Jack Smith, the controversial special counsel tasked with investigating former President Donald Trump’s attempts to challenge the 2020 election, has officially stepped down. His resignation comes just weeks before President-elect Trump is set to take office, sparking heated debates over the legitimacy of the cases brought against Trump and their broader implications for justice in America.
Conservative commentator Mark Levin, host of LevinTV, was quick to weigh in, calling Smith’s resignation both predictable and overdue. Levin minced no words in his criticism, declaring that Smith’s departure underscores the collapse of the legal efforts aimed at Trump. “You know why? It’s simple. He’s an unconstitutional prosecutor. Donald Trump’s going to fire his ass,” Levin said.
Levin argued that the cases against Trump were doomed from the start, pointing to internal Department of Justice (DOJ) memos and procedural violations. He highlighted the dismissal of one of Smith’s cases in Florida as a clear sign of their instability.
“These cases collapse,” Levin continued. “They should never have been brought. The case in Florida was rightly thrown out. That’s why they were in such a rush—to get these cases prosecuted and Trump imprisoned before the election.”
Levin accused the DOJ and Smith of pursuing Trump with the sole intent of derailing his political career. He claimed this approach not only violated DOJ policies but also undermined the integrity of the judicial system.
“They did everything possible to affect the election and to destroy Donald Trump’s life,” Levin asserted.
The commentator called on the incoming administration to take decisive action against those responsible for the cases. “It’s my position that the new attorney general needs to dig into this and find out who exactly was responsible for it,” Levin said. “These people need to be held accountable.”
Smith’s cases focused primarily on Trump’s efforts to challenge the 2020 election results, actions Levin described as entirely lawful and historically common.
“A candidate has every right to try and challenge an election, which means to overturn it,” Levin argued. “That’s exactly what’s going on in Pennsylvania today at the behest of Chuck Schumer with their slip-and-fall lawyer, Marc Elias.”
Levin highlighted past instances where election challenges were not only permitted but celebrated by political leaders. He cited Al Gore’s legal battle in Florida during the 2000 presidential race and efforts in Minnesota that ultimately handed Al Franken a Senate seat.
“There’s nothing criminal about challenging an election,” Levin said. “This is the first time it’s been criminalized. Encouraging a state legislature or a board of elections to act has never been treated as a crime before.”
Smith’s resignation has fueled speculation about its timing, particularly given Trump’s imminent return to power. Critics argue that Smith’s exit may be an attempt to avoid the embarrassment of being fired by the incoming administration or to shield himself from further scrutiny. Supporters of Trump see this as vindication of their belief that the legal cases against him were politically motivated and lacked substance. Levin emphasized that the abrupt nature of Smith’s departure only reinforces this narrative.
“This was never about justice,” Levin said. “It was about weaponizing the justice system against a political opponent. And now it’s falling apart.”
Smith’s resignation is part of a larger debate over the role of the justice system in political matters. Critics argue that targeting Trump for challenging the 2020 election has set a dangerous precedent, effectively criminalizing actions that were previously considered routine aspects of political contests. As Smith steps aside, attention shifts to how Trump’s incoming administration will handle the fallout. Levin and others are urging Trump’s attorney general to launch investigations into the motivations and conduct behind Smith’s cases, with some calling for accountability measures to restore public trust in the justice system.
For Trump, Smith’s resignation marks a significant victory, further energizing his supporters and reinforcing his narrative of political persecution. Yet it also raises questions about how his administration will navigate the legal and political challenges that remain.
The stage is set for a dramatic showdown as Trump prepares to re-enter the White House, with Smith’s resignation serving as a powerful symbol of the broader battles yet to come.
When Hurricane Helene brought unprecedented flooding to western North Carolina in September, many people were left struggling without power and clean water for weeks. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) faced backlash for their slow response and mismanagement of funds, but one global Christian charity stood out for their immediate action and life-saving relief efforts.
Water Mission, a nonprofit based in Charleston, South Carolina, sprang into action as soon as they saw their fellow Americans in need. Their president and CEO, George Greene IV, told the Daily Caller News Foundation that “anytime there’s a need in the [United States], as a [United States] organization, our hearts are drawn to trying to figure out how we can help.” This has been a real special relief effort for us for being able to do that.”
🎥 Our Disaster Response Team is headed to western North Carolina with generators and supplies as we respond to devastating flooding in the area caused by Hurricane Helene.
Water Mission, whose mission is to provide safe water solutions to developing countries around the world, is no stranger to disaster relief. Since 2001, they have helped over 8 million people in 60 countries, including previous disaster responses to Hurricane Katrina and Winter Storm Uri in Texas. And when Hurricane Helene hit, they were prepared to jump in and help once again.
While FEMA faced criticism for their slow response, Water Mission wasted no time. They mobilized an on-the-ground disaster relief team the day after the storm hit and began distributing generators and water purification packets to those in need. They also installed water treatment systems in some of the hardest-hit communities, providing safe drinking water for up to 5,000 people a day.
But their impact didn’t stop there. Water Mission also stepped in to help Asheville public schools reopen after the hurricane left the city’s water undrinkable. Dr. Maggie Fehrman, superintendent of Asheville city schools, praised Water Mission for their help, stating that their water filtration systems allowed them to reopen schools faster and with full instructional days.
The school district had initially requested bottled water, but Water Mission went above and beyond by offering to install water treatment systems in the schools instead. And the impact of their generosity and innovation didn’t go unnoticed. Fehrman told Christianity Today that the entire Water Mission team, from their CEO to their local response team, was a joy to work with during this difficult time.
Water Mission is providing safe water to schools in Asheville, NC, so that students can resume their education following Hurricane Helene. Hear from Jen with The Franklin School of Innovation as she explains how the water is serving this community! pic.twitter.com/RMWiH61kBT
In contrast to the criticism faced by FEMA, Water Mission’s actions during the Hurricane Helene response are a testament to the power of individual and private organizations to make a positive impact during times of crisis. Their dedication to providing clean water and essential resources to those in need is a true example of humanitarian aid in action.
Having problems reading this email? To read the news, visit LifeNews.com.
Top Stories • British Parliament Initially Passes Dangerous Bill to Legalize Assisted Suicide • British Parliament Just Legalized the “Murder of Old and Sick People” • Planned Parenthood Sold Chopped-Up 23-Week-Old Aborted Babies • Joe Biden Put Him in Prison for Protesting Abortion, So He’s Telling Prisoners About Jesus
More Pro-Life News • Donald Trump Needs to Promote Pro-Mother, Pro-Life Policies as President • British Pro-Life Groups Will Fight for the 28 Votes Needed to Kill the Assisted Suicide Bill • OBGYN Confirms Abortion Pill Reversal Can Save Babies From Abortion and It’s Safe for Women • US and UK Militaries Would Discharge Women if They Refused to Get Abortions • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2024 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved. For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Most Americans are thankful for Trump’s victory this Thanksgiving. Now, on to the hard work of turning the country away from the darkness of the past 4 years of Biden and the Marxist tyrannical policies. We don’t seek revenge but are seeking justice retribution against the Biden DOJ and the Deep State for any illegal activities they may have committed in their effort to destroy Trump and our democracy.
Kachelman: Now Is Not the Time for Revenge – Now Is the Time for Justified Retribution
By John L. Kachelman – The Gateway Pundit – Nov 9, 2024
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
Top Stories • CDC Report Confirms Abortions Decline as Pro-Life States Save More Babies • President Trump Nominates Pro-Life Dr. Marty Makary to Head FDA • Elon and Vivek Want to Defund Planned Parenthood, We Fully Support That • CDC Report Shows Abortions Declining in America After Dobbs
More Pro-Life News • Former UK Prime Ministers Johnson, Truss, May and Brown Will Oppose Assisted Suicide Bill • No, The Texas Abortion Ban Did Not Kill Porsha Ngumezi • This Grandma Can’t Celebrate Thanksgiving With Her Family Because Biden Put Her in Prison for Protesting Abortion • “Please Don’t.” Democrat Strategist Pleads With Kamala Harris To Never Run For President Again • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
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.
Top Stories • Judge Halts Sentencing of 7 Pro-Life Americans Biden Wanted in Prison, Trump Could Pardon Them • Trump CDC Nominee Dave Weldon Protected Pro-Life Doctors From Being Forced to Do Abortions • Abortion Activists are Not Happy With Trump AG Nominee Pam Bondi • President Trump Was Just Given the Perfect Opportunity to Pardon Pro-Life Americans
More Pro-Life News • Abortion Cheerleader Kamala Harris Could Become the Next Head of Planned Parenthood • RFK Jr Can Make America Healthy Again by Defunding Planned Parenthood, Targeting Abortion Pills • 59% of Americans Support President Donald Trump’s Transition • Catholic Bishops Announce Nationwide Prayer Vigil for Life • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2024 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved. For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Chuck Schumer threatened Kavanaugh, saying,” You have released the whirlwind. You won’t know what hit you!”. Now it’s Schumer and the Democrats who are facing the whirlwind of change and don’t know what hit them. Trump election 2024, that’s what.
Video of Chuck Schumer Threatening Kavanaugh He Will “Pay The Price” For Roe V Wade Resurfaces In Wake Of Attempted Murder Of Supreme Court Justice
By Michael Robison – The Gateway Pundit – Article dated June 9, 2022
A video of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer telling Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh that he would “pay the price” for a potential reversal of Roe V Wade resurfaced Wednesday amid the arrest of a potential assassin outside of Kavanaugh’s home in Maryland.
In March 2020, Schumer made a speech outside the Supreme Court as justices heard a case about a Louisiana abortion law. Schumer shouted a stark warning at Kavanaugh and Justice Neil Gorsuch during that speech, saying they could face sinister consequences for their “awful decisions.” READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
Top Stories • Abortions Drop 40% in Iowa as Heartbeat Law Saves Hundreds of Babies • President Donald Trump Nominates Pro-Life Doctor Dave Weldon as CDC Director • Republican Lawmakers Want Investigation Into Planned Parenthood So It Can be Defunded • Study Shows Conservative States Have More Babies than Liberal States
More Pro-Life News • Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Has to Start in the Womb, RFK Must Stop Big Abortion • Half of Fortune 100 Companies Will Pay to Kill Babies in Abortions • Georgetown University Law School Forced Student to Take Exam Days After Giving Birth • We Must Continue Changing Hearts and Minds Against Abortion • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
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.
Yesterday, I was notified by the Justice Department confirming that a recent swatting indictment includes the person or persons responsible for my own swatting a year ago. One of the defendants, Thomasz Szabo, was arrested a couple weeks ago.
The indictment below charges two foreign nationals: Thomasz Szabo, 26, of Romania, and Nemanja Radovanovic, 21, of Serbia.
Szabo and Radovanovic are each charged with one count of conspiracy, 29 counts of threats and false information regarding explosives, and four counts of transmitting threats in interstate and foreign commerce.
Their alleged conspiracy began as early as December 2020. It continued through January 2024, using personal identifying information, including home addresses, to falsely report emergencies to provoke a police response at the victim’s home. According to the Justice Department, they used various monikers to communicate. Szabo used “Jonah,” “Jonah Goldberg,” “Plank,” “Rambler,” “War Lord,” “Shovel,” “Cypher,” “Kollectivist,” “Mortenberg Shekelstorms,” and “NotThuggin2”. Radovanovic used “XBD31,” “XDR,” “Angus,” “Thuggin,” “Thug Hunter,” “NotThuggin,” “DCL,” and “AOD.”
The indictment alleges that their crimes encompassed 40 private victims and 61 official victims, including members of Congress, cabinet-level executive branch officials, and senior federal law enforcement officials. It also included four businesses, four religious institutions, and one victim university.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Conor Mulroe is prosecuting the case. Under the Crime Victims Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. 3771 (1), the indictment triggers ten rights for me and the other alleged victims, including the right to be heard at a hearing involving any plea, sentencing, or parole proceeding. I was given my own Victim Identification Number (VIN) and Personal Identification Number (PIN) under the CVRA for future communications.
I am grateful to the Justice Department and these cooperating U.S. and foreign offices for their work in finding the alleged culprits who swatted my home between Christmas and New Year’s in 2023.
Whatever the role politics may have played, or our current divisions, swatting constitutes a very serious crime that can result in lethal accidents and trauma for victims. It also pulls law enforcement resources away from real crimes. In my case, five or six officers were needlessly pulled from their other duties to respond to the call.
For some, these stories become irresistible opportunities to vent against the victims or even bizarre attacks on conservative legal theory. The liberal gotcha site, Above the Law, covered my swatting with the usual ad hominem attacks while adding a truly unhinged spin to the story. Senior Editor Joe Patrice (who has defended“predominantly liberal faculties” and not hiring conservative or libertarian law professors) insisted that swatting is somehow the fault of gun owners, Second Amendment advocates, and “edgy” police:
“Swatting is a byproduct of a nation awash in more and more powerful weapons and more and more edgy cops. And that makes these false police reports regrettably a manifestation of our age of failing to confront the disconnect between the text and history of the Second Amendment and the lazy ahistorical interpretation of this Supreme Court.”
Prosecutors notably did not include the conservative justices as co-conspirators with Szabo and Radovanovic.
This indictment is a valuable addition to deterring a crime that has become all too common. The fact that this investigation stretched to Hungary and Romania showed the extraordinary effort needed to make these arrests. The arrests are the result of an investigation that involved a global effort, including the U.S. Secret Service Washington Field Office and Criminal Investigative Division, the FBI’s Washington Field Office and Minneapolis Field Office, the U.S. Capitol Police, the U.S. Secret Service’s Bucharest Resident Office, Miami Field Office, Syracuse Resident Office, Springfield Resident Office, the FBI’s Legat Office in Bucharest and the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Western District of Washington, the District of South Dakota, the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of Florida, the Southern District of Illinois, and the Northern District of New York.
As more such cases are prosecuted, it will hopefully shatter the sense of anonymity and impunity of such culprits. Once again, I am very thankful for the effort of all of these agencies in bringing this case.
Below is my column in The Hill on new evidence released by the House related to the January 6th riot. The J6 Committee fueled doubts about the official accounts by using only Democratically appointed members and skewing the evidence. The new information further undermines the narrative pushed by both members and the media.
Here is the column:
On Jan. 6, 2021, the nation was rocked by the disruption of the certification of Joe Biden as our next president. With Donald Trump set to return to the White House in 2025, it is astonishing how much of that day remains a matter of intense debate. Those divisions are likely only to deepen after a slew of recent reports that have challenged the selective release of information from the House January 6 Committee.
January 6 remains as much a political litmus test as it is a historical event. Whether you refer to that day as a riot or an insurrection puts you on one side or the other of a giant political chasm. I viewed the attack on that day as a desecration of our constitutional process, but I did not view it as an insurrection. I still don’t.
It was a protest that became a riot when a woefully insufficient security plan collapsed. And that is a view shared by most Americans. One year after the riot, a CBS poll showed that 76 percent viewed it as a “protest gone too far.”
A Harvard study also found that those arrested on that day were motivated by loyalty to Trump rather than support for an insurrection.
A recent poll found that almost half of the public (43 percent) felt that “too much is being made” of the riot and that it is “time to move on.” Of course, that still leaves a little over half who view the day as “an attack on democracy.”
The continued distrust of the official accounts of Jan. 6 reflects a failure of the House Democrats, and specifically former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), to guarantee a credible and comprehensive investigation.
The House Select Committee to investigate January 6 was comprised of Democrat-selected members who offered only one possible view: that January 6 was an attempt to overthrow our democracy by Trump and his supporters. The committee hired a former ABC News producer to create a slick, made-for-television production that barred opposing views and countervailing evidence. The members, including Republican Vice Chair Liz Cheney, played edited videotapes of Trump’s speech that removed the portion where Trump called on his supporters to protest “peacefully.”
