Paul, Weiss’s previous generosity to Joe Biden.”

As I previously reported, during Biden’s first run for the White House, “the law firm hosted a $2,800-per-plate fundraiser for about 100 guests.” Brad Karp, the chair of Paul, Weiss, also topped the list of Biden fundraisers, bundling at least $100,000 for the then-candidate. At the time, Karp wrote in an email: “As someone who cares passionately about preserving the rule of law, safeguarding our democracy and protecting fundamental liberties, I’ve been delighted to do everything I possibly can to support the Joe Biden/Kamala Harris ticket.”

Biden’s relationship with Karp continued after his election, with the president including Karp and his wife at a state dinner with the Australian prime minister. Karp and his fellow Paul, Weiss lawyers continue to fund Biden’s re-election campaign. In fact, Biden’s connection to the firm is so strong Bloomberg branded Paul, Weiss the “Biden-Era N.Y. Power Center.”

But for Paul, Weiss lending Pomerantz to the Manhattan D.A.’s office to control the Trump investigation, the former president likely never would have been charged. According to Pomerantz, Bragg had decided “not to go forward with the grand jury presentation and not to seek criminal charges,” indefinitely suspending the investigation.

Pomerantz made those claims in the resignation letter he tendered to Bragg in early 2022, which was deliberately leaked to The New York Times. “Pomerantz’s letter and his claims that Bragg had suspended the Trump probe triggered a political firestorm, which the Manhattan D.A. sought to quell by telling the public the investigation was ongoing.” Soon after, Bragg capitulated, hiring Biden’s high-ranking DOJ lawyer, Colangelo, who proceeded to indict and convict Trump.

In contrast to the Biden-connected attorneys who secured Trump’s indictment and conviction, in late 2021, at least three career prosecutors in the Manhattan D.A.’s office asked to be removed from the investigation of Trump, reportedly “concerned that the investigation was moving too quickly, without clear evidence to support possible charges.”

Not Just Manhattan

The Biden connection to the political targeting of Trump is not limited to the Manhattan D.A.’s office. In August 2023, Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis charged Trump and 18 other Republicans in a sprawling 98-page criminal indictment.

Earlier this year, court filings and testimony in the case related to motions to disqualify Willis and her former lover, Nathan Wade, revealed the Fulton County D.A.’s office had met with White House counsel in May 2022. Then, just three days after Trump announced his 2024 candidacy for president, Wade traveled to D.C. for an interview with the “White House,” according to Fulton County records. The Biden administration’s White House counsel’s office also dispatched two letters to Willis, according to one of her prosecutors.

Biden and his Democrat-run administration also have their fingers all over the remaining two criminal cases targeting Trump, both brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith. President Biden, according to an April 2, 2022, New York Times report, “As recently as late last year… confided to his inner circle that he believed former President Donald J. Trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted.”

The Times claimed Biden had expressed frustration with Garland’s “deliberative approach” and that the president believed Trump should be prosecuted. The president “has said privately that he wanted Mr. Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive action over the events of Jan. 6.,” the legacy outlet reported.

Biden’s attorney general would eventually appoint Smith special counsel. Smith would later charge Trump in two separate indictments—one in Florida concerning documents the former president retained, and one in D.C. with various conspiracy to defraud and obstruction charges related to Trump’s challenging the outcome of the 2020 election.

Stretching the Law Past Its Breaking Point

With the D.C. indictment, the special counsel delivered to Biden just what he wanted—a prosecution of Trump “for his role in the events of Jan. 6.” To deliver for Biden, though, required Smith to stretch the federal criminal code to the point of breaking. In the case of two of the crimes charged, in the context of Jan. 6, 2021, defendants, the Supreme Court seems poised to limit the reach of the relevant statutes—a holding that could mean that Smith charged Trump with two non-crimes.