The committee fostered false accounts, including the claim that there was a violent episode with Trump trying to wrestle control of the presidential limousine. The Committee knew that the key Secret Service driver directly contradicted that account offered by former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson.
While the Democrats insisted that Trump’s speech constituted criminal incitement, he was never charged with that crime — not even by the motivated prosecutors who pledged to pursue such charges. The reason is that Trump’s speech was entirely protected under the First Amendment. Such a charge of criminal incitement would have quickly collapsed in court.
Nevertheless, the Washington Post, NPR, other media and the committee members called Jan. 6 an “insurrection” engineered by Trump. Figures such as Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) insisted the committee had evidence that Trump organized a “coup” on Jan. 6, 2021. That evidence never materialized.
The lack of adequate security measures that day has long puzzled many of us. After all, there had been a violent riot at the White House before January 6, in which more officers were injured and Trump had to be moved to a secure location. The National Guard had to be called out to protect the White House, but those same measures (including a fence) were not ordered at the Capitol.
Two of the recent reports offered new details related to those questions.
One report confirmed that Trump did, in fact, offer the deployment of the National Guard in anticipation of the protest. The Jan. 6 Committee repeatedly dismissed this claim. After all, it would be a rather curious attempt at an insurrection if Trump was suggesting the use of thousands of troops to prevent any breach of Congress. The committee specifically found “no evidence” that the Trump administration called for 10,000 National Guard members to be sent to Washington, D.C., to protect the Capitol. The Washington Post even supposedly “debunked” Trump’s comments with an award of “Four Pinocchios.”
Yet evidence now shows that Trump personally suggested the deployment of 10,000 National Guard troops to prevent violence. For example, a transcript includes the testimony of former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato in January 2022 with Liz Cheney present. Ornato states that he clearly recalled Trump’s offer of 10,000 troops.
Videotapes have also emerged showing Pelosi privately admitting that she and Democratic leadership were responsible for the security failure on Jan. 6.
Another new report from Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), who chairs the House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight, shows that it was the Defense Department that delayed the eventual deployment of National Guard in the critical hours of the riot. The evidence shows that, at 3:18 p.m., Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy “tells sheltering Members of Congress that he is not blocking the deployment of the National Guard and, while referencing the D.C. National Guard, shares that ‘We have the green light. We are moving.’” However, the secretary of the Army’s own timeline indicates that the DCNG did not physically leave the Armory until 5 pm.
That was the critical period for the riot. Around 2:10 p.m., people surged up the Capitol steps. Just an hour later, McCarthy said troops were on their way. At 4:17 p.m., Trump made his public statement asking rioters to stop — roughly an hour and a half later. Yet it was not until 5 pm that the troops actually left for the Capitol.
The House is also under greater scrutiny this week for new information on the shooting of the only person to die on Jan. 6. While Democrats have referred to many deaths on that day, the only person who died in the riot itself was Ashli Babbitt, a protester shot by Capitol Police. I have long disagreed with the findings of investigations by the Capitol Police and the Justice Department in clearing Captain Michael Byrd for this shooting. The media lionized Byrd and, in sharp contrast to other police shootings during that period, blamed the deceased. Again, an unjustified shooting of a protester would not fit the media narrative.
The concerns over the shooting were heightened by the Justice Department’s bizarre review and report, which notably did not state that the shooting was justified. Instead, it declared that it could not prove “a bad purpose to disregard the law” and that “evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent.”
Babbitt, 35, was an Air Force veteran who was clearly committing criminal acts of trespass, property damage and other offenses at the time she was shot. However, Babbitt was unarmed when she tried to climb through a broken window.
Byrd stated “I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are.” In other words, Byrd admitted he did not see a weapon. He took Babbitt’s effort to crawl through the window as sufficient justification to kill her. It was not. And it is worth noting that Byrd could just as well have hit the officers standing just behind Babbitt.
The new report confirms that Byrd had prior disciplinary and training issues, including “a failed shotgun qualification test, a failed FBI background check for a weapon’s purchase, a 33-day suspension for a lost weapon and referral to Maryland state prosecutors for firing his gun at a stolen car fleeing his neighborhood.” In one incident, detailed in a letter from Loudermilk, Byrd was suspected of lying about the circumstances under which he shot at the fleeing car.
None of this means that Trump or even Babbitt are without fault in this matter. Trump’s speech was clearly “reckless and wrong,” and Babbitt herself was involved in that riot. However, these reports only further highlight what we still do not know about that day.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Hegseth has been nominated for Defense Secretary with a stellar military record and combat experience. Both Hegseth and Walz are both from Minnesota, but Tim Walz, although he has a military background, carries the stigma of stolen valor and wacky left-wing values.
Hegseth would be highest ranking Minnesotan serving White House in decades
By Hank Long – AlphaNews.com – Nov 21, 2024
Vice President-elect J.D. Vance is expected to introduce Hegseth to his Senate colleagues this week. Since Minnesota achieved statehood in 1858, only a few Minnesotans have had the honor to serve in a presidential cabinet and stand in the line of presidential succession. If the incoming Republican majority class of U.S. Senate members vote to confirm Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense in January, the Forest Lake native would become one of the highest-ranking White House cabinet members from the North Star State ever. Vice President-elect and U.S. Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, is expected to introduce Hegseth to his Senate colleagues this week. READ MORE…
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Elon Musk is Rumored to be considering buying MSNBC. That could change the media landscape for decades and send left-wing propagandist Rachel Maddow packing her bags.
Elon Musk Just Gave the Strongest Hint Yet That He Might Actually Buy MSNBC
By Ken Kew – The Gateway Pundit – Nov 23, 2024
Elon Musk has just given the strongest hint yet that he may actually purchase MSNBC. The troubled left-wing network has seen its ratings nosedive in the wake of Donald Trump’s stunning victory in the 2024 presidential election as furious viewers lash out at the false hope the network gave them or just check out of politics altogether. Another major controversy has been that involving Morning Joe hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, who informed their audience this week that had met with Donald Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida and would seek to take a “new approach” to covering his second term in office. READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
Top Stories • Planned Parenthood Slams Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy: They’re Just Trump’s “Fanboys” • 132 Members of Congress Take First Step Towards Defunding Planned Parenthood • Volvo Makes a Pro-Life Commercial That is Absolutely Amazing • Pam Bondi Would be an “Inspiring Leader” and a “Champion for All Americans” as Attorney General
More Pro-Life News • Bob Casey Finally Concedes Senate Race to Pro-Life Republican Dave McCormick • Planned Parenthood Killed 4 Million Babies Under Cecile Richards, Biden Gave Her America’s Top Award • Biden Punished Oklahoma for Banning Abortions by Yanking Its Health Care Funds, Republicans are Fighting Back • Pro-Life Groups Praise DOGE Plan to Defund Planned Parenthood • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2024 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved. For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.
NEW YORK – The defense has rested its case in Daniel Penny’s New York City manslaughter trial – after the final witness took the stand and revealed that Jordan Neely had an open bench warrant at the time of his death.
Penny, a 26-year-old Marine veteran and architecture student, grabbed the 30-year-old Neely in the middle of a schizophrenic, drug-fueled outburst on a subway car that witnesses said included death threats and had them fearing for their lives. Although Neely still had a pulse when Penny let go, he later died.
Brian Kemef, who works for the court clerk’s office, revealed that a warrant was issued for Neely on Feb. 23, 2023 – just weeks before his death in May of that year. Fox News Digital has previously reported Neely was a repeat offender whose violent history included other subway assaults.
Daniel Penny walks in the hallway of Manhattan Supreme Court on Tuesday, November 19, 2024. Penny, a Marine veteran, is charged with second-degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide in the 2023 death of Jordan Neely on a New York City subway train. (Rashid Umar Abbasi for Fox News Digital)
Speaking without the jury present, Judge Maxwell Wiley separately flagged that he’d like to schedule a charging conference for Monday.
Penny did not take the stand, and his lawyers told reporters outside the courthouse that he didn’t have to after jurors got to see video of his NYPD interrogation.
Neely, who had health issues including schizophrenia and sickle cell trait and was a chronic abuser of synthetic marijuana, died due to exertion from the struggle and not because he’d been choked out, defense lawyers Thomas Kenniff and Steven Raiser argued.
The trial began Friday with a second day of testimony from Dr. Satish Chundru, a Texas forensic pathologist working for Penny’s defense. Contrary to the official autopsy report conducted by Dr. Cynthia Harris of the New York City Medical Examiner’s Office, Chundru testified that he does not believe a chokehold caused Neely’s death.
During a grueling cross-examination, Assistant Manhattan District Attorney Dafna Yoran grilled Dr. Chundru on the connection between sickle cell trait and death in other cases, prompting repeated objections from the defense.
At one point, Judge Maxwell Wiley cut her off and said, “we’re not doing that.” But the questioning continued through more objections before the court went to recess.
Dr. Satish Chundru leaves the courtroom during a recess in Daniel Penny’s New York City manslaughter trial at Manhattan Supreme Court in New York City on Thursday, Nov. 21, 2024. (Rashid Umar Abbasi for Fox News Digital)
Before jurors returned, the defense argued that Yoran improperly brought up the term “homicide,” a misstep that happened earlier in the trial as well.
Wiley said he did not want to strike the back-and-forth. When the jury returned, he told them that “homicide” means something different to a medical examiner than it does to a lawyer or a jury and asked them not to weigh the witness’ use of that word when weighing facts of the case.
It was the second time that the word “homicide” came up controversially and prompted the defense to raise an objection. Earlier this week, Wiley ordered the first comment stricken, when Dr. Harris mentioned that “all homicide reports” were reviewed by another doctor in the city medical examiner’s office.
Not all homicides are criminal, and the defense argued that the prosecution’s repeated espousal of the word could confuse the jury. The defense asked the court to note for the record that they have had several conversations, and the DA’s office agreed that bringing up testimony from forensic pathologists regarding death as a “homicide” would be misleading to the jury.
The first time, it came from Dr. Harris. The second, the defense said Yoran said the word as part of her questioning. She denied it. The judge said he would review the transcript later and issue additional jury instructions if necessary.
Jordan Neely is pictured before going to see the Michael Jackson movie, “This is It,” outside the Regal Cinemas on 8th Avenue and 42nd Street in Times Square in New York City in 2009. (Andrew Savulich/New York Daily News/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)
While Penny’s team has maintained that his actions were justified, that’s not their only line of defense, according to Louis Gelormino, a New York City defense attorney who is closely following the case.
“One of the other defenses is, ‘Well, I didn’t kill him. My actions weren’t the cause of death,'” he told Fox News Digital Friday. “So yes, it doesn’t make a difference if it was justifiable. But if his actions weren’t justifiable, the jury could also say, ‘Hey, [his] actions didn’t kill him. He died because of the other things going on in his body.’ And that’s why that’s relevant.”
Chundru, a former Miami-area medical examiner who now runs a private practice in Texas conducting autopsies in a half-dozen counties, has testified that he did not believe an air choke caused Neely’s unconsciousness and, therefore, did not cause his death.
Rather, he blamed it on “the combined effects of sickle cell crisis, the schizophrenia, the struggle and restraint, and the synthetic marijuana.”
Dr. Cynthia Harris arrives for Daniel Penny’s trial at the Manhattan Criminal Court building in New York City on Friday, Nov. 15, 2024. Penny, a Marine veteran, is charged with second-degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide in the 2023 death of Jordan Neely on a New York City subway train. (Adam Gray for Fox News Digital)
Dr. Michael Baden, a former New York City medical examiner and leading forensic pathologist, disagreed with Chundru’s testimony.
“Dr. Chundru’s testimony may have been very interesting, but it was wrong,” he told Fox News Digital. “He described what can happen in sickle cell disease, not what happens in sickle cell trait, which Neely had. Eight percent of Black people in this country have sickle trait, which is a benign medical condition that rarely causes any symptoms, let alone death.”
At the autopsy, Harris found significant “sickling” on Neely’s organs, she testified, and lawyers on both sides asked for an explanation. She said the condition did not contribute to Neely’s death, and she blamed it solely on asphyxiation from the chokehold.
“Sickle trait red blood cells do sickle after death, when the body’s oxygen supply disappears and can be seen at autopsy – as with Neely or with anyone with sickle trait dying from any condition,” Baden said. “It’s a post-mortem artifact like rigor mortis. Further, death from sickle disease takes days of sickling to occur; it can’t occur in seconds as happened to Neely.”
Screenshot from bystander video showing Jordan Neely being held in a chokehold on the New York City subway. (Luces de Nueva York/Juan Alberto Vazquez via Storyful)
However, he said, even if the chokehold caused Neely’s death, it is not up to the medical examiner to decide whether that was criminal.
“The individual circumstances are important as to whether the death could [or] should have been avoided, and whether the death should be prosecuted, which is entirely up to the prosecutor,” he said.
Penny faces up to 15 years in prison if convicted on the top charge of manslaughter. He also faces a charge of criminally negligent homicide. It was not immediately clear whether he would take the stand in his own defense, although some experts have suggested it is likely that he will because it is a self-defense case.
This week, HBO delivered the corporate version of the Expelliarmus or disarming curse for the long-standing cancel campaign targeting “Harry Potter” creator J.K. Rowling. We have been discussing this campaign against Rowling, a feminist who has opposed transgender policies that she views as inimical to the rights of women. The cancel campaign against Rowling has been extreme and unhinged from blacklisting her books to even barring the playing of Harry Potter games in pubs. Even authors who support Rowling’s free speech have been targeted. Nevertheless, HBO, which has also been targeted in the past, is now saying enough. Rowling’s work will continue to be featured and developed by the company.
HBO has enraged the anti-Rowling movement by announcing that it will not yield and will continue to work with the author: “J.K. Rowling has a right to express her personal views. We will remain focused on the development of the new series, which will only benefit from her involvement.” It added that “her contribution has been invaluable.”
HBO has a new upcoming Potter series set to premiere on HBO’s Max streaming platform in 2026.
Both Harry Potter stars, Daniel Radcliffe, who played Harry Potter, and Emma Watson, who played Hermine Granger, have joined the criticism of Rowling. However, the criticism itself is not the primary problem, even if they unfairly characterize Rowlings’ actual statements. That is a use of their own free speech rights. However, the cancel campaigns are far more damaging for free speech, as I discuss in my book, The Indispensable Right.
The issue of cancel campaigns came up in my recent debate at Harvard Law School on free speech with Professor Randall Kennedy. Kennedy defended cancel campaigns as the exercise of free speech. There is no question that such campaigns involve the act of free speech as people rallying for or against viewpoints. However, the impact of such campaigns, particularly in higher education, is to limit the diversity of viewpoints and reinforce an orthodoxy on our campuses. It is not to express a view but to seek to silence an opposing view. It is the antithesis of free speech values in higher education.
It also has a damaging effect on an academic community. When students see faculty supporting the canceling of conservative, libertarian, or dissenting speakers, it is hardly an invitation to speak freely yourself in class.
The same is true for publishers. We have discussed companies discontinuing publication of Rowling’s work and both editors and writers joining blacklisting campaigns against her and others. We have even seen the embracing of book burning.
For the activists behind this massive cancel campaign, HBO’s announcement is nothing short of a corporate Cruciatus (torture) Curse. However, both the arts and free speech are the winners in Rowling’s continuing to produce and expand her legendary body of work.
In my book, The Indispensable Right, I discuss how free speech is in a free fall in Great Britain, where officials continue to crack down on an ever-widening array of viewpoints. Some of these actions are designated as “non-crime hate” but are still the subject of law enforcement actions. According to the Daily Mail, they now include children who have been pulled in for calling other children schoolyard names like “retard” or saying that other children smell “like fish.”
“A nine-year-old child is among the youngsters being probed by police over hate incidents… Officers recorded incidents against the child, who called a fellow primary school pupil a ‘retard’, and against two schoolgirls who said another student smelled ‘like fish.’ The youngsters were among multiple cases of children being recorded as having committed non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs), The Times discovered through freedom of information requests to police forces.”
“Non-crime hate” was introduced in 2014 as part of the Hate Crime Operational Guidelines. It is chilling in its ambiguity and scope. It only requires the perception of either a victim or a third party that a statement is motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or transgender identity.
The HCOG stresses, “The victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception. Evidence of the hostility is not required.”
That guarantees the maximal level of investigation and documentation of speech incidents. The chilling effect on free speech is glacial.
For years, I have been writing about the decline of free speech in the United Kingdom and the steady stream of arrests:
While most of us find Brock’s views repellent and hateful, they were confined to his head and his room. Yet, Judge Peter Lodder QC dismissed free speech or free thought concerns with a truly Orwellian statement: “I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.”
Lodder lambasted Brock for holding Nazi and other hateful values:
“[i]t is clear that you are a right-wing extremist, your enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology is demonstrated by the graphic and racist iconography which you have studied and appeared to share with others…”
Even though Lodder agreed that the defendant was older, had limited mobility, and “there was no evidence of disseminating to others,” he still sent him to prison for holding extremist views. After the sentencing, Detective Chief Superintendent Kath Barnes, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing Southeast (CTPSE), warned others that he was going to prison because he “showed a clear right-wing ideology with the evidence seized from his possessions during the investigation….We are committed to tackling all forms of toxic ideology which has the potential to threaten public safety and security.”
Great Britain is now turning, it appears, to their children in speech crackdowns. Schoolyard taunts can be investigated by officers. The impact on both parents and children will obviously be immense. It adds a coercive element to speech laws. Given the subjective and vague standard, the response is to self-censor to avoid any such accusations. Raising children in such an environment will only erode free speech values. Indeed, it fosters the type of speech-phobic generation that many activists may welcome. Speech is viewed as dangerous and subject to continual monitoring by the state.
Stopping some kid from using a playground taunt will do little to instill mutual respect, but it will instill fear over how the state may respond to your words. It is a lesson that many in the free speech community may relish but one that most citizens should reject. “Non-crime hate” investigations are meant to maintain a constant sense of oversight and monitoring of speech, even with our children.
Top Stories • Donald Trump Names Former Florida AG Pam Bondi as New Attorney General Nominee • Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy Call for Defunding Planned Parenthood Via DOGE • Planned Parenthood Caught Selling 23-Week-Old Aborted Babies to University for Research • Catholic Group Wants Joe Biden Excommunicated After He Honors Abortion Biz CEO
More Pro-Life News • Matt Gaetz Withdraws From Consideration as Attorney General • Donald Trump Should Sign a Ban on Late-Term Abortions That Kill Viable Babies • Majority of Americans Approve of Trump’s Pre-Inauguration Job Performance • Former Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards Has Brain Cancer, Please Pray for Her • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
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.
Disclaimer: This article discusses explicit sexual acts.
What you’re going to hear now and in the coming days from the national media is that there are “graphic” details in a police report related to an alleged sexual assault involving Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming nominee for Defense secretary. It’s certainly graphic, but the media will bet you won’t bother reading the report, which in reality looks really bad for the alleged victim and effectively clears Hegseth of criminality.
The 22-page report details an incident from seven years ago when in 2017, Hegseth, then a Fox News celebrity, attended an event for a Republican women’s group as a featured speaker. The way the media have relayed the event so far is that a woman in attendance has accused Hegseth of drugging her at an afterparty before raping her in his hotel room. Outside of the alleged victim’s admittedly incomplete recollection, none of the testimony or evidence included in the police report supports that claim. In truth, all of it indicates that the accuser lied to her husband, who was in her hotel room, while she galivanted at night with Hegseth and other attendees before voluntarily joining him in his room to have consensual sex.
The report’s events took place in early October 2017, and it includes multiple eyewitness testimonies and text message evidence of what took place before and after the alleged assault. The alleged victim is identified only as Jane Doe. After a night of moderate drinking, during which Doe says she at some point felt she may have been surreptitiously drugged, Doe said she remembered few details but that she recalled inexplicably finding herself in Hegseth’s hotel room, that he ejaculated on her body, and that she thereafter went to her own room to join an unnamed person in bed.Text messages she shared with police indicate the person was her husband and that there were other parties in the room, likely children.
Doe ended up in contact with police after she saw a medical provider to administer a sexual assault exam. The provider was required by California law to tell police of the allegation that was shared by Doe. Doe told police she didn’t recall drinking heavily that day but then later said she did and that at some point she confronted Hegseth by the hotel pool about the way he had behaved with other women that night, which she found “inappropriate.” She would also later tell police that she recalled asking Hegseth in his hotel room if he had a condom.
And that’s the exact point you know things have taken a turn out of her favor.
The rest of the report is an overwhelming refutation of that version of events. Included are text exchanges with her husband, wherein she repeatedly mentions Hegseth, but omits that she was spending time with him at the after-parties; testimonies from other women in attendance who said Doe never appeared overserved and in fact seemed completely coherent throughout; surveillance video footage that showed Doe and Hegseth walking around with locked arms; and a hotel staff member who recalled engaging Doe and Hegseth by the pool, at which time Hegseth was belligerent and Doe guided Hegseth away from the conflict.
The report ends with Hegseth’s version of events, in which he admits he only initiated sex with Doe after she took him to his room and says that the two of them repeatedly expressed reservations about the intimacy. He said that the two of them agreed the affair needed to remain secret. If there’s one corroborated piece of Doe’s story, it’s that Hegseth also recalled that she asked him if he had a condom.
— “JANE DOE stated she used a condom when she had sex with” her husband after the alleged assault. The explanation for that is redacted, but thereafter the report says, “JANE DOE stated she had a vaginal discharge and was diagnosed with bacterial vaginosis,” a condition that “can be caused by having multiple sex partners.”
— Text messages with her husband, who was at the conference, show Doe asking him if he was familiar with Hegseth, referring to him as “TDB lite” and “Mini TDB,” which appear to be meant as insults. Doe’s husband replies, “Oh you mean the man who tried to have sex with my wife?” and “Not a good first impression for Pete.”
— Doe’s husband told police it was 4 a.m. when his wife returned to their shared room. “JANE DOE arrived at their hotel room, accessed the room on her own and had used the key card reader to get in,” the report said. “JANE DOE told [her husband] that she ‘Must have fallen asleep.’ JANE DOE was apologetic.” Her husband “noticed that JANE DOE did not have a hard time walking and was not slurring her words.”
— A hotel staff member told police he encountered Doe and Hegseth at the pool and “JANE DOE placed her hand and arm on the back of HEGSETH” and “escorted him” away. The staffer described Hegseth as “very intoxicated.” By contrast, he said Doe was “not intoxicated” and in fact “standing on her own and was very coherent.”
— Of the hotel surveillance video, the report said, “The video showed JANE DOE and HEGSETH walking together, with arms locked together.”
Hegseth’s testimony also goes into detail about what happened in his hotel room, and he maintains it was consensual. No charges were ever brought, and Hegseth paid the woman a settlement fee at the time to make the drama go away.
Nobody should be left with questions about what happened here. All of the evidence indicates Hegseth was pursued by a married woman who then regretted her decision. (I’m sure the vaginal discharge didn’t help.)
Matt Gaetz, the former Florida representative and President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for attorney general, announced Thursday that he is withdrawing as Trump’s pick for the top prosecutor. Who is in consideration now for the top spot? Here are potential names floated to head the Department of Justice next.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey was tapped by Missouri Gov. Mike Parson in 2022 to be the state’s top prosecutor after then-state Attorney General Eric Schmitt was elected to the U.S. Senate.
Bailey, an Army veteran, received his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Missouri. He then proceeded to work in the state attorney general’s office and also served as an assistant county prosecutor and a state government lawyer before joining the office of Gov. Mike Parson.
Andrew Bailey, Missouri’s attorney general, is seen during a House Homeland Security Committee hearing in Washington, DC, on Wednesday, Jan. 10, 2024. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Parson tapped Bailey in 2022 to be the state’s top prosecutor after then-state Attorney General Eric Schmitt was elected to the U.S. Senate.
Since becoming attorney general, Bailey has launched dozens of lawsuits against the Biden administration and sought to defend the state on a number of conservative issues.
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah
Republican Sen. Mike Lee from Utah is also a name being floated for consideration. Lee is currently a high-ranking Republican in the chamber and would face a somewhat easy path to Senate confirmation, at least compared to some of the more controversial names that have surfaced previously.
Lee had previously expressed that he would not be aiming for the role, telling the Deseret News in an interview, “I have the job I want.”
Lee also told the outlet at the time that he was looking “forward to working in the next Congress and with President Trump and his team to implement his agenda and the reform agenda that Republicans have offered and campaigned on, and it’s going to be an exciting time. We’ve got a lot of work to do.”
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah., speaks during a news conference in the Capitol on Tuesday, July 20, 2021. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Gaetz announced his decision on X early Thursday afternoon. In his post, he described his nomination as “a distraction.” Allegations of him purportedly paying underage women for sex had surfaced amid his nomination.
Trump took to social media shortly after the news broke that Gaetz would be withdrawing his name from consideration, writing on Truth Social, “I greatly appreciate the recent efforts of Matt Gaetz in seeking approval to be Attorney General. He was doing very well but, at the same time, did not want to be a distraction for the Administration, for which he has much respect. Matt has a wonderful future, and I look forward to watching all of the great things he will do!”
Gaetz had been under a monthslong investigation by the House Ethics Committee until his resignation last Wednesday from the current congressional session.
Fox News Digital reached out to Lee’s and Bailey’s offices and the Trump transition team for comment.
Fox News Digital’s Breanne Deppisch contributed to this report.
Haley Chi-Sing is a Writer for Fox News Digital. You can reach her at @haleychising on X.
UPDATE
President Elect Donald Trump has selected former Florida Attorney General, Pam Bondi to be our nation’s Attorney General.
The House Oversight Committee is planning to create a subcommittee for the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the committee announced Thursday. The subcommittee is to be chaired by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., and will work with Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to aid the pair in the incoming administration’s goal of weeding out government inefficiency and wasteful spending.
Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., said the subcommittee will “align with the Trump administration’s priorities to eliminate government waste, streamline the federal government’s operations and cut red tape that’s stifling jobs and increasing costs for the American people.”
Posting on X to announce her specific role, Greene wrote, “Big News. Comer to create @GOPoversight DOGE subcommittee chaired by Marjorie Taylor Greene to work with @elonmusk, @VivekGRamaswamy.”
“We’re going to work very closely with Elon Musk and Ramaswamy,” Comer added. “We’ve had initial conversations. We are serious about reducing the size of government.”
Describing their DOGE initiative in The Wall Street Journal opinion article Wednesday, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote, “DOGE will work with legal experts embedded in government agencies, aided by advanced technology, to apply these rulings to federal regulations enacted by such agencies.
“DOGE will present this list of regulations to President Trump, who can, by executive action, immediately pause the enforcement of those regulations and initiate the process for review and rescission. This would liberate individuals and businesses from illicit regulations never passed by Congress and stimulate the U.S. economy.”
In the spirit of transparency, Musk and Ramaswamy announced they will be launching a new podcast together called “DOGEcast” with plans to make public all the government cost-cutting they are considering and how such streamlining will be implemented.
Law enforcement officers escort illegal alien Brandon Simosa following his robbery arrest Tuesday night. (Screenshot from the New York Post)
Around 2 a.m. Sunday, police said, Brandon Simosa robbed Bragg’s employee, a 38-year-old woman, in her apartment building on 44th Street, the New York Post first reported. Simosa, 25, fled with the woman’s smart phone and bank cards after she discovered him as he “performed a lewd act” in a hallway, WABC-TV/Channel 7 Eyewitness News reported. The man was masturbating, the Post reported.
Bragg is probably best known for his successful, high-profile prosecution of former President Donald Trump, now the president-elect, for falsifying business records before and after the 2016 election.
Simosa illegally crossed the southern border into Eagle Pass, Texas, in October 2023, the Post reported.
Police tracked the stolen phone to find and arrest Simosa on Tuesday night outside a hotel being used as a migrant shelter in Midtown Manhattan. He was using drugs and had stolen items with him when police located him, according to Eyewitness News. Charges against Simosa include sexually motivated robbery, grand larceny, and criminal possession of stolen property, the Post reported.
Cameras caught Simosa smirking Wednesday as authorities led him out of the New York Police Department’s Midtown South Precinct.
BREAKING: Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's assistant robbed, attacked by an illegal immigrant with 5 arrests since 2023.
“This utterly unrepentant, smirking young thug is just one of thousands allowed in under the Biden administration’s open border and then encouraged to come to New York City by its blank checks for housing, income, health care, education, and other services Americans don’t get for free,” Simon Hankinson, a senior research fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center, told The Daily Signal.
Over 10 million illegal aliens have crossed the border into the U.S. during the Biden-Harris administration, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data. New York Mayor Eric Adams, a Democrat, has said that over 223,000 illegal immigrants have arrived in the Big Apple and “sought city services” since the spring of 2022.
“While living off the taxpayer, [illegal aliens] can rob and assault with little fear of timely prosecution, and they are usually let out on cashless bail,” Hankinson said.
Shortly after taking office at the beginning of 2022, Bragg, a Democrat, directed his prosecutors in a memo to seek jail time only in “very serious cases.” After receiving pushback from New Yorkers, Bragg revised his direction, telling prosecutors: “You were hired for your keen judgment, and I want you to use that judgment.”
Heritage Foundation legal fellows Cully Stimson and Zack Smith, authors of the book “Rogue Prosecutors: How Radical Soros Lawyers Are Destroying America’s Communities,” have accused Bragg of furthering “pro-criminal, anti-victim policies.”
Bragg’s office did not immediately respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.
The district attorney in Georgia “who took the death penalty off the table for Laken Riley’s killer—another Tren de Aragua associate from Venezuela—was as woke as Alvin Bragg,” Hankinson said.
Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student, was found dead Feb. 22 near a running trail in Athens, Georgia. Authorities said she died of blunt force trauma to the head and suffocation. A Georgia judge on Wednesday found illegal alien Jose Antonio Ibarra, 26, guilty on all 10 counts in Riley’s bludgeoning death. Superior Court Judge H. Patrick Haggard sentenced Ibarra, who had waived his right to a jury trial, to life in prison without parole.
Athens-Clarke District Attorney Deborah Gonzalez, a Democrat, appointed a special prosecutor to take on the Riley case but said her office wouldn’t seek the death penalty when prosecuting criminals.
In the Nov. 5 election Republican challenger Kalki Yalamanchili defeated Gonzalez by 60% to 40%, the Post reported.
Donald Trump recently attended a SpaceX launch, and one can only imagine his thoughts. Here’s a man who has built iconic skyscrapers, reshaped the hospitality industry, and even conquered the political world—but even Trump must feel a twinge of humility watching Elon Musk. Because Musk isn’t just playing in the big leagues; he built the league.
Elon Musk embodies the spirit of historical greats like Leonardo da Vinci, Nikola Tesla, Thomas Edison, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and Andrew Carnegie—all rolled into one. His work spans disciplines so varied and so transformative that our own inventions seem pedestrian in comparison. He’s not just pushing boundaries; he’s redefining them.
NASA’s Replacement, for Pennies on the Dollar
Take NASA, for example. Musk didn’t just partner with the space agency—he replaced it. While NASA used to launch a rocket every four years and never reused them, Musk’s SpaceX launched three rockets in 20 hours and landed them back on Earth for reuse. That’s like going from driving a horse-drawn carriage to piloting a fleet of Teslas.