The final criminal case pending against Trump, Smith’s documents case, also connects back to the Biden administration. That case began when the DOJ launched an investigation prompted by a referral from the national archivist related to a dispute over presidential records—even though the same archivist declined to refer Hillary Clinton to the DOJ for mishandling classified documents. Later, a top aide to Smith, Jay Bratt, would meet with “White House officials multiple times, just weeks before Mr. Smith indicted former President Donald Trump.”

That case has been delayed after it was revealed the FBI agents who executed a search warrant obtained by the Biden administration had failed to keep the documents seized from Mar-a-Lago in the same condition they were found, with the order of the materials mixed up. At the same time, it was revealed that the “classified cover sheets” depicted in the photographs of the evidence seized during the August 2022 search of Trump had been placed there by federal agents. The leak of those photographs falsely portrayed the former president as in possession of documents bearing classified cover sheets.

Biden can continue to deny his responsibility for the criminal targeting of his political opponent all he wants, but the facts tell a different story. So did the president’s malevolent smile on Friday when he was asked to respond to Trump calling himself a political prisoner and blaming the president directly.

Margot Cleveland is an investigative journalist and legal analyst and serves as The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. Margot’s work has been published at The Wall Street Journal, The American Spectator, the New Criterion, National Review Online, Townhall.com, the Daily Signal, USA Today, and the Detroit Free Press. She is also a regular guest on nationally syndicated radio programs and on Fox News, Fox Business, and Newsmax. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. Cleveland is also of counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland where you can read more about her greatest accomplishments—her dear husband and dear son. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Category:

Law, Political

Tagged with:

Buzz Kill: The Trump Conviction Presents a Target-Rich Environment for Appeal


By: Jonathan Turley | June 3, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/06/03/buzz-kill-the-trump-conviction-presents-a-target-rich-environment-for-appeal/

Below is my column in the Hill on the most compelling grounds for an appeal in the Trump case after his conviction on 34 counts in Manhattan. There has been considerable criticism of the defense team and its strategy in the case, including some moves that may undermine appellate issues. However, after the instructions became public, I wrote a column that I thought the case was nearly un-winnable, even for those of us who previously saw a chance for a hung jury. Clarence Darrow would likely have lost with those instructions after the errors in the case by Judge Juan Merchan. At that point, it became a legal canned hunt. So the attention will now shift to the appellate courts. While it may be tough going initially in the New York court system for the former president, this case could well end up in the federal system and the United States Supreme Court. The thrill kill environment of last week may then dissipate as these glaring errors are presented in higher courts.

Here is the column:

The conviction of former President Donald Trump in Manhattan of 34 felonies produced citywide celebrations. This thrill-kill environment extended to the media, where former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman told MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace that it was “majestic day” and “a day to celebrate.” When I left the courthouse after watching the verdict come in, I was floored by the celebrations outside by both the public and some of the media.

The celebrants would be wise to think twice before mounting this trophy kill on the political wall. The Trump trial is a target-rich environment for an appeal, with multiple layers of reversible error, in my view.

I am less convinced by suggestions that the case could be challenged on the inability of Trump receiving a fair trial in a district that voted roughly 90 percent against him. The problem was not the jury, but the prosecutors and the judge.

Some of the most compelling problems can be divided into four groups.

The Judge

Acting Supreme Court justice Juan Merchan was handpicked for this case rather than randomly selected. This is only the latest in a litany of Trump cases where Merchan has meted out tough rulings against Trump and his organization. With any other defendant, there would likely be outrage over his selection. Merchan donated to President Biden. Even though the state bar cleared that violation based on the small size of the contribution, it later stressed that no such contributions were appropriate for a judge. We learned later that Merchan has contributed to a group to stop the GOP and Trump. Merchan’s daughter is also a Democratic organizer who has helped raise millions against Trump and the GOP and for the Democrats.