But Musk’s efficiency isn’t just about rockets. NASA, now begging for Musk’s support to rid the agency of DEI nonsense, once embodied government bloat. Billions in funding produced sporadic launches and little innovation. Meanwhile, Musk achieved spaceflight milestones at a fraction of the cost, proving that private industry and brilliance beat bureaucratic inertia every time.
The Left’s Galling Mockery
And how does the Left respond? By mocking Musk. During the SpaceX launch, CNN’s Jake Tapper and his panel of “experts” derided Musk’s team as the Legion of Doom. The same Musk who has brought reusable rockets, revolutionary electric vehicles, and scalable solar power to reality. Imagine being a Jake Tapper—a career talking head—and ridiculing the Da Vinci of our time.
Even more laughably, Bill Kristol suggested Musk might exploit government secrets for personal gain. As if Musk, who reengineered NASA’s entire operation, is sneaking into federal offices to learn how to overpay contractors. The irony? While Musk innovates, government agencies pay $400,000 for a coffee pot. The likes of Kristol and his ilk should be begging Musk to audit the government, not throwing stones.
Titans for the Greater Good
Now, enter Trump, a titan in his own right. Say what you will about his brash style, but Trump’s political accomplishments—record low unemployment, trade deals, a booming economy—are undeniable. And Musk admires him, not because Trump is “right-wing,” but because Trump, like Musk, understands results.
These two giants have come together, not as partisan warriors, but as men driven by legacy and purpose. Musk isn’t siding with the Right; he’s siding with righteousness—and right now, that happens to align politically.
Imagine Musk Running Government
Now picture a government where Musk’s intellect permeates every department. The Department of Energy would revolutionize power grids. The Department of Transportation might actually improve infrastructure. And the USPS, which just reported a $9.5 billion loss despite raising stamp prices, would finally get its act together.
Better yet, who would you choose to run your organization: Elon Musk or Barack Obama? One revolutionized multiple industries and practically privatized space travel. The other…gave you Healthcare.gov.
The Left’s War on Excellence
The Left’s ridicule of Musk and Trump is not just misguided—it’s a war on excellence. They mock because they don’t understand. They deride because they cannot compete. And while they busy themselves with identity politics and DEI initiatives, titans like Musk and Trump focus on what really matters: building legacies that make America—and humanity—better.
So, the next time a talking head sneers at Musk or Trump, ask yourself this: Would you rather have someone who can launch rockets and reshape industries, or someone who complains about pronouns and blames systemic racism for $400,000 coffee pots? Exactly.
I have previously written about the dubious investigations of the shooting of Ashli Babbitt on Jan. 6th and the alleged violation of the standards for the use of lethal force by the officer who shot her. I strongly disagreed with the findings of investigations by the Capitol Police and the Justice Department in clearing Captain Michael Byrd, who shot the unarmed protester. Now, Just the News has an alarming report of the record of Byrd that only magnifies these concerns.
Liberal politicians and pundits often refer to multiple deaths from the Jan. 6th riot. In reality, only one person died that day, and that was Babbitt, who was shot while trying to climb through a window. However, the media lionized Byrd and portrayed the killing of the unarmed Babbitt as clearly justified. That is in sharp contrast to the approach that the media has taken in other shootings by law enforcement. An unjustified killing by police on that day was inconsistent with the public narrative pushed by the pundits and the press.
As I have previously written, what occurred on Jan. 6th was a disgrace. However, it was a riot, not an insurrection. (It was certainly not an act of terrorism as claimed by some Democratic politicians). A protest at the Capitol resulted in a complete breakdown of the inadequate security precautions, a failure that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi privately admitted but only recently was disclosed. The failure of Pelosi and others to properly prepare for the protest, despite the offer of President Donald Trump of 10,000 National Guard troops, does not excuse the conduct of the rioters who attacked the Capitol, interrupted the constitutional process, and committed property damage.
Babbitt was one of those rioters. She was wrong in her actions, but the penalty for breaking a window and unauthorized entry is not death in this country. I previously spoke with her mother, Micki Witthoeft, and her husband, Aaron Babbitt, about their continuing effort to expose what occurred that day.
The new report confirms what many of us had previously heard about the Byrd controversy.
Babbitt, 35, was an Air Force veteran and Trump supporter who participated in the riot three years ago. She was clearly committing criminal acts of trespass, property damage, and other offenses. However, the question is whether an officer is justified in shooting a protester when he admits that he did not see any weapon before discharging his weapon.
Just to recap what we previously discussed in the earlier column:
When protesters rushed to the House chamber, police barricaded the chamber’s doors; Capitol Police were on both sides, with officers standing directly behind Babbitt. Babbitt and others began to force their way through, and Babbitt started to climb through a broken window. That is when Byrd killed her.
At the time, some of us familiar with the rules governing police use of force raised concerns over the shooting. Those concerns were heightened by the DOJ’s bizarre review and report, which stated the governing standards but then seemed to brush them aside to clear Byrd.
The DOJ report did not read like any post-shooting review I have read as a criminal defense attorney or law professor. The DOJ statement notably does not say that the shooting was justified. Instead, it stressed that “prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so ‘willfully.’” It seemed simply to shrug and say that the DOJ did not believe it could prove “a bad purpose to disregard the law” and that “evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent.”
While the Supreme Court, in cases such as Graham v. Connor, has said that courts must consider “the facts and circumstances of each particular case,” it has emphasized that lethal force must be used only against someone who is “an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and … is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Particularly with armed assailants, the standard governing “imminent harm” recognizes that these decisions must often be made in the most chaotic and brief encounters.
Under these standards, police officers should not shoot unarmed suspects or rioters without a clear threat to themselves or fellow officers. That even applies to armed suspects who fail to obey orders. Indeed, Huntsville police officer William “Ben” Darby was convicted of killing a suicidal man holding a gun to his head. Despite being cleared by a police review board, Darby was prosecuted, found guilty, and sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though Darby said he feared for the safety of himself and fellow officers. Yet law professors and experts who have praised such prosecutions in the past have been conspicuously silent over the shooting of an unarmed woman who had officers in front of and behind her on Jan. 6.
Byrd went public soon after the Capitol Police declared that “no further action will be taken” in the case. He then demolished the two official reviews that cleared him.
Byrd described how he was “trapped” with other officers as “the chants got louder” with what “sounded like hundreds of people outside of that door.” He said he yelled for all of the protesters to stop: “I tried to wait as long as I could. I hoped and prayed no one tried to enter through those doors. But their failure to comply required me to take the appropriate action to save the lives of members of Congress and myself and my fellow officers.”
Byrd could just as well have hit the officers behind Babbitt, who was shot while struggling to squeeze through the window.
Of all of the lines from Byrd, this one stands out: “I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are.” So, Byrd admitted he did not see a weapon or an immediate threat from Babbitt beyond her trying to enter through the window. Nevertheless, Byrd boasted, “I know that day I saved countless lives.” He ignored that Babbitt was the one person killed during the riot. (Two protesters died of natural causes and a third from an amphetamine overdose; one police officer died the next day from natural causes, and four officers have committed suicide since then.) No other officers facing similar threats shot anyone in any other part of the Capitol, even those who were attacked by rioters armed with clubs or other objects.
The new report confirms prior accounts that Byrd had prior disciplinary and training issues. According to Just the News, they included “a failed shotgun qualification test, a failed FBI background check for a weapon’s purchase, a 33-day suspension for a lost weapon and referral to Maryland state prosecutors for firing his gun at a stolen car fleeing his neighborhood.”
Given this history and the shooting of Babbitt, Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., the chair of the House Administration Oversight Subcommittee investigation, wrote to express concern over Byrd’s promotion to captain. Those incidents included Byrd firing at a car and allegedly misrepresenting the incident in claiming that “he fired at a vehicle trying to strike him when the evidence fellow officers found at the scene indicated he shot at the vehicle after it had already passed him and no longer posed a threat.” The letter states the Office of Professional Responsibility found that the evidence did not support his claim and “OPR concluded that the evidence suggests Byrd ‘discharged his service weapon at the vans after they passed him by.’”
The concern is that the political environment — and powerful interests in Congress — demanded that Byrd be cleared. As discussed in my new book, “The Indispensable Right,” the Justice Department had publicly pledged to bring “shock and awe” in prosecuting anyone associated with the riot. Finding that the only person killed that day was an unjustified shooting would not exactly fit with the narrative.
The incidents also include allegations of improper handling of his weapon, including reports that Byrd left his service weapon in a public bathroom in the Capitol Visitor Center complex used by tourists and visitors.
The Babbitt family has continued to fight to force the facts into the open and has filed a civil case. A trial is now set for 2026.
Here is his letter detailing the disciplinary problems of Captain Byrd:
A.F. Branco Cartoon: Trump battles the McConnell swamp, pushing Senator Thune to keep his recess appointments promise. If it wasn’t for Trump, they wouldn’t be in the majority right now. Let’s see if they show him any gratitude.
“Yes There Will Be” – Sen. Rick Scott Claps Back After Reporter Alleges Mitch McConnell Will Not Allow Trump Recess Appointments
By Jim Hoft – The Gateway – Nov 18, 2024
Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) has assured the conservative base that, contrary to reports suggesting otherwise from outgoing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, recess appointments are still very much on the table. According to a now-deleted tweet by Jane Mayer of The New Yorker, McConnell was quoted at a Washington gathering on Sunday as saying, “There will be no recess appointments.” READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
Top Stories • Joe Biden Gives Ex Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards Medal of Freedom in Secret Ceremony • Biden/Harris Want to Put This 89-Year-Old Grandma in Prison for Protesting Abortion, Trump Should Pardon Her • Donald Trump is “All In” on Matt Gaetz as Attorney General • RFK Wants to “Root Out” FDA Corruption. He Should Start With the Dangerous Abortion Pill
More Pro-Life News • Abortion Pill Reversal Has Saved 6,000 Babies From Abortions • Chip Roy Says Republicans Should Repeal FACE Law Biden Used to Put Pro-Life Americans in Prison • Robert F Kennedy Jr. Must Put His Pro-Abortion Views Aside to Lead HHS • I Was Conceived in Rape and I’m Tired of Being Everyone’s Abortion Exception • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2024 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved. For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.
In a recent television interview, prospective Trump administration border “czar” Tom Homan said that state officials will be liable to federal prosecution if they actively impede federal agents in the enforcement of immigration law — including apprehending and detaining illegal aliens. In context, Homan was being asked about Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, who has vowed that the city would protect non-citizens in “every possible way” from the Trump administration’s plans for large-scale deportations. Homan made clear that the feds would not attempt to commandeer state and city officials. He acknowledged that such officials have no duty tohelp federal immigration agents. But they may not interfere with the agents in the execution of their duties or take affirmative steps to conceal or shield illegal immigrants from federal law enforcement.
He pointed out that it is a federal felony under Section 1324(1)(a)(iii) of the immigration laws (Title 8, U.S. Code) if a person,
knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation[.]
The Supreme Court has explained, in United States v. Gillock (1980), for example, that “in those areas where the Constitution grants the Federal Government the power to act, the Supremacy Clause dictates that federal enactments will prevail over competing state exercises of power.” As a result, state or municipal officials who are accused of violating federal criminal law will not be heard to claim in their defense that they were carrying out official state policies — even if those policies are codified in laws, regulations, or ordinances at the state or local levels.
Sanctuary cities have been tolerated for too long because Democrats — at the federal, state, and local levels — refuse to enforce federal law. But sanctuary cities have never been legal.
Tom Homan, President-elect Trump’s prospective border “czar,” has made clear that the feds would not attempt to commandeer state and city officials. He acknowledged that such officials have no duty tohelp federal immigration agents. But they may not interfere with the agents in the execution of their duties or take affirmative steps to conceal or shield illegal immigrants from federal law enforcement. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
The Supreme Court has now held a number of times, including in Arizona v. United States (2015), that “the Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens.” In Arizona vs. the United States, the Court went so far as to forbid the state from enforcing state laws that were designed to support federal immigration laws that the Obama-Biden administration did not want enforced.
Let’s face it: We know from past experience (in the last Trump administration) that, inevitably, open-borders advocate organizations will forum-shop cases to activist progressive judges who will surely rule in their favor. But such setbacks will be temporary.
Ultimately, higher federal courts, including the Supreme Court, are not going to countenance the actions of state and city officials that violate federal immigration law and obstruct federal enforcement of incontestably constitutional immigration laws. In essence, I hear Tom Homan saying that the era of sanctuary cities is over. I hope that is true.
If it is, many illegal aliens will return to their home countries — that is, they will self-deport. This would free up resources for federal immigration agents to prioritize apprehension and deportation of criminal aliens — especially the ones in such gangs as Tren de Aragua, which has become a significant violent crime threat in big cities across the country thanks to the collapse of border security under Biden-Harris administration policies. Federal authorities can also then concentrate on the magnets of illegal immigration — such as employers who hire illegal aliens because they are willing to work for lower wages than the law mandates that Americans must be paid.
Getting illegal immigration and border security under control would be a boon for legal immigration. That’s something those who champion immigrants and those who prioritize pro-border security should be able to unite behind.
Andrew C. McCarthy serves as a FOX News contributor and is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review. Follow him on Twitter @andrewcmccarthy
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., on Wednesday announced a new policy to prevent transgender women from using women’s bathrooms on the House side of Capitol Hill, Politicoreported. Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., previously introduced a bill to ban transgender women from using Capitol bathrooms designated for women after Delaware Democrat Rep.-elect Sarah McBride, a transgender woman, became the first transgender person elected to Congress earlier this month.
“All single-sex facilities in the Capitol and House Office Buildings — such as restrooms, changing rooms, and locker rooms — are reserved for individuals of that biological sex,” Johnson wrote in a statement. “It is important to note that each Member office has its own private restroom, and unisex restrooms are available throughout the Capitol. Women deserve women’s only spaces.”
Johnson later told reporters that “like all House policies, it’s enforceable. And we have single-sex facilities for a reason, and women deserve women’s only spaces.”
Democrat lawmakers on Wednesday introduced a resolution to mark the Transgender Day of Remembrance that would memorialize transgender people around the world who were violently killed in the past year. In a statement Monday, McBride denounced Mace’s resolution and the controversy over bathroom usage as a distraction.
“This is a blatant attempt from far right-wing extremists to distract from the fact that they have no real solutions to what Americans are facing,” McBride said. “We should be focused on bringing down the cost of housing, health care, and childcare, not manufacturing culture wars.”
President Joe Biden greets Chinese President Xi Jinping before a meeting during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Leaders’ Week in Woodside, California, on Nov. 15, 2023. (Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)
President Joe Biden met last week for the third time with Chinese President Xi Jinping—the leader of a regime Biden’s own administration has repeatedly declared is engaging in genocide. No White House statement about any of these three meetings has indicated that Biden specifically made this genocide an issue with Xi.
The day before Biden was inaugurated, as this column has noted before, then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared that the People’s Republic of China was engaging in genocide against the Uyghur people in China’s Xinjiang region.
“After careful examination of the available facts, I have determined that the PRC [People’s Republic of China], under the direction and control of the CCP [Chinese Communist Party], has committed genocide against the predominantly Muslim Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minority groups in Xinjiang,” Pompeo said. “I believe this genocide is ongoing, and that we are witnessing the systematic attempt to destroy Uyghurs by the Chinese party-state.”
“The United States has worked exhaustively to pull into the light what the Communist Party and General Secretary Xi Jinping wish to keep hidden through obfuscation, propaganda, and coercion,” he said.
Two months later, Biden’s State Department issued its report on human rights in China in 2020. “Genocide and crimes against humanity occurred during the year against the predominantly Muslim Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minority groups in Xinjiang,” it said.
“These crimes were continuing,” it said.
In April 2022, Biden’s State Department released its report on human rights in China in 2021. It reiterated that “genocide and crimes against humanity” were occurring in Xinjiang. In November 2022, Biden held his first summit with Xi in Bali, Indonesia.
“I’m really glad to be able to see you again in person,” Biden told Xi in public remarks at the opening of the summit. “We spent a lot of time together and—back in the days when we were both vice presidents, and it’s just great to see you.”
Biden also expressed gratitude to this leader of a genocidal regime for having congratulated him on his election. “You were kind enough to call me to congratulate me, and I congratulate you as well,” Biden told Xi.
“So, President Xi, I look forward to our continuing and ongoing open and honest dialogue we’ve always had,” said Biden.
A “readout” on this meeting published by the White House after it was over did mention that Xinjiang had been an issue—but it did not specifically cite the genocide taking place there. “President Biden raised concerns about PRC [People’s Republic of China] practices in Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong, and human rights more broadly,” it said. Four months later, in March 2023, the State Department released its report on human rights in China in 2022. It once again cited the “genocide and crimes against humanity” in Xinjiang.
In November 2023, Biden and Xi held their second summit in Woodside, California.
“Well, Mr. President, it’s good to see you again,” Biden told Xi at the beginning of the summit.
“And to host you in the United States is a great honor and a pleasure,” Biden said.
The White House “readout” noted that Biden once again mentioned Xinjiang and “human rights abuses”—but it did not specifically cite the genocide. Biden “raised concerns regarding PRC [People’s Republic of China] human rights abuses, including in Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong,” it said.
Five months later, the State Department released its report on human rights in China in 2023. Its first sentence said: “Genocide and crimes against humanity occurred during the year in China against predominantly Muslim Uyghurs and members of ethnic and religious minority groups in Xinjiang.”
This Nov. 16, Biden met with Xi in Lima, Peru. “It’s good to see you and see all of you again,” Biden told Xi in his opening public statement. “You know, one year ago, we met in the Woodside Summit in San Francisco. And I’m very proud of the progress we’ve both made together.” In the readout published by the White House after this summit, there was an unspecific reference to human rights—but not genocide. “The president noted the importance of human rights and the responsibility of all nations to respect their human rights commitments,” it said.
From January 2021, the month Biden was inaugurated, through September 2024, the latest month for which the numbers are available from the Census Bureau, the United States imported approximately $1.79 trillion in goods from China—while running a bilateral trade deficit of approximately $1.23 trillion.
Former President Donald Trump said in an interview with Fox News in February that if he were elected to another term, he would seek to impose tariffs on Chinese imports that may exceed 60%.
Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, whom President-elect Trump has now named to be his secretary of state, sent out a message on X in August: “Communist China has been able to get away with a campaign of widespread evil,” he said. “From committing acts of genocide against religious and ethnic groups, to spearheading forced sterilization and abortions, as well as dominating crucial minerals and technologies, and impeding the sovereignty of several regional partners, the U.S. will not tolerate these practices.”
Now, Rubio has the opportunity to lead U.S. policy on China in the right direction.
Ali Malekzadeh, president of Chicago’s Roosevelt University, has joined the “My Bad” School of Higher Education. In criticizing the election results, Malekzadeh is only the latest academic leader first to discard core principles of neutrality and inclusion and then offer a shrugging apology. After the GOP election victories, various university presidents and academic leaders denounced the results, and some pledged to join “the resistance.” Wesleyan University President Michael Roth was, if nothing else, honest. He called for universities to openly support Kamala Harris and resist Trump. Others signaled that they were appalled by the majority of voters in this country and then asked for forgiveness. This includes the heads of academic journals. The most bizarre was Laura Helmuth, the editor-in-chief, of Scientific American who posted a profanity-laced attack on the majority who voted for Trump and the Republicans. She then asked people to disregard her diatribe (She later resigned). It is obviously a complete jettisoning of the core political neutrality expected from presidents, and some, after currying favor with the political left, issued perfunctory apologies.
According to Campus Reform, after the election, Malekzadeh wrote,“Like many of you, I am discouraged by the final results and disheartened that many voters selected a candidate who casts aside unity and empathy in favor of divisiveness and fear.”
He denounced the “alarming trend” of not “welcom[ing] new immigrants,” “romanticizing the past” instead of “look[ing] forward,” and moving away from “reinforc[ing] democratic norms.”
This was an official statement coming from a university president to all faculty, students, and staff. Even in the solidly democratic Illinois, roughly 44 percent reportedly supported Trump. Harris won the state by roughly 55 percent. That means many voters associated with Roosevelt University likely voted for the GOP, particularly those on the Schaumburg campus.
These university statements are usually the subject of considerable drafting and editing. They are not simply dashed off like a posting on X. Malekzadeh was fully aware of the criticism of bias and intolerance at universities and the deep divisions in this election. However, he chose to pander to one side and then offer a muttering “my bad” response to criticism.
Malekzadeh’s biography states that he is “passionate about women’s and LGBTQ+ rights, immigration, [and] affirmative action.” That is all well and good. However, as university president, he is tasked with representing all those who teach, work, and learn at his institution. Malekzadeh must have known that his statement would thrill the left and alienate the right. He is not a clueless halfwit. He did it anyway and then asked for forgiveness. In that way, he showed the flag to the political left while maintaining the pretense of regret.
Imagine if a president issued statements after the election praising Trump and celebrating the rejection of liberal policies on immigration or transgender issues. The response would be overwhelming and likely result in removals. No shrugged apology would suffice.
The message to all those who voted for the GOP could not be clearer. They are not particularly welcomed in the “inclusive environment” described by Malekzadeh. Like most universities in the country, the sense of orthodoxy and intolerance is unmistakable and unavoidable.
Below is my column in the New York Post on the effort of Alvin Bragg to suspend the criminal case against President-Elect Donald Trump for almost five years. It would be a terrible choice for the court and for the country.
Here is the column:
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg pushed Tuesday to create a new constitutional creature: the layaway president. It was once common for stores to hold expensive items that you really wanted but could not make the payment. So, they were tagged and kept on the shelf until you were ready to redeem your item.
For Bragg, that leaves Donald Trump tagged until 2029.
In a filing before Manhattan Justice Juan Merchan, Bragg suggested that the court should stay the pending criminal case and defer any sentencing “until after the end of defendant’s upcoming presidential term.” That would allow a city prosecutor to put a leash on a sitting president for four years. Trump would govern by the grace of this local judge and district attorney. In the meantime, pundits and politicians could portray the president as free on a type of work release program.
The suggestion is appalling to most of the people in the country, including the majority of voters who voted for Trump. Vice President Kamala Harris and Democrats ran on this and other cases in the election. The result was arguably the largest jury decision in history.
That being said, I do not believe that the mere election of a president negates jury verdicts on 34 criminal counts. But ample reasons exist to overturn those verdicts or to dismiss this case. For example, after the verdict, the Supreme Court rendered its immunity decision barring the use of certain evidence against a president. Some of the evidence used in the Manhattan case likely fell within one of the protected categories. The prosecutors not only elicited testimony from Trump aides in the White House but then doubled down on the significance of that evidence in their closing arguments. Merchan could declare that the court cannot rule out the impact of such testimony on the final verdict.
Even if Merchan, as expected, does not dismiss the case on the basis for the immunity decision, the trial was rife with reversible error. This was a raw exercise of lawfare, and Merchan did little to ensure fairness toward the defendant. Yet none of those errors can be likely addressed until Merchan reaches final decisions on the motion to dismiss as well as the sentencing question.
While that will mean that Trump could, upon possible sentencing, formally become a convicted felon, the matter can then be finally pried out of the hands of Merchan and taken to higher courts for review. The worst possible option is the one suggested by Bragg, who would adopt the popular persona of Trump’s turnkey.
The President would be seen by many as governing on a type of conditional status from one of the most politically compromised prosecutors in the country. For Bragg and other Trump opponents, that may be far more satisfying than a sentencing now given the unlikelihood of any jail component.
After the years and millions spent on the case, it would be the ultimate buzz kill to have Trump sentenced to some fine or other non-carceral penalty. Many Democrats want to have Trump govern with an asterisk of a “President pending sentencing.” Instead, Trump would govern with the clock ticking toward a sentencing date.
It is a dangerous precedent. Such pending sentences can have a coercive impact on a president in dealing with given officials, including a state governor who might be willing to pardon a president.
Consider the effort of the governor of New York in restoring the lucrative state and local tax, or SALT, deductions. There is no reason to believe that Trump would succumb to such leverage (and he has already indicated that he would consider the change).
However, any decision on policies like SALT would be the subject of speculation of whether a reduction in taxation was made in the hope of a reduction in incarceration.
Critics would suggest that New York is yanking on the leash to achieve policy advantages. This is the same judge and prosecutor who gagged the leading candidate for the presidency in discussing aspects of the case in the months leading up to the election. Now, they would allow him to govern pending their own suspended decisions on his future.
The Trump case was always a thrill kill for Bragg. Under Bragg’s proposal, his supporters would prolong that thrill for four more years. The cost, however, would be devastating for the country.
This country needs a president, not a president on layaway from the Manhattan District Attorney.
Top Stories • Kentucky Fights Back Against ACLU Lawsuit to Strike Down Abortion Ban • Wyoming to Appeal Judge’s Decision Striking Abortion Ban, Will Fight in Court to Save Babies • “Catholics for Harris” Founder Admits Kamala Rejected Christians: Democrats Have a “God Problem” • At Least 42 Fortune 500 Companies Pay for Abortion Travel That Kills Babies
More Pro-Life News • Quit Using Euphemisms and Tell the Truth: Abortions Kill Babies • Study Confirms Christian Voters are Responsible for Donald Trump’s Victory • 17 Radical Abortion Activists Arrested for Trying to Disrupt Pro-Life March in Boston • Pro-Life Republican David McCormick Wins Pennsylvania Senate Race. Again • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2024 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved. For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Trump and the GOP may have won the 2024 election, but America is far from being cured of this leftist disease that has been ravaging the country for decades. Now, the real battle for a healthy government for We the People is just beginning.
No, We Will Not Honor Your Delusions! – Young Conservative Gives the Best Explanation Yet on Why Republicans Swept the 2024 Elections (VIDEO)
By Jim Hoft – The Gateway Pundit – Nov 16, 2024
This young conservative who calls himself Grand-Ole-Evan gave the best explanation on why President Donald Trump and Republicans swept the 2024 elections. It came down to half of America living in reality of consequences of Democrat leadership and policies versus the other half of America living in delusion that their rights were going to be taken away. It was reality versus delusion. It really was that simple and not the deluded Democrats are furious that Republican voters did not put the left’s delusions before their needs to eat and find affordable housing. READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
Having clinched the federal government trifecta, Republicans have the opportunity in the next Congress to move through legislation they could only have dreamed of over the past six years. Will they squander this golden opportunity to pass conservative reforms?
In particular, can the SAVE Act, a key election integrity measure, be saved from the Senate filibuster? Perhaps, but there’s disagreement even among members of Wisconsin’s GOP congressional delegation on the fate of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act in the upcoming session. The bill requires individuals to show documentary proof of U.S. citizenship in federal elections, as it directs states to remove noncitizens from their voter rolls. The measure passed the Republican-controlled House in July along party lines, with a scant five Democrats voting for it. Dems insisted that the protections are unnecessary because it’s already illegal for foreign nationals to vote in elections. But current law is nothing more than an honor system without the ability to require proof of citizenship at the point of registration.
As The Federalist has reported, thousands of illegal immigrants and other foreign nationals have shown up on voter lists across the country.
The SAVE Act has languished in a Senate that had no interest in ensuring only U.S. citizens vote in elections. Attached to a stopgap government spending proposal in September, the bill died a miserable death in the House.
But Nov. 5, 2024, delivered a red wave, a sea change election that will put former President Donald Trump back in the White House, place Republicans back in control of the Senate, and allow the Grand Old Party to keep its majority in the House. Expectations are high — as they were in 2017 and 2018 when Republicans also held the trifecta with Trump in charge of the executive branch — that conservatives will be able to push through an array of government reforms.
Not so fast, some say.
‘Tool to Defend’
“Any election law is going to be tough in the Senate,” Rep. Glenn Grothman, told me Monday on the “Vicki McKenna Show” in Milwaukee. Grothman, who represents Wisconsin’s 6th Congressional District, said the filibuster, requiring 60 votes in the Senate to pass most legislation, will make it nearly impossible to get the SAVE Act, border security, and other bills through the august upper house.
It would seem there isn’t much appetite for ditching the filibuster, especially in a Senate run by newly elected Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., a longtime protege of Senate Republican Leader and 60-vote threshold defender Mitch McConnell. Fellow McConnell stooge Texas Sen. John Cornyn recently told NBC News that there’s “unanimity” among Senate Republicans on preserving the filibuster — even if President-elect Trump again calls for senators to dump it.
“Senators have a tendency to defend their power, just like everybody else does. I don’t know a lot of wimps in the United States Senate,” Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., told the news outlet. “I think we’ve all lived through the possibility of losing the filibuster as a tool to defend. And I would be surprised if there were enough Republicans who thought that we should change it now.”
‘On the Other Foot’
When Democrats controlled Congress and the White House, they pushed to bypass the filibuster to pass an election integrity nightmare “voting rights act,” but couldn’t quite get the 60 votes needed to suspend the rule. That was in January 2022, just days before Dems turned over control of the House to Republicans and saw their majority in the Senate diminished to a slim 51 seats. McConnell congratulated renegade Democrats, Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, for their “courage” to resist the pressure to loosen the rule. McConnell warned Democrats “that in the very near future the shoe might be on the other foot.” Nearly three years later, Manchin and Sinema are on their way out of the Senate and the “shoe” is definitely about to be on the other foot.
‘We Can Get There’
Grothman agrees the filibuster has “prevented a lot of horrible things from passing” under Democrat control, from packing the Supreme Court to statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. “So, I can’t say it’s horrible when the Republican senators say we’re going to require 60 votes for all policy changes, but it sure is going to be frustrating because I don’t think we can save the country unless we make changes in immigration law, and I don’t think we can save the country unless we make changes to election law.”
The Wisconsin congressman said there is no compromising with Democrats on either issue.
“I don’t think they’ll ever give us the SAVE act,” Grothman said. “The Democrats are not into compromising on issues that will cost them power. They just aren’t.”
Grothman’s colleague, Rep. Scott Fitzgerald, said the SAVE Act is a priority and can pass both houses, but it will take negotiations to get there. Fitzgerald, who represents Wisconsin’s 5th Congressional District, said he’d like to see the legislation move from the Senate to the House this time around.
“Even though [Republicans] are going to have the majority over there, there are going to be some specific senators that probably are going to need to get some of the things that were in the SAVE Act to agree to it,” the lawmaker told me last week on the “Vicki McKenna Show.” “That could become the negotiations between the houses to sign off from.”
Rep. Bryan Steil, Wisconsin’s 1st Congressional District congressman, said Republicans have an opportunity to take election security and integrity bills previously passed in the House and get them to Trump’s desk. Steil, chairman of the House Administration Committee, acknowledges the filibuster may well be a challenge, but he sees the potential for some Senate Democrats to cross the aisle on bills that have the backing of the majority of voters.
“Obviously, President Biden had no interest in putting forward common-sense election integrity provisions,” Steil told me. “With a Republican Senate and a Republican House and President Trump in the White House, I’m of a view we can get there.”
Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.
EXCLUSIVE: Texas is offering the incoming Trump administration a tract of more than 1,400 acres on which to stage its mass deportation operation when it enters office in January, as the transition team begins to make preparations for the ambitious project.
Texas Land Commissioner Dawn Buckingham has written to President-elect Donald Trump offering him the land in Starr County, which the state purchased from a ranch owner in October. The 1,402 acres are in the Rio Grande Valley sector near the border. Her letter to Trump, obtained by Fox News Digital, says her office is “fully prepared to enter into an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or the United States Border Patrol to allow a facility to be built for the processing, detention, and coordination of the largest deportation of violent criminals in the nation’s history.”