To his credit, CNN legal analyst Elie Honig has previously said that this case was legally dubious, uniquely targeted Trump and could not succeed outside of an anti-Trump district.  On the judge, he recently challenged critics on the fairness of assigning a Biden donor who has earmarked donations for “resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.” He asked, “Would folks have been just fine with the judge staying on the case if he had donated a couple bucks to “Re-elect Donald Trump, MAGA forever!”? “Absolutely not.”

What is equally disturbing is the failure of Merchan to protect the rights of the defendant and what even critics admit were distinctly pro-prosecution rulings in the trial. It is not just the appearance of a conflict with Judge Merchan but a record of highly biased decisions. In watching Merchan in the courtroom, I was shocked by his rulings as at times incomprehensible and conflicted.

The Charges

A leading threshold issue will be the decision to allow Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to effectively try Trump for violations of federal law. The Justice Department declined any criminal charges against Trump under federal election law over the alleged “hush money” payments. The Federal Election Commission likewise found no basis for a civil fine. With no federal prosecution, Bragg decided to use an unprecedented criminal theory not only to zap a dead misdemeanor into life (after the expiration of the statute of limitation) but to allow him to try violations of not only federal election law but also federal taxation violations. In other words, the Justice Department would not prosecute federal violations, so Bragg effectively did it in state court.

Even when closing arguments were given, analysts on various networks admitted that they were unclear about what Bragg was alleging. The indictment claimed a violation under New York’s election law 17-152 that the falsification of business records were committed to further another crime as an unlawful means to influence the election. However, in a maddeningly circular theory, that other crime could be the falsification of business records. It could also be violations of federal election and taxation laws, which Trump was never charged with, let alone convicted of.

The Evidence

Judge Merchan allowed a torrent of immaterial and prejudicial evidence to be introduced into the trial by the prosecution. That included testimony from porn actress Stormy Daniels that went into details about having sex with Trump. She included a clear suggestion that Trump raped her. After this utterly disgraceful testimony, Merchan expressed regret but actually blamed the defense counsel, despite their prior objections to the testimony. He had previously chastised counsel for making continued objections, but now he criticized them for not continuing to make objections.

Merchan was equally conflicted in his other orders. For example, he allowed the prosecutors to introduce the plea agreement of Michael Cohen to federal election violations as well as the non-prosecution agreement of David Pecker on such violations. However, it was allowed only for the purposes of credibility and context. He issued an instruction that the jury could not consider the plea or the agreement to establish or impute the guilt of Trump.

The prosecutors then proceeded to expressly state that it was “a fact” that federal election violations occurred in this case and that Trump ordered those violations. They also solicited such statements from witnesses like Cohen. Merchan overruled the objections that the prosecutors were eviscerating his instruction. Merchan also barred the use of a legal expert, former FEC Chair Brad Smith, who was prepared to testify that such payments cannot be viewed as federal election violations and would not affect the election even if they were considered contributions, since they would not even have had to be reported until after the election.

Merchan is likely to be upheld in denying the expert, since the court retains the authority to state what the law is to the jury. The problem is that Merchan failed to do so. Worse still, he allowed the jury to hear the opposite in the repeated false claim that these payments were campaign contributions.

The Instructions

Even with all of the reversible errors, some of us held out hope that there might be a hung jury. That hope was largely smashed by Merchan in his instructions to the jury. The court largely used standard instructions in a case that was anything but standard. However, the instruction also allowed for doubt as to what the jury would ultimately find. When the verdict came in, we were still unsure what Trump was convicted of.

Merchan allowed the jury to find that the secondary offense was any of the three vaguely defined options. Even on the jury form, they did not have to specify which of the crimes were found. Under Merchan’s instruction, the jury could have split 4-4-4 on what occurred in the case. They could have seen a conspiracy to conceal a federal election violation, falsification of business records or taxation violations. We will never know. Worse yet, Trump will never know.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the requirement of unanimity in criminal convictions is sacrosanct in our system. While there was unanimity that the business records were falsified to hide or further a second crime, there was no express finding of what that crime may have been. In some ways, Trump may have been fortunate by Merchan’s cavalier approach. Given that the jury convicted Trump across the board, they might have found all of three secondary crimes. The verdict form never asked for such specificity.