This image shows drone footage from a ranch in Starr County. (Texas General Land Office)
“What I care about is that we have safe communities, and there is no doubt that we are losing too many of our children to these violent criminals that are coming across the border,” Buckingham told Fox News Digital in an interview on Tuesday. “I am 100% on board with the Trump administration’s pledge to get these criminals out of our country, and we are more than happy to offer our resources to facilitate those deportations of these violent criminals.”
The Texas General Land Office purchased the land in October to facilitate the construction of additional border wall, a project that the Biden administration stopped. The area, which was a ranch before Texas bought it, had seen drug smuggling and human trafficking, officials said.
In light of Trump’s election victory this month, Buckingham said she was brainstorming with her team and decided to make the offer to the incoming administration.
“Right now, it’s essentially farmland, so it’s flat, it’s easy to build on. We could very easily put a detention center on there, a holding place as we get these criminals out of our country,” she said. “It’s accessible to international airports as well as a major crossing over the river. And so, we’re just happy to get help, do anything we can to get these violent criminals off of our soil.”
Trump repeatedly promised throughout his 2024 presidential campaign to launch a historic mass deportation operation. In the days since the election, those plans have been put into motion, with officials looking at where they could build additional detention space.
Buckingham said the election proves that Trump’s approach to border security and illegal immigration is the one backed by the American people and that the Biden administration’s approach had been rejected.
“This election was a resounding referendum on the fact that Americans want safe communities. We want people to immigrate legally and legally only and that the administration’s policies over the last four years have failed every American citizen,” she said.
The Trump plan is likely to face opposition in other states, including Arizona, Illinois and Massachusetts, where governors have indicated they will oppose deportation efforts by the Trump administration. But that is unlikely to stop the incoming administration from conducting its operation.
Fox News’ Emma Woodhead contributed to this report.
Adam Shaw is a politics reporter for Fox News Digital, primarily covering immigration and border security.
A migrant child sits in the back of a Border Patrol vehicle after crossing the border illegally into Ruby, Arizona, June 24. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)
Sitting before members of Congress on Capitol Hill Tuesday, retired Border Patrol agent J.J. Carrell told the lawmakers that the “United States federal government is the world’s largest child sex trafficking organization in modern history.”
WATCH: Retired Border Patrol agent J.J. Carrell tells members of Congress that the "United States federal government is the world's largest child sex trafficking organization in modern history." pic.twitter.com/0gVOAqpSDV
Carrell served in the Border Patrol for 24 years, retiring as a deputy patrol agent in charge of the San Diego Sector before going on to author a book on the border crisis and film two documentaries on the topic.
“I state with complete certainty that [President Joe] Biden, [Vice President Kamala] Harris, and [Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro] Mayorkas intentionally, strategically and purposely weaponized illegal immigration and use it as a tool to fundamentally transform America,” Carrell said during the joint hearing by the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement and Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability, both subcommittees of the House Homeland Security Committee.
“Inside this invasion, the unspoken evil of child trafficking and more specifically, child sex trafficking has flourished,” he said.
Where Are the Missing Migrant Children?
In August, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement reported that it does not know the location or status of more than 300,000 migrant children. Between fiscal year 2019 and 2023, 32,000 illegal alien minors did not appear for their immigration court hearing, and an additional 291,000 were never given an immigration court date. According to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, 81% of unaccompanied alien children are between the ages of 13 and 18. The average age of a trafficking victim in the U.S. is between 12 and 15, according to Anti-Trafficking International.
Under current U.S. law, after being apprehended by Border Patrol or Customs and Border Protection, unaccompanied migrant children are released into the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement, which in turn releases the child to a sponsor in the U.S.
For a decade, HHS has demonstrated a “record of losing children to sponsors who abuse, exploit, traffic, and harm children in unthinkable ways,” Tara Rodas told members of Congress during her testimony at Tuesday’s hearing, which was titled “Trafficked, Exploited, and Missing: Migrant Children Victims of the Biden-Harris Administration.”
As a government employee, Rodas was recruited in 2021 to help HHS with the growing number of unaccompanied migrant children arriving at the southern border. She soon discovered that the department’s unaccompanied migrant child program was allowing for the exploitation of children.
The names of the sponsors who take the children from the Office of Refugee Resettlement are run through the National Crime Information Center before a child is released. A sponsor can be a distant relative or have no blood relation to the child at all, opening the door for human traffickers to prey on minors, which, according to Rodas, has and continues to happen regularly.
“Migrant children are working overnight shifts in slaughterhouses and factories, and some may die today because they don’t have the knowledge or skills to do the job that their supposed to be doing, but their doing it because they need to repay debts to their smugglers and traffickers,” she said.
🚨Tara Rodas, former deputy to the director of the Federal Case Management Team at HHS:
"Children, boys and girls, are being sold for sex. Just last month I spoke to a care provider in Florida who told me about cases of migrant children as young as 8 with sexually transmitted… pic.twitter.com/H9BbF3W6AT
Rodas accused the U.S. of operating a “white glove delivery system” that is responsible for handing migrant children over to “MS-13, 18th Street Gang, Russian Balkans crime syndicates, and other unsavory characters.”
WATCH: Tara Rodas, former deputy to the director of the Federal Case Management Team at HHS:
"I'm very unclear as to why we're luring children to the United States to be the white glove delivery system of these children to known MS-13, 18th Street Gang, Russian Balkans crime… pic.twitter.com/je9J0OXmny
In defense of HHS, Rodas pointed out that the department is “not an investigative or law enforcement agency. HHS simply does not have the knowledge, skills, ability, or the tradecraft to protect children from traffickers.”
Furthermore, child trafficking has become a highly sophisticated operation, according to Rodas, mirroring the “tactics and operations of terrorist organization.”
HHS Whistleblower Tara Rodas:
“HHS has a 10-year demonstrated record of losing children to sponsors who abuse, exploit, traffic, and harm children in unthinkable ways.” pic.twitter.com/GNn4C4q5N2
Solutions to end the exploitation of migrant children, according to Rodas, include DNA testing for sponsors who claim to be a relative of the child, and prison time for sponsors who cannot produce the child that was given into their care.
“Let’s mobilize the full power of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to dismantle these criminal networks,” Rodas said, recommending that child trafficking activity should be elevated on the National Intelligence Priorities Framework and be designated a terrorist activity.
“We cannot be a nation that looks the other way,” Rodas said. “We have a moral imperative to care for children that the government takes into custody, and the time to act is now.”
According to Gallup’s latest polling, support for a handgun ban has fallen to just 20 percent and support for an “assault weapons” ban has cratered to just 52 percent. Gun bans were a constant call from both President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris over the last four years. President Biden often combined the call with dubious factual, legal, and historical arguments.
I previously wrote about the failure of politicians to acknowledge the limits posed by the Second Amendment and controlling case law. While there are good-faith objections to how the Second Amendment has been interpreted, the current case law makes such bans very difficult to defend.
In 2008, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the Second Amendment as encompassing an individual right to bear arms. Yet, the 2024 campaign showed a belated recognition that the Administration has failed to galvanize public opinion in support of gun limits and bans. Harris came under fire during the campaign when she suddenly seemed to embrace one of the very guns that she previously vilified as it became clear that she was too far left from much of the country.
Years ago, I wrote that the rise in gun ownership in the United States, including among minority gun owners, was strikingly out of sync with the Democratic talking point. In 2019, support for an assault weapons ban stood at 61%. It is now barely at a majority.
The drop in support for a handgun ban is notable in that only 33 percent of Democrats support such a ban. The rise in gun ownership and the drop in polling raise another issue where Democratic candidates seem to be speaking to an increasingly empty room. The gun ownership rates are a problem for the party because most political issues do not involve a large personal investment by citizens. When someone becomes a gun owner, they spend hundreds of dollars on the weapon, ammunition, and other costs. The ban campaigns become more of a personal and financial issue for them.
Harris’s attempt to appeal to gun owners fell flat after years of calling for limits and bans. The question is whether the party is ready to pivot on this and other issues — and whether it can give its political base. That 33 percent is the core voting bloc in primaries even as the rest of the country moves toward the center of the political spectrum.
I previously criticized the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) for selecting Todd Wolfson as its new president. Wolfson is a controversial voice within the teaching academy and immediately doubled down on the bias against conservatives and those calling for greater intellectual diversity. He is now decrying the election and publicly joining the resistance to the Trump Administration.
Some of us have been writing for years about the decline in viewpoint diversity and the rise of an academic orthodoxy in higher education. It is one of the focuses of my new book, The Indispensable Right. Wolfson personifies the intolerance for free speech and diversity of viewpoints that now characterize American higher education.
Despite calls for greater tolerance, AAUP elected Wolfson, a Rutgers University anthropologist, who was viewed as an ally for those who oppose intellectual diversity in favor of ideological orthodoxy in higher education.
Wolfson is the author of “Digital Rebellion: The Birth of the Cyber Left.” He was known to be openly hostile to those of us who have criticized the purging of faculty ranks of conservatives, libertarians, and dissenters.
Unlike others who try to maintain the pretense of neutrality and tolerance, Wolfson is viewed by some of us as a true believer who supports the activism and orthodoxy in higher education.
It took Wolfson little time to confirm our worst expectations. He issued a statement denouncing the Trump and GOP victories as “disappointing,” dismissing any possibility that he should speak for all academics, including the dwindling number of Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and independents who voted for the GOP.
Before the election, Inside Higher Ed reported that Wolfson called JD Vance a “fascist.”
“While the results of this presidential election are disappointing, we remain steadfast in our commitment to our principles and ensuring that future generations of Americans are afforded the opportunity that higher education provides.’
“…The AAUP is committed to defending our campuses and the mission of higher education through organizing our communities to face the challenges ahead. Our collective power is needed now more than ever.”
Wolfson declared, “[t]here are massive political intrusions coming on, coming at us around academic freedom. There’s no way to be a neutral arbiter. We must stand for things in this environment.”
Kelly Benjamin, media relations officer for AAUP, also confirmed to Campus Reform that “the growth of repressive forces in American society, much of which is visible on the campus itself, is a source of continuing and acute alarm to the American Association of University Professors…We call on the academic community to resist all public & private assaults against this principle.”
It is all part of what Wolfson promised would be a “fighting organization” pursuing such activism in higher education.
As my book discusses, the AAUP was once the bastion of free speech and academic integrity values. It opposed the invasion of politics into higher education. However, it has become captured by the same forces that have converted our campuses into intolerant spaces for many faculty and students.
Wolfson has been widely criticized for AAUP’s decision to reverse its long-standing opposition to academic boycotts, which is viewed as targeting Israeli institutions. This move is clearly part of his strategy to make AAUP even more of a “fighting organization,” and he has insisted that “collective action of all sorts does not necessarily come into and undermine academic freedom.”
Wolfson’s election shows how the objections of so many to the lack of intellectual diversity and tolerance are having little impact on faculty. When elected officials threaten reductions in support, these same academics are outraged by the attacks on higher education. Many offer perfunctory commitments to intellectual diversity while doing little to achieve it. As shown here, they are continuing to maintain and expand the culture that is suffocating our educational programs on every level.
Top Stories • President Trump Should Pardon Every Pro-Life American Biden and Harris Put in Prison • Biden Ignored Dozens of Attacks on Churches and Pregnancy Centers, Trump Must Prosecute These Crimes • Pro-Life Doctor Ben Carson Dispels Rumors, Says He Will Not Serve as Surgeon General • Pennsylvania Supreme Court Smacks Down Bob Casey, Says Incorrectly Dated Mail Ballots Can’t be Counted
More Pro-Life News • Donald Trump Won in Part Because Kamala and Democrats Rejected Young Men • Hysterical Feminists are Stocking Up on Abortion Pills Because Trump Won • 56% of Men 18-29 Voted for Biden in 2020, This Time 56% Voted for Trump • 8 Pro-Life Questions Senators Should Ask Robert F Kennedy Jr • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
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.
For the seventh consecutive year, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has failed to pass its financial audit. Despite commanding a staggering $824 billion budget for 2024, the Pentagon continues to grapple with widespread disorganization and missing financial records, raising serious concerns about the accountability of taxpayer funds.
The DoD launched its first-ever agency-wide financial audit in 2017, an effort long delayed and much anticipated. However, since that initial attempt, the department has consistently fallen short, failing every audit since 2018. This year’s audit only underscores the ongoing issues within the Pentagon’s financial systems.
Of the 28 entities audited in 2024, only 9 received clean opinions, signifying that their financial statements were accurate and reliable. Meanwhile, 15 entities were issued disclaimers, meaning their financial records were so incomplete or disorganized that auditors couldn’t assess them properly. One entity received a qualified opinion, indicating mostly accurate statements but with some exceptions, while the opinions for three entities remain pending.
In the DoD’s official statement, the department claimed progress despite these failures:
“The Department is firmly committed and is taking actions to achieve an unmodified audit opinion on its financial statements by December 31, 2028, as mandated by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024.”
This commitment is part of a broader push to overhaul financial practices within the Pentagon. However, given the recurring failures, many critics are questioning whether the department can meet its 2028 goal.
Pentagon Comptroller Michael McCord has pushed back against characterizing the audit as a failure, choosing instead to frame it as part of a long-term improvement process.
“Despite the disclaimer of opinion, which was expected, the Department has turned a corner in its understanding of the depth and breadth of its challenges,” McCord stated.
At a press briefing, McCord emphasized the progress being made:
“I do not say we failed. We have about half clean opinions. We have half that are not clean opinions. If someone had a report card that is half good and half not good, I don’t know that you call the student, or the report card a failure.”
McCord expressed optimism that a clean audit could be achieved by 2028, but he acknowledged the significant work still required to meet that target.
The stakes of these failed audits are immense. The Pentagon oversees vast sums of money, much of which funds military operations, weapons systems, and personnel. Yet, the inability to account for all expenditures raises concerns about potential waste, fraud, or abuse. Critics argue that the lack of transparency in the Pentagon’s financial operations undermines public trust and makes it difficult to assess whether taxpayer money is being spent effectively.
“It’s unacceptable that the DoD, with one of the largest budgets in the federal government, continues to fail its audits year after year,” said one government accountability advocate. “Without proper oversight, billions of dollars are essentially vanishing into a black hole.”
The Pentagon has pointed to some successes. For example, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) received an unmodified audit opinion this year, marking a notable achievement for the entity. Similarly, the U.S. Marine Corps earned a clean opinion for its fiscal year 2023 financial statements, demonstrating that progress is possible.
Still, these isolated victories are overshadowed by the broader failures. Auditors found discrepancies across multiple divisions, from procurement to logistics, highlighting systemic issues that hinder the department’s ability to maintain accurate financial records.
The DoD remains optimistic about achieving a clean audit within four years, but skepticism abounds. The 2028 goal, mandated by the National Defense Authorization Act, is ambitious, especially given the department’s track record.
In the meantime, lawmakers and watchdog groups are likely to increase pressure on the Pentagon to improve its financial accountability. As debates over federal spending and budget deficits intensify, the DoD’s inability to account for billions in taxpayer dollars will remain a focal point of criticism.
For now, the Pentagon’s audit failures serve as a stark reminder of the challenges in managing one of the world’s largest and most complex organizations. Whether the department can turn things around by 2028—or if it will continue its pattern of failure—remains to be seen.
President-elect Donald Trump is making waves with a bold decision to bypass the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for background checks on his administration’s nominees, instead relying on private investigators. This move comes as part of Trump’s long-standing contentious relationship with the FBI, which he has accused of being politicized and unfairly targeting him and his allies.
According to CNN, Trump’s transition team has opted to use private firms to conduct security clearance reviews and background checks on his appointees for key positions within his second administration. This approach marks a stark departure from tradition, as the FBI has typically handled such checks since the aftermath of World War II.
Trump’s decision to skip the FBI’s involvement in his nominees’ vetting process stems from several concerns. First, the FBI’s background checks are often time-consuming, delaying the transition process. For example, during Trump’s first term, the bureau took months to finalize background reviews, creating logistical headaches. Additionally, there are fears that the FBI could leak sensitive or potentially embarrassing information about Trump’s nominees to the media, possibly even to his political opponents. Such leaks could hurt his administration before it even begins. This concern about potential bias has grown in the wake of Trump’s complaints about a politicized FBI, especially under the leadership of FBI Director Christopher Wray.
There are also no laws mandating that the FBI conduct background checks on presidential appointees, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that the president has the constitutional right to grant security clearances. While Trump will have to wait until after he is inaugurated to issue those clearances, this means he can still proceed with appointing individuals and conducting preliminary reviews without relying on the FBI’s approval.
The Trump transition team’s decision to bypass the FBI was reinforced by an alarming whistleblower report that recently came to light. An FBI official in the bureau’s security clearance division, known as SecD, expressed concerns about the politicization of the vetting process. According to the whistleblower, SecD has been contaminated by political agendas, making it unreliable for handling security clearance investigations.
The whistleblower’s complaint outlined that under current FBI leadership, the bureau had refused clearances for individuals with conservative beliefs, including U.S. military veterans, those who refused to get COVID-19 vaccines, and employees who had attended Trump rallies. The whistleblower’s accusations paint a picture of an FBI that may be using its power to block appointees based on personal or political biases, leading to further mistrust in the agency’s neutrality.
In addition to the politicized nature of the FBI’s process, the whistleblower warned that personal data from background investigations could be improperly shared with political opponents, citing the FBI’s history of leaks and questionable practices under current leadership. The concern is that top officials, including Wray and Deputy Director Abbate, could exploit this sensitive information for political gain or share it with the White House to target individuals who oppose the administration.
For Trump, the solution is clear: by opting for private investigators, he sidesteps the potential bias and inefficiency of the FBI. Private investigators are typically faster, more discreet, and better equipped to handle the sensitive nature of political vetting. Trump’s team can work with firms they trust to get the job done without worrying about leaks or delays.
Additionally, the president has the authority to grant security clearances to his nominees directly once he assumes office. This means that, even without FBI reviews, he can still proceed with classified briefings and high-level appointments once he is sworn in. Trump has been outspoken about his intention to ensure that his administration operates without the interference of a politically motivated FBI.
While the move to bypass the FBI has drawn criticism, many see it as a necessary step to protect the integrity of the transition process and to ensure that only trusted individuals are appointed to critical positions in the government. Trump’s transition team is clearly motivated by concerns of partisanship and leaks that have plagued his administration in the past.
Trump’s decision also ties into his broader agenda of reforming the FBI, which he has long criticized as being too aligned with the political establishment. During his first term, Trump was vocal in calling for an overhaul of the agency, accusing it of bias and misconduct in its handling of investigations into his campaign and associates.
By bypassing the FBI for background checks, Trump signals that he plans to continue this reform effort in his second term, ensuring that the agency serves the interests of the American people without being used as a political tool.
Four years ago, Democrats and their pals in corporate media began painting then-President Donald Trump and Republicans who questioned the results of the troubled 2020 election as “election deniers.” Now, Democrats are doing all they can — including breaking election law — to challenge GOP victories in Iowa and Pennsylvania despite “insurmountable” odds. Even The Washington Post, part of the left’s corporate media public-relations team, sees the writing on the wall for Sen. Bob Casey, D-Penn. The entrenched incumbent lost to Republican challenger Dave McCormick by some 24,000 votes in a swing state election that helped Republicans take back the Senate with a comfortable majority. The Associated Press and other news outlets called the race for McCormick. But Casey and his party of election integrity deniers, led by Democrat political ambulance chaser Marc Elias (Hillary Clinton’s Russian dossier peddler), refuse to concede. Instead, Casey’s campaign has sought an expensive recount, and has no compunction about grinding election law under foot to tally enough votes to hold the seat.
‘Tipping the Scales’
“Sen. Casey just refuses to accept the fact that he’s lost this election, so he is costing taxpayers well over a million dollars” for a statewide recount, Linda Kerns, 2024 Pennsylvania Election Integrity Counsel for the Republican National Committee and the Trump campaign, told The Federalist late last week on the “Simon Conway Show” in Des Moines.
If Sleepy Senator Bob Casey had put as much energy, resources, attention, & firepower into the needs of Pennsylvanians over the last 2 decades as he is putting into fighting the outcome of this election, maybe he would have gotten more votes. Congrats @DaveMcCormickPA.
The Democrat senator and his attorneys are pushing for invalid provisional and mail-in ballots not correctly signed or properly dated to be counted, contrary to a Pennsylvania court ruling. Democrats on some county boards dismissed the law and the court ruling in agreeing to accept suspect and invalid ballots.
“I think we all know that precedent by a court doesn’t matter anymore in this country,” Bucks County Commissioner Diane Ellis-Marseglia, a Democrat, said Thursday.
“People violate laws anytime they want,” she added. “So, for me, if I violate this law, it’s because I want a court to pay attention. There’s nothing more important than counting votes.” It was a troubling statement from a public official, and another in countless examples of why Democrats got their clocks cleaned in this month’s election. Voters have had more than enough of leftist-led lawlessness over the past four years.
Even the Dem-friendly Washington Post editorial board can smell the desperation. The election lawlessness, too, now seems a bridge too far for the left-leaning WaPo board.
“Democrats would surely protest if a Republican commissioner made the same statement [as Ellis-Marseglia] to justify tipping the scales for their party’s Senate nominee — and they would be right,” the editorial board wrote in a piece headlined, “Democrats thumb their nose at the rule of law in Pennsylvania.” “Elections need rules, established in advance of the voting, and those rules must be applied equally and consistently.”
The same newspaper, of course, joined a chorus of accomplice media outlets chiding swing state Republican Senate candidates, Eric Hovde in Wisconsin and Kari Lake in Arizona, for not conceding closely contested elections. The conservatives have raised election integrity questions, but neither has asked election officials and courts to break the law to reverse their opponents’ election leads.
“Four years ago, many Republicans embraced Trump’s brand of denialism when he stoked far-fetched theories to try to undo his loss of the presidency. Now, they are largely staying silent amid scattered false claims of rigged elections in downballot races — and they’re calling on Sen. Bob Casey (D) to concede that he narrowly lost in Pennsylvania,” a team of leftist Washington Post reporters concluded in the piece — published a day before the editorial — that served as a defense of Casey’s recount call and a knock-on Republicans mulling their own legal options.
In Pennsylvania the math doesn’t look good for Casey, but he’s counting on the recount and a stack of invalid votes.
“But even if Sen. Casey wins on these, there’s still not enough for him to win this election so he’s just desperately hanging on,” Kerns said.
‘The Election Deniers are the Democrats’
It’s a similar situation in Iowa’s 1st Congressional District, where Democrat Christina Bohannan’s campaign on Thursday sought a recount of the votes in an election in which incumbent Republican Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks won by less than 1,000 votes. The purple district saw Miller-Meeks win her first term in 2020 by a final recount tally of just six votes.
Bohannan’s path to victory appears unlikely, too, but the campaign said in a statement that a recount will ensure “that every voter is heard” and that they have “full trust in this process and will accept the results regardless of the outcome.” The Associated Press has yet to call the race.
Miller-Meeks said the vote count, as it stands, is “insurmountable” and that the districtwide recount is an unnecessary expense to taxpayers.
“In Iowa, all of the legal ballots have been counted, all of the provisional ballots and the military ballots have been counted. The counties have certified their election results, and we remain ahead. We gained votes on election night,” the congresswoman told The Federalist Friday on the “Simon Conway Show” on NewsRadio 1040 WHO in Des Moines. “So, it’s an insurmountable lead. But, yes, my concern is after the recount when we’re still ahead, which we will be, I’m very confident of that, they’re going to continue to deny the election and they may go on to do a contest and try to get ballots admitted that were illegal ballots.”
Republicans have already secured enough victories to hold the House, but Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to stave off defeat and a wider GOP majority in a handful of races yet to be called. Those include Iowa’s 1st Congressional District, two House races in California, and one each in Alaska and Ohio.
Miller-Meeks said the tables have turned in the “election denier” narrative.
“We’ve heard for four years how Republicans were a threat to democracy; they were going to overturn democracy. But really what is happening is that the election deniers, the people who are trying to thwart the rule of law, trying to thwart what a state constitution allows when it comes to elections, are the Democrats,” the Republican congresswoman said.
Beth Brelje is an elections correspondent for The Federalist. She is an award-winning investigative journalist with decades of media experience.
Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.
Below is my column in The Hill on the growing distemper on the left after the loss of both houses and the White House in this election. In Pennsylvania, the politics of despair has stripped away all principle and pretense. There is a concerted effort to reelect Sen. Bob Casey by any means necessary. Even the Washington Post is now criticizing the effort.
Here is the column:
“People violate laws any time they want.”
Those words, shrugging off an alleged unlawful move last week, did not come from some Chicago gangbanger or Washington car thief. Those words of wisdom came from Democrat Commissioner Diane Marseglia in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. They came in response to the fact that the Democratic majority on the election commission had decided to ignore a binding state Supreme Court ruling in an attempt to engineer the election of Democratic incumbent Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.). Rather than prompting a degree of introspection, the loss of both houses of Congress and the White House has had a curious effect on many Democrats, dropping any pretense of protecting democracy over partisanship.
Despite polls showing that the public trusted former president Donald Trump more than Vice President Harris in combatting threats to democracy, Democrats made “saving democracy” the thrust of this election.
The polls reflected a certain common sense of the public when harangued with predictions from President Biden, Harris and a host of politicians and pundits that this would likely be our last election. Few believed that after over two centuries as the most stable and successful democracy in history, all three branches would collapse in unison and embrace dictatorship. Even fewer believed the predictions of the rounding up of homosexuals, journalists and political critics for camps in what some described as an American Third Reich.
American voters are not chumps and what they saw were strikingly anti-democratic positions from those claiming to be the defenders of democracy, including:
• Seeking to strip Trump from ballots under an unfounded theory rejected unanimously by the Supreme Court.
• Fighting to block opponents of Biden from ballots in the primary and general elections.
• Suing to keep Robert F. Kennedy on ballots after his withdrawal in swing states, in order to confuse voters and reduce the vote for Trump.
• Calling for blocking dozens of incumbent GOP officials and legislators from ballots as “insurrectionists.”
• “Protecting democracy” through the most extensive censorship in history and the blacklisting of opponents.
• Engaging in open and raw lawfare in the prosecutions of Trump in places like New York.
Each of these efforts ultimately failed to stop Trump and was opposed by a majority of voters even before the election. So now, Democrats are dropping the pretense for open partisanship. That was evident in Bucks County, when a motion arose to reject a challenge to count provisional ballots, including undated or invalidly dated mail ballots.
It should have been easy. To its credit, the majority-Democratic Pennsylvania Supreme Court had already refused a Democratic push to change the rules shortly before the election and to ignore the plain language of the election laws. In ordering the rejection of ballots without dates, Justice Kevin Doughtery (joined by Chief Justice Debra Todd) wrote a concurrence declaring “This Court will neither impose nor countenance substantial alterations to existing laws and procedures during the pendency of an ongoing election.’ We said those carefully chosen words only weeks ago. Yet they apparently were not heard in the Commonwealth Court, the very court where the bulk of election litigation unfolds.”
It is apparently still not being heard. In the Bucks County hearing, Marseglia spoke as she and Democratic Board chairman Robert Harvie, Jr., dismissed the earlier rulings in order to accept ballots without required signatures or mandatory dates. She declared that she would not second the motion to enforce the rulings “mostly because I think we all know that precedent by a court doesn’t matter anymore in this country and people violate laws any time they want. So, for me, if I violate this law, it’s because I want a court to pay attention to it.”
That was a lot of words to say that she does not really seem to care if this is lawful. For his part, Casey has shown the same abandon as he clings to his Senate seat at any cost. That cost, in this case, was an alliance with Marc Elias, the controversial Democratic lawyer at the center of the infamous Steele Dossier scandal. Elias has been sanctioned in court and criticized for his work to flip elections. He is known for baselessly blaming voting machine errors for electing Republicans and pushing gerrymandering plans rejected by the courts as anti-democratic.
Casey is unlikely to change the result without counting defective or challenged ballots. Fortunately, law and precedent “does matter in this country.” There are still officials who can transcend their political preferences to maintain the rule of law.After the last presidential election, many Trump appointees ruled against the former president, and many Democratic judges rejected the effort to strip Trump from ballots.
That does not mean that Democrats who value the weaponization of law will not continue to embrace lawfare warriors like New York Attorney General Letitia James (D).
Others will use the rage of these times as a license to ignore legal and ethical obligations altogether. They are arguably the saddest manifestation of our political discord. They are people who have not just lost faith in our system but in themselves. They have become untethered from any defining principle for their own conduct. This election has left them adrift in a sea of moral and legal relativism, with only their rage as a following wind. They cling to that rage as reason vanishes like a distant shore.
For the rest of us, there is work to be done as a nation committed to the rule of law. We cannot win at any cost when that cost is the very thing that defines us.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – The GOP broke the Democrat trifecta in Minnesota this past 2024 election, leaving Gov. Walz to preside over a divided government, making it harder to push their radical left agenda.
Minnesota House GOP ‘broke the Democrat trifecta’ with three big wins in Greater Minnesota
By Hank Long – Alpha News – Nov 6, 2024
Just about 24 hours after the polls opened in Minnesota and more than 3 million people had cast their ballots, a picture of who will control the levers of power at the Minnesota Capitol in January began to emerge but remains somewhat blurry. This much is known: Tim Walz will return to St. Paul as governor. He will preside over a divided legislature. Whether Republicans in the Minnesota House will share power with the DFL (where each caucus would hold 67 of 134 seats), or will have a razor thin majority of one or two (recount dependent) seats has not yet been cemented. Nevertheless, Republicans were declaring victory when it came to Minnesota’s legislative landscape around the same time Tuesday night that it became clear Donald Trump would return to the White House as president. READ MORE
A.F. Branco Cartoon – The left is in full-blown panic with cabinet picks such as Matt Gaetz after Biden/Harris’s disastrous appointments that pushed lawfare, censorship, the Afghanistan debacle, and men in women’s sports. Some appointments were men in women’s dresses, along with their DEI agenda.
By Robert Ramano – Daily Torch – Nov 15, 2024
During President Joe Biden’s honeymoon in early 2021, Senate Republicans routinely deferred to the President’s selection for Cabinet secretaries, no matter how radical they were, how much they disagreed with the President’s policies and no matter how awful the selections turned out to be for national security and the individual liberties of the American people. The Biden-Harris administration ushered in a regime of censorship, government surveillance and political weaponization that targeted now President-elect Donald Trump and his supporters, botched the withdrawal from Afghanistan on an arbitrary, no-conditions timeline, left the U.S. southern border wide open and allowed millions of illegal aliens to penetrate the U.S., restricted U.S. energy and agriculture production while prices soared, institutionalized Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) racial and gender hiring quotas into the federal bureaucracy and U.S. corporations via… READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
Top Stories • Donald Trump Should Defund Planned Parenthood • Robert F. Kennedy: “It’s a Calamity When Millions of Abortions Take Place a Year” • Mike Pence Opposes Robert Kennedy Jr. HHS Nomination Because He’s “Pro-Abortion” • Democrats Went All-In on Abortion, Here’s Why They Failed Spectacularly
More Pro-Life News • Washington D.C. Abortion Clinic That Kills Babies in Abortions Up to Birth May Close Soon • Catholic Bishop Slams “Throwaway Culture” of Abortion, We Must “Courageously Speak Up for the Unborn” • Pro-Life Teen Fights for Free Speech Rights After High School Shuts Down His Pro-Life Club • Trump Got a Record 46% of the Latino Vote as Democrats Reject Hispanic Working Families • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2024 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved. For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.