These are just a few of the appellate issues. There are other challenges, including but not limited to due process violations on the lack of specificity in the indictment, vagueness of the underlying state law and the lack of evidentiary foundation for key defenses like “the legitimate press function.” They are the reason why many of us view this case is likely to be reversed in either the state or federal systems. None of that is likely to dampen the thrill in this kill in Manhattan.

But if Biden wins the election before this conviction is overturned, history’s judgment will be deafening.

Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.

Category:

Political

The Deepfake Privilege? The Justice Department Makes Startling Claim to Withhold the Biden-Hur Audiotape


By: Jonathan Turley | June 3, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/06/02/the-deepfake-privilege-the-justice-department-makes-startling-claim-to-withhold-the-biden-hur-audiotape/

We have been discussing the dubious constitutional basis for President Joe Biden withholding the audio tapes of his interview with special counsel Robert Hur. I have previously written that the claim of privilege makes little sense when the transcript of the interview has already been released. It seems curious that Biden is claiming to be the president “who cannot be heard” in withholding the audio version. It just got wackier as the Justice Department seeks to create a new type of “Deepfake privilege” that would effectively blow away all existing limits on the use of the privilege when it comes to audio or visual records of a president.

Multiple committees are investigating Biden for possible impeachment and conducting oversight on the handling of the investigation into his retention and mishandling of classified material over decades. Classified documents were found in various locations where Biden lived or worked, including his garage. The mishandling of classified material is uncontestable. Broken boxes, unprotected areas and lack of tracking are all obvious from the photos.

Biden made the situation even worse with a disastrous press conference in which he attacked Hur and misrepresented his findings.

Hur’s ultimate conclusion that Biden’s diminished cognitive abilities would undermine any prosecution left many dumbfounded. After all, the man who is too feeble to prosecute is not only running a superpower with a massive nuclear arsenal but running for reelection to add four more years in office.

From impeachment to oversight to the 25th Amendment (allowing the removal of a president for incapacities), there are ample reasons for Congress to demand information and evidence from the government on these questions. Congress is also interested in looking at repeated omissions for “inaudible” statements. Under this sweeping theory that Biden can legitimately withhold these recordings under executive privilege, any president could withhold any evidence of incapacity or criminality.

As previously explained, the claim that the audiotape but not the transcript remains privileged is hard to square with precedent or logic. However, now the Justice Department appears to be pivoting with a new claim with a late Friday filing.  The filing obtained by Politico states that the audiotape must be withheld due to the risk that it could be altered by artificial intelligence and passed off as authentic in a deepfake release: “The passage of time and advancements in audio, artificial intelligence, and ‘deep fake’ technologies only amplify concerns about malicious manipulation of audio files.”

Consider the implications of that argument for a second. It would mean that any visual or audio recording of the President could be withheld due to the danger of digital or other manipulation. It would eviscerate any existing limits on privilege assertions.

It is also absurd since you could create such fake recordings using the transcript and Biden’s voice from countless interviews through AI programs. The Justice Department acknowledges that obvious logical disconnect by noting that the release would make any fake version more credible.

“To be sure, other raw material to create a deepfake of President Biden’s voice is already available, but release of the audio recording presents unique risks: if it were public knowledge that the audio recording has been released, it becomes easier for malicious actors to pass off an altered file as the true recording.”

The filing is logically and legally absurd. It is also dangerous.

For a president who is already carefully insulated from questions and controlled in public appearances, the argument would allow staff to completely control any public or, more importantly, congressional review of his actual speech and discourse.

In seeking to prevent “malicious actors” from altering reality, the government is claiming the right to frame reality as an inherent constitutional prerogative.

The argument ignores that, if an audiotape is released, it is harder to pass off a fake as genuine. As it stands, actors can claim tapes as leaked or derived from other sources. In the absence of an official tape, such arguments can be difficult to refute.

The fact that this spurious argument is being made by Merrick Garland’s Justice Department is another disappointing sign that he has abandoned his pledge to remain apolitical in office. This litigation is clearly designed for one overriding purpose: to delay any release until after the election when it cannot harm the President.

It is the legal version of a deepfake — misrepresenting the law to mislead citizens into believing that they are better off with less information on the credibility and competence of their president.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

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


A.F. Branco Cartoon – The Difference

A.F. BRANCO

 on June 2, 2024 at 5:00 am

Hero Officer Jamal Mitchell
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

A.F. Branco Drawing – A Minneapolis police officer is dead, and another was injured when they were fired upon while responding to a report of a shooting in the Whittier neighborhood on Thursday evening.

MPD officer dead, another injured along with several civilians shot in Minneapolis

By Crime Watch MN – May 31/2021

The fallen officer has been identified as Jamal Mitchell, who had only been with the department for about a year-and-a-half.
A Minneapolis police officer is dead, and another was injured when they were fired upon while responding to a report of a shooting in the Whittier neighborhood on Thursday evening.
Four civilians were also reportedly shot in the incident that played out about 5:20 p.m. on the 2200 block of Blaisdell Avenue South.
The fallen officer has been identified as Jamal Mitchell, who had only been with the department for about a year-and-a-half. Mitchell made headlines in February of last year after he and another officer rescued an elderly couple from their burning residence on his third day on the job. READ MORE…

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

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump. READ MORE…

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Responses and Reactions to Trump Conviction


June 1, 2024

Category:

Law, Political

Tagged with:

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report


Friday, May 31, 2024

Top Stories
• Joe Biden Puts Elderly Woman in Prison for 25 Months for Protesting Abortion
• Texas Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Challenge to Abortion Ban, Babies Can Continue Being Saved
• Leading Pro-Life Group: “We are More Committed to Helping Trump Win”
• Pro-Life Leader: We Must Support Donald Trump After What Happened Yesterday

More Pro-Life News
• Ben Carson: We Have to Protect Our Children From the Leftist Sexual Agenda
• Texas Supreme Court Protects Babies, Confirms Abortion Ban Allows Emergency Medical Care
• We Need Leaders Who Value the Family Like Harrison Butker
• Hundreds of Lawmakers Worldwide Oppose Radical WHO Pandemic Agreement
• Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

Joe Biden Puts Elderly Woman in Prison for 25 Months for Protesting Abortion

Texas Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Challenge to Abortion Ban, Babies Can Continue Being Saved

Leading Pro-Life Group: “We are More Committed to Helping Trump Win”

Pro-Life Leader: We Must Support Donald Trump After What Happened Yesterday

Ben Carson: We Have to Protect Our Children From the Leftist Sexual Agenda

Texas Supreme Court Protects Babies, Confirms Abortion Ban Allows Emergency Medical Care

We Need Leaders Who Value the Family Like Harrison Butker

Hundreds of Lawmakers Worldwide Oppose Radical WHO Pandemic Agreement

MORE PRO-LIFE NEWS FROM TODAY

Pro-Life Leader Mark Houck Going After Joe Biden After Biden Tried to Put Him in Prison

Court Lets Anti-Euthanasia Group Fight for 27-Year-Old Autistic Woman Who May be Euthanized

Liberal World Health Assembly Delegates Push for Killing More Babies in Abortions

We Have to Show the World Human Life is Gift From God to be Protected

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.

Montana Residents Should Reject CI-128, Legalizing Abortions Up to Birth

Catholic Bishops Sue to Stop Joe Biden’s Radical Abortion Agenda

Joe Biden is the Least Popular President in 70 Years, Time for Him to Go

Democrats Bracing Themselves for Potential Biden Loss in November

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.

Category:

ABORTION/PRO LIFE

Tagged with:

Tag Cloud