President Donald Trump’s selection of JD Vance as vice president, along with Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr., and Tucker Carlson as close advisers may be misinterpreted by scheming foreign adversaries as proof of Trump neo-isolationism. (Kamil Krzaczynski/AFP via Getty Images)
On Jan. 3, 2020, the Trump administration conducted a drone strike near Baghdad International Airport, killing Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani. Soleimani had a long record of waging surrogate wars against Americans, especially during the Iraq conflict and its aftermath.
After the Trump cancellation of the Iran Deal, followed by U.S. sanctions, Soleimani reportedly stepped-up violence against regional American bases—most of which President Donald Trump himself ironically wished to remove. A few days later, Iran staged a performance-art retaliatory strike against Americans in Iraq and Syria, assuming Trump had no desire for a wider Middle East war.
So, Iran launched 12 missiles that hit two U.S. airbases in Iraq. Supposedly, Tehran had warned the Trump administration of the impending attacks that killed no Americans. Later reports, however, suggested that some Americans suffered concussions, while more damage was done to the bases than was initially disclosed. Nonetheless, this Iranian interlude seemed to reflect Trump’s agenda of avoiding “endless wars” in the Middle East while restoring deterrence that prevented, not prompted, full-scale conflicts.
Yet in a second Trump administration, rethreading the deterrence needle without getting into major wars may become far more challenging. The world of today is far more dangerous than when Trump left in 2021.
An inept Biden administration has utterly destroyed U.S. deterrence abroad through both actual and symbolic disasters: the Chinese dressing down of U.S. diplomats in Anchorage; the humiliating skedaddle from Afghanistan; the brazen flight of a Chinese spy balloon across the U.S.; the invasion of Ukraine by Russia; the Oct. 7, 2023 massacre of 1,200 Israelis; the serial Houthi attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea; the visible restraint of Israel from fully replying to Iranian missile attacks on its homeland; and renewed bellicosity on the part of both North Korea and China toward American allies such as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.
Of course, a second-term Trump must radically reform the Pentagon and beef up the military while warning enemies of the consequences to follow from any unwise aggression. But if opponents believe such admonitions remain only vocal threats, then empty verbiage surely will erode deterrence further—such as President Joe Biden’s serial and empty braggadocio, “Don’t!”
Biden’s past theatrical finger-shaking translated into aggressors like Russian President Vladimir Putin going into Ukraine, Iran sending missiles into Israel, and the Houthis serially hitting shipping in the Red Sea. Given the past messes of the Iraqi, Libyan, and Syrian interventions, and the catastrophic Biden humiliation in Afghanistan, Trump in 2024 is much more emphatic about the need to avoid such overseas dead-end entanglements or even the gratuitous use of force that historically can sometimes lead to tit-for-tat entanglements.
Still, Trump’s selection of JD Vance as vice president, along with Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr., and Tucker Carlson as close advisers, coupled with the announcements that former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and prior U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley will not be in the administration, may be misinterpreted by scheming foreign adversaries as proof of Trump neo-isolationism.
Moreover, the U.S. is battered by an unsustainable $37 trillion national debt and a nonexistent southern border that saw 12 million illegal aliens enter with impunity. So, the use of force abroad is now often seen in a zero-sum fashion as coming at the expense of unaddressed American needs at home.
Moreover, a woke, manpower-short military has not achieved strategic advantages from wars abroad, while disparaging and alienating the very working-class recruits who disproportionately fight and die in them.
Recently, even as President-elect Trump’s inner circle emphasized an end to endless conflicts, Trump warned Putin not to escalate his attacks against Ukraine. Yet that advice was followed by a Russian massive drone onslaught against civilian Ukrainian targets. Putin no doubt wishes to encourage American enemies to test Trump’s deterrent rhetoric against his campaign’s domestic promises to mind America’s own business at home.
Is there a way to square the deterrence circle?
Trump will have to speak clearly and softly while carrying a club. And for the first few months of his administration, he will be tested as never before to make it clear to Iran and its terrorist surrogates, China, North Korea, and Russia, that aggression against U.S. interests will be swiftly and quietly met with disproportionate and overwhelming repercussions.
Yet Trump will likely have to rely on drones, missiles, and airstrikes and not on major engagements, to deter enemies from aggression—and his domestic critics from claiming he turned into a globalist interventionist.
He is not.
Trump remains a Jacksonian. But such deterrence entails warning from time to time the reckless and adventurous abroad that our allies have no better friend than America and our adversaries no worse enemy. In other words, Trump must remind Americans only by periodically deterring enemies can he prevent endless wars.
In my book, The Indispensable Right, I discuss how an enforced orthodoxy has replaced free speech and intellectual diversity in higher education. As suggested in prior columns, the intolerance for opposing views will only increase after the election. Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton (Mass.) has already learned that lesson after suggesting the need for greater diversity of opinion in the party and the reconsideration of issues like transgender athletic policies. The response was fast and furious, including from a department head at Tufts University.
Many of us have been writing about that intolerance for years, but while belated, it is good to see a Democratic member acknowledging the problem. It took the loss of both houses of Congress, the White House, and the popular vote, but the belated recognition from long-silent Democrats is a welcomed sign.
After the election losses, Moulton told The New York Times that it was time for greater reflection within the party, including on the issue of transgender policies: “I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete.” He later added in a WBZ-TV interview that “this is an example of a contentious issue that we have to be willing to take on as a Democratic Party . . . we’re losing on issues like this.”
Democratic politicians and pundits immediately confirmed his criticism with a signature flash mob pile-on. Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey denounced Moulton for “playing politics” with the lives of transgender citizens.
Former staffers and interns demanded the usual public confession and apology from a dissenter. One top aide resigned rather than work with Moulton. Steve Kerrigan, Chair of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, expressed outrage and declared“these comments do not represent the broad view of our Party.” That broad view clearly does not include dissenting viewpoints.
This is clearly a debate that triggers intense feelings, including how it is discussed. The Tufts controversy follows a CNN contributor being chastised on air as a bigot and “transphobe” after he also raised objections on the issue by referring to “boys” playing girl sports. CNN commentator Shermichael Singleton rephrased his comments after the heated objections from other guests.
At Tufts University, the chair of the political science department, David Art, went with the “no soup for you” option for Moulton. Art declared that Moulton would be cut off from student internships in the future due to his statements. While refusing to confirm statements made about Moulton to the faculty, he reportedly told the Boston Globe that Tufts would not facilitate such internships, even if Moulton and the students wanted them.
Moulton struck out at Tufts, saying that the move is “frightening [and] sounds like China.” Once again, it would have been good if Moulton had shown a modicum of concern over the last decade as the mob was running professors out of universities or canceling events. However, allies are hard to find in the Democratic party.
I understand objections to how these athletes are referenced. Those objections can be made in the course of a discussion without leveling charges or sanctions against those with opposing views. Tufts eventually countermanded the policy of the political science department and wrote on X that “we have not–and will not–limit internship opportunities with his office.”
There was, however, one thing missing from the Tufts statement. There was no indication that Art or his department would face any repercussions or review for announcing a type of political litmus test for internships. It suggested that any members taking the same position would also be barred from internships. It was a direct attack on free speech and diversity of viewpoints, but the university simply responded by saying that there is “nothing to see here.”
While Professor Art clearly consulted with colleagues, it is not clear if conveying the views of his department in seeking to sanction Moulton. The assumption is that others in the department supported his position. It is a familiar pattern for those of us who have challenged this orthodoxy for years. Academics enforce a group-think culture that allows for little challenge or criticism.
That is only likely to increase after this election. There is no evidence any real effort to restore a diversity of viewpoints or tolerance on faculties. The mistake made at Tufts was to be so open about it. However, that only demonstrates the level of anger within academia at the results of the election.
The academy can then return to its previous lock-stepped orthodoxy. Indeed, the Tufts Political Science Department was spotted this week heading to another faculty meeting:
Top Stories • Trump Nominates Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as HHS Secretary • Pro-Life Republican Dave McCormick Leads Bob Casey as Pennsylvania Senate Race Heads to Recount • Trump Congratulates Thune on Becoming Majority Leader: “He Will Do an Outstanding Job” • Pro-Life Congresswoman Lisa McClain Becomes Highest Ranking Republican Woman in Congress
More Pro-Life News • John Thune: 900,000 Babies are Killed in Abortions Every Year, That’s Like Killing My State of South Dakota • Abortionist Admits Abortions Kill Babies: “We are the Executioners” • Virginia Democrats Use Underhanded Tactics to Advance Measure Legalizing Abortions Up to Birth • Democrats for Life Won 97% of its Races While Kamala and Her Abortion Agenda Were Defeated • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2024 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved. For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.
Top Stories • Donald Trump Picks Pro-Life Congressman Matt Gaetz as Attorney General • Donald Trump Officially Makes Pro-Life Senator Marco Rubio Secretary of State • Pro-Life Senator John Thune Will Become the Next Republican Majority Leader • Kamala Harris Campaigned on Abortions Up to Birth, But 40% of Gen Z Women Voted for Trump
More Pro-Life News • Voters Select Pro-Life Candidates for Supreme Courts in Multiple States • British Bill to Legalize Assisted Suicide is Quickly Losing Support • CNN and MSNBC Ratings Tank After Trump Wins White House • Hispanics Voted for Trump Because They’re Tired of Democrats Trashing Their Pro-Life Christian Values • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2024 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved. For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.
A startling fact has emerged following the 2024 presidential election: every state won by Kamala Harris, along with Washington, D.C., allows voter registration without requiring a photo ID. This discovery has amplified concerns about election integrity, particularly in a political climate already fraught with division and distrust.
Kamala Harris secured victories in 19 states plus Washington, D.C., all of which allow voters to register without presenting a photo ID. These states include:
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Illinois
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Oregon
Rhode Island
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Washington, D.C.
In these states, voters can register using alternative forms of identification, such as utility bills, bank statements, or the last four digits of a Social Security number. Even for first-time voters, a photo ID is not strictly necessary; they can use non-photo documentation. Critics argue that this lack of uniform ID requirements leaves the system vulnerable to manipulation.
The concern over election security isn’t theoretical. It has been highlighted by past voter registration scandals, such as the case involving GBI Strategies in 2020. This firm, contracted by several Democratic-aligned organizations, was found submitting fraudulent voter registrations in Michigan and other states. These included fake names, forged signatures, and false addresses.
Despite widespread alarm, the FBI’s investigation into GBI Strategies has been ongoing for over four years with few details released to the public. Questions about the extent of fraudulent registrations and their impact on elections remain unanswered. Critics contend that such incidents demonstrate how easily the system could be exploited, especially in states with minimal ID requirements.
Proponents of stricter voter ID laws argue that the lack of photo ID requirements in these states undermines the integrity of elections. They point to the possibility of fraudulent registrations and even votes slipping through the cracks, particularly in close races.
Bobbie Gross, a county clerk in Colorado, emphasized the importance of security measures, stating:
“We need secure, transparent elections to maintain public trust. When people question the integrity of the system, it’s our responsibility to show them that safeguards are in place.”
Opponents, however, argue that voter ID laws could disenfranchise voters, particularly those from marginalized communities. They maintain that the risks of voter fraud are minimal compared to the potential harm of preventing eligible voters from participating in elections.
The debate over voter ID laws and election security is emblematic of a broader division in U.S. politics. Many conservatives see stricter ID requirements as essential to safeguarding democracy, while liberals often view them as unnecessary barriers to voting.
The controversy is unlikely to dissipate soon. The National Voter Registration Act and state-specific laws ensure a degree of flexibility in how voters can prove their eligibility. However, critics of these laws argue that without standardized photo ID requirements, the system will remain vulnerable.
The 2024 election results have reignited the push for stricter election laws. Republican lawmakers in several states have already proposed legislation to tighten ID requirements and eliminate loopholes in voter registration processes. Whether these efforts will gain traction remains to be seen, especially in states controlled by Democrats, where such measures are unlikely to pass.
As the nation grapples with these issues, one thing is clear: public trust in the electoral process is crucial. Without it, confidence in democratic institutions could erode further. Transparent and secure elections are not just about preventing fraud; they are about ensuring that every American’s vote is counted fairly and accurately.
Advocates for tighter election laws argue that photo ID requirements are a simple, common-sense solution to potential vulnerabilities. Critics counter that these measures are unnecessary and could suppress voter turnout. The path forward will depend on finding a balance that secures elections while ensuring accessibility for all voters.
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Opinion
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
You Version
Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more
Political
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Spiritual
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Bible Gateway
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
What Did You Say? 
Jack Smith Resigns as Special Counsel Amid Controversy Over Trump Cases
| American Patriot
Read more at https://libertyonenews.com/jack-smith-resigns-as-special-counsel-amid-controversy-over-trump-cases/
Jack Smith, the controversial special counsel tasked with investigating former President Donald Trump’s attempts to challenge the 2020 election, has officially stepped down. His resignation comes just weeks before President-elect Trump is set to take office, sparking heated debates over the legitimacy of the cases brought against Trump and their broader implications for justice in America.
Conservative commentator Mark Levin, host of LevinTV, was quick to weigh in, calling Smith’s resignation both predictable and overdue. Levin minced no words in his criticism, declaring that Smith’s departure underscores the collapse of the legal efforts aimed at Trump. “You know why? It’s simple. He’s an unconstitutional prosecutor. Donald Trump’s going to fire his ass,” Levin said.
Levin argued that the cases against Trump were doomed from the start, pointing to internal Department of Justice (DOJ) memos and procedural violations. He highlighted the dismissal of one of Smith’s cases in Florida as a clear sign of their instability.
Levin accused the DOJ and Smith of pursuing Trump with the sole intent of derailing his political career. He claimed this approach not only violated DOJ policies but also undermined the integrity of the judicial system.
Smith’s cases focused primarily on Trump’s efforts to challenge the 2020 election results, actions Levin described as entirely lawful and historically common.
Levin highlighted past instances where election challenges were not only permitted but celebrated by political leaders. He cited Al Gore’s legal battle in Florida during the 2000 presidential race and efforts in Minnesota that ultimately handed Al Franken a Senate seat.
Smith’s resignation has fueled speculation about its timing, particularly given Trump’s imminent return to power. Critics argue that Smith’s exit may be an attempt to avoid the embarrassment of being fired by the incoming administration or to shield himself from further scrutiny. Supporters of Trump see this as vindication of their belief that the legal cases against him were politically motivated and lacked substance. Levin emphasized that the abrupt nature of Smith’s departure only reinforces this narrative.
Smith’s resignation is part of a larger debate over the role of the justice system in political matters. Critics argue that targeting Trump for challenging the 2020 election has set a dangerous precedent, effectively criminalizing actions that were previously considered routine aspects of political contests. As Smith steps aside, attention shifts to how Trump’s incoming administration will handle the fallout. Levin and others are urging Trump’s attorney general to launch investigations into the motivations and conduct behind Smith’s cases, with some calling for accountability measures to restore public trust in the justice system.
For Trump, Smith’s resignation marks a significant victory, further energizing his supporters and reinforcing his narrative of political persecution. Yet it also raises questions about how his administration will navigate the legal and political challenges that remain.
The stage is set for a dramatic showdown as Trump prepares to re-enter the White House, with Smith’s resignation serving as a powerful symbol of the broader battles yet to come.
Share this:
Category:
corruption, Law, Political
Tagged with: