Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for the ‘Law’ Category

Merrick Garland’s J6 Juries Prove Durham’s Point: Conservatives Can’t Get A Fair Trial In D.C.



AG Merrick Garland

Author Margot Cleveland profile




Special Counsel John Durham breached neither ethics nor etiquette when he highlighted the difficulty of obtaining a conviction in a politically charged case when the jury holds opposing partisan views. He merely stated the reality on the ground in D.C.-area federal courts. And by his own actions prosecuting the J6 defendants solely in the nation’s capital, Attorney General Merrick Garland has confirmed that assessment by proving the corollary: Criminal cases against individuals viewed by the local populace as political pariahs make for easy convictions. 

“Did the Durham Report’s Criticism of Juries Go Too Far?” The Washington Post’s headline from last week asked rhetorically. It was quite an ironic concern coming from the legacy outlet serially guilty of publishing fake news to propagate the Russia-collusion hoax. A better question for the “democracy dies in darkness” rag would be: Did Clinton and Democrats’ Dirty Politics Go Too Far?

But no, instead of focusing on the substantive content contained in the 300-plus pages of Durham’s report detailing malfeasance by the Department of Justice and FBI and the Clinton campaign’s responsibility for the scandal, The Washington Post focused on Durham’s introductory remarks explaining the “special care” the special counsel’s office used in making criminal charging decisions — decisions Durham stressed were “based solely on the facts and evidence developed in the investigation and without fear of, or favor to, any person.”

After noting the high burden the Constitution places on the government in criminal cases, Durham explained why, in numerous instances, he did not seek criminal charges even though the conduct deserved “censure or disciplinary action.” 

“In examining politically-charged and high-profile issues such as these, the Office must exercise — and has exercised — special care,” Durham explained. “First, juries can bring strongly held views to the courtroom in criminal trials involving political subject matters,” Durham continued, “and those views can, in turn, affect the likelihood of obtaining a conviction, separate and apart from the strength of the actual evidence and despite a court’s best efforts to empanel a fair and impartial jury.”

Those taking umbrage at Durham’s remarks, claiming they erode faith in our justice system, seem to have missed that the Justice Department’s manual, “The Principles of Federal Prosecution,” quoted in the special counsel report, makes the same point. Sometimes while “the law and the facts create a sound, prosecutable case,” the manual explained, there is still “the likelihood of an acquittal due to unpopularity of some aspect of the prosecution or because of the overwhelming popularity of the defendant or his/her cause…” It continues:

For example, in a civil rights case or a case involving an extremely popular political figure, it might be clear that the evidence of guilt viewed objectively by an unbiased factfinder would be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction, yet the prosecutor might reasonably doubt, based on the circumstances, that the jury would convict.

Prosecutors in such cases, the manual explained, might assess a guilty verdict unlikely “based on factors extraneous to an objective view of the law and the facts.”

In other words, biased juries and politics, rather than an “objective view of the law and the facts,” may dictate whether a defendant is convicted or acquitted. These are not merely the sentiments of Durham or Republicans, but the Department of Justice. So it isn’t Durham’s words that erode trust in the legal system, but rather insular juries.

It also isn’t merely the unsuccessful cases Durham brought against Michael Sussmann in the D.C. federal court and Igor Danchenko in the nearby federal court in Virginia that foster Americans’ distrust of the justice system. It is also the DOJ’s insistence that the scores of J6 prosecutions remain in the nation’s capital.

D.C. Jury Pool Is Biased

Following the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol, the Department of Justice has charged hundreds with federal crimes. Because the alleged offenses occurred in D.C., federal law provides that “venue,” meaning the physical location for the criminal proceedings, is proper in the federal D.C. district court. 

Congress, however, has provided two bases to change venue. First, a federal court must transfer the criminal proceedings if the defendant requests a change of venue and “so great a prejudice against the defendant exists … that the defendant cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial there.” 

While many J6 defendants have moved for a change of venue based on such prejudice, the DOJ has uniformly opposed the transfers. And because the “so great prejudice” standard is nearly insurmountable, the federal D.C. district court has denied the change of venue requests, even against evidence that 90 percent of D.C. voters cast their ballots against Trump in both 2016 and 2020. Furthermore, while almost everyone in D.C. knows about the indictments, polls show more than 70 percent of them — which is 15 percent higher than the national average — have formed an opinion about guilt or innocence.

Nor have the D.C. federal courts granted a change of venue “for convenience” — a second statutory basis Congress provided — which would allow the J6 defendants to be tried in their home states for their convenience, the convenience of witnesses, and “in the interest of justice.” Given that the DOJ farmed out the J6 cases to field offices throughout the United States, tasking local agents with surveilling and arresting the defendants, and that there are U.S. attorney offices in every state, trying the defendants across the country is also no inconvenience to the federal government. 

So even if the prejudice is not “so great” that it is mandatory to change the venue of the case, why does the DOJ oppose the discretionary transfer for convenience? 

Because Garland — like Durham — knows D.C. juries “bring strongly held views to the courtroom in criminal trials involving political subject matters and those views can, in turn, affect the likelihood of obtaining a conviction.” In fact, so great is the concern of a pro-DOJ bias that several defendants have made the nearly unheard-of decision in a criminal case to waive their right to a jury trial and have the judge decide their fate.

Americans likewise recognize the effect biased juries have on case outcomes. The attorney general ignoring the public perception of Lady Justice peaking from behind her blindfold will further erode respect for the judicial system and likely prompt future jurors to convert the trial process to a payback system — convicting the innocent or acquitting the guilty in a misguided attempt to right the scales of justice.

What Courts and Congress Should Do

The courts and Congress can and should respond. When faced with discretionary venue changes for “convenience,” courts should weigh more the “convenience” of the defendants and “the interest of justice.” When a question of mandatory transfers based on “great prejudice” arises, the courts should stop pretending our partisan divide is passable based on jurors’ promises.

Congress has several options too. While it has authorized the Supreme Court to promulgate rules governing federal criminal procedures, it retains the power to enact its own rules. At a minimum, in high-profile criminal cases, Congress should grant both the prosecution and the defense more “peremptory challenges” — challenges to members of the jury pool that can be used for any reason (except invidious discrimination). This will eliminate some of the most concerning situations. 

For instance, in Durham’s trial against Hillary Clinton’s former lawyer, Sussmann, the federal judge rejected several of Durham’s “for-cause” challenges against jurors who had contributed to the Clinton campaign. When for-cause challenges fail, attorneys must rely on a limited number of peremptory challenges, six for the special counsel’s legal team and 10 for Sussmann. Expanding the number of peremptory challenges would allow for the removal of more potentially prejudiced jurors, and without a venue change, this represents the best mechanism for ensuring an unbiased jury.

More significantly, though, Congress should amend the venue rules to give defendants a better opportunity to relocate highly politicized cases to less partisan locales. While the courts already have that power, they have proved themselves too parsimonious to date. 

But what about when partisanship prejudices the prosecution? Here, the Sixth Amendment places limits on venue, providing that in “all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law…”

In other words, while a defendant may consent to a change of venue, he can also demand a trial in “the State and district wherein the crime” was committed. 

However, the Constitution also gives Congress the authority to “ascertain” the districts. To counter the overwhelmingly parochial D.C. populace, redrawing the borders of the district to limit venue there to the physical Capitol buildings, and then have the rest of D.C. subsumed by the surrounding districts in Virginia and Maryland, would ensure a broader jury pool.

Only so much can be done, however, to ensure juries don’t supplant the rule of law with their political passions, acquitting the guilty because they prefer the defendant’s politics to the prosecutor’s. But that’s the reality that comes from a constitutional system that protects individual rights against government abuse and believes “that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”

That’s a good thing, especially as the current DOJ frames pro-lifers and parents as domestic terrorists. But that doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing to remind Americans that juries may not convict because of strongly held political passions rather than actual innocence. Nor is it a bad thing to push Congress to ensure the venue statutes counter bias to the largest extent possible.

Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.


Veteran Chicago prosecutor quits with blistering letter on crime: ‘I will not raise my son here’

By Anders Hagstrom | Fox News | Published May 9, 2023 12:18pm EDT


A 20-year veteran Chicago prosecutor quit his job and wrote a blistering letter to his colleagues on his way out Friday, blasting the city’s “stupid” leaders and declaring they set the city “on a course to disaster”

Jason Poje, a felony trial attorney, put in his two weeks’ notice with the city at the end of April. Before he left, however, he sent a goodbye letter to 85 colleagues to explain that the city’s insistence on following a “popular political agenda” has made Chicago more dangerous for everyone.

“The simple fact is that this State and County have set themselves on a course to disaster. And the worst part is that the agency for whom I work has backed literally every policy change that had the predicable, and predicted, outcome of more crime and more people getting hurt,” Poje wrote, referring to the office of Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx.

“Bond reform designed to make sure no one stays in jail while their cases are pending with no safety net to handle more criminals on the streets, shorter parole periods, lower sentences for repeat offenders, the malicious and unnecessary prosecution of law enforcement officers, overuse of diversion programs, intentionally not pursuing prosecutions for crimes lawfully on the books after being passed by our legislature and signed by a governor, all of these so-called reforms have had a direct negative impact, with consequences that will last for a generation,” he continued.


Lori Lightfoot
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who recently lost her reelection bid, was extremely unpopular among police and law enforcement groups. (Kamil Krzaczynski / File)
Chicago police cars with their lights on respond to a suspected carjacking and shooting
Chicago police vehicles arrive at a crime scene. (FOX32 Chicago WFLD / File)

While Poje’s letter did not mention Foxx by name, it did reference “stupid State’s Attorney policies.” Foxx’s office did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.


Poje also remarked on how he respected his colleagues who were willing to stay in the city despite the difficulties. Poje said he needed to leave for the sake of his family’s safety.

“Many years ago, my family found a nice quiet corner of the suburbs. Now my son, who is only 5, hears gunfire while playing at our neighborhood park, and a drug dealer is open-air selling behind my house (the second one in two years),” Poje wrote.

“I will not raise my son here. I am fortunate enough to have the means to escape, so my entire family is leaving the State of Illinois. I grew up here, my family and friends are here, and yet my own employer has turned it into a place from which I am no longer proud to be, and in which my son is not safe,” he added.

States' Attorney Kim Foxx
State’s Attorney Kim Foxx has lost several prosecutors over her policies. “I have zero confidence in leadership,” one wrote.

Poje’s exit comes less than a year after another prosecutor, Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney Jim Murphy, resigned in protest against Foxx’s leadership.

“I wish I could stay,” he wrote in July 2022 “However, I can no longer work for this Administration. I have zero confidence in leadership.”

Anders Hagstrom is a reporter with Fox News Digital covering national politics and major breaking news events. Send tips to, or on Twitter: @Hagstrom_Anders.

Jason Whitlock: America’s broken family structure killed Jordan Neely and might destroy a former Marine

JASON WHITLOCK | May 04, 2023


New York Daily News / Contributor, Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Jordan Neely’s dad abandoned him in childhood. Neely’s stepfather strangled and disposed of his mother when Neely was just 14 years old. According to people who knew Neely, the murder of his mother and the abandonment by his father caused Jordan Neely to fall into depression and mental illness. With his family support erased, in recent years Neely became a schizophrenic, homeless nuisance terrorizing the streets and subways of New York.

Neely’s life ended in inevitable tragedy Monday afternoon. He menaced the wrong group of New York subway riders. A former Marine wrestled Neely to the ground from behind and applied a choke hold to restrain him, and at least one other passenger helped subdue Neely. The 30-year-old vagrant lost consciousness and died.

On Wednesday, the medical examiner’s office ruled Neely’s death a homicide, stating neck compression as the cause of death.

Political opportunists and corporate and social media appear ready to turn Neely into the next George Floyd, a heroic martyr and symbol of American unfairness, an excuse to riot and loot.

Say his name! Jordan Neely.

According to social media pundits, the Marine and the black man who helped subdue Neely maimed and lynched innocent Jordan Neely, a Michael Jackson impersonator, a young man with a bright future, had white supremacy not reared its ugly head.

After hours of careful Twitter deliberation, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez posted her verdict. “Jordan Neely was murdered,” she wrote. “But [because] Jordan was houseless and crying for food in a time when the city is raising rents and stripping services to militarize itself while many in power demonize the poor, the murderer gets protected [with] passive headlines + no charges. It’s disgusting.”

AOC is a lawmaker, sworn to uphold the constitution and our agreed-upon laws. She does not believe in our “innocent until proven guilty” standard of law. What she sees on Twitter is more than enough to prove murder.

For the record, homicide and murder are two different things. There is justifiable and legal homicide. Murder can’t be justified. Murder is always a crime. Homicide is not.

We’ve murdered truth and nuance.

Jordan Neely is not the second coming of Emmett Till. He’s a victim of the widespread destruction of family. Not just his family, but the destruction of the American family.

New York is a lawless hellhole captured by the demons created by the breakdown of family and attack on authority. Unparented children and adults control the Big Apple’s streets and subways. Neely’s untreated mental illness made him a ticking time bomb in a city where law enforcement has retreated and chaos and disorder have escalated.

Vigilante justice is a natural outgrowth when law enforcement retreats to safety. Untrained, frustrated citizens will make mistakes. Opportunists will capitalize on those mistakes.

More than likely, the white Marine will be sacrificed so that politicians, corporate media, activists, clergy, and Neely’s own family do not have to deal with their role in his tragic life and death. We all played a role in cultivating the toxic, anti-family culture that killed Jordan Neely. The people most passionately seeking to punish the Marine are the most guilty.

AOC participated in the defund-the-police insanity. She helped loose the criminal lunacy torturing NYC. Black Lives Matter conspired with New York’s Democratic politicians and prosecutors to prioritize the welfare of criminals above law-abiding citizens. The black church centered racial justice and government assistance over preservation and promotion of the family. Corporate media rewards and revels in racial controversy.

Jordan Neely’s father unleashed the first deadly strike to Jordan’s soul when he abandoned his son. Neely’s stepfather fired the fatal shot when he killed Neely’s mother. Jordan Neely’s been in a coma for 16 years. The white Marine pulled the plug.

Had the former Marine been black, all the people feigning outrage would treat Jordan’s death as a merciful abortion. No one would care. And I mean no one.

Black gang members will kill men no different from Jordan Neely across America today. None of it will make national news. There will be no protests. No calls for justice. Most of the murders will go unsolved. No-snitch culture will protect the killers.

No one has truly cared about Jordan Neely since his mother died 16 years ago. No one cares today. People care about the color of the former Marine who choked Jordan Neely.

Black life does not matter. White perpetrators of black death are what really matter. They’re scarce and valuable. Political opportunists and social media clout chasers pounce on these situations regardless of circumstance. It’s political gold.

Lawyers chase ambulances. Liberals chase coroners, hoping to find a dead black body killed by whites. They bribe the coroner investigating the death and hire a media mortician who can make the body look as angelic as possible. Al Sharpton performs the eulogy, and Ben Crump passes the collection plate.

The opportunists have no interest in a solution. Solutions would undermine their ability to profit from the deaths of black men killed by white men.

Charging the white Marine with murder won’t solve or improve anything. It will make the wannabe hero just another victim of America’s broken family structure. Restoring the family is the only hope for America.

Another Day, Another Shoddy Politico Hit Piece Aimed at the Conservative Legal Movement



The Federalist Society

Every day a new hatchet job aimed at justicesjudges, and the conservative legal movement appears in the corporate media. The purpose of this coordinated campaign, as we saw today during the Senate’s judiciary hearings, is to provide more fodder to delegitimize the court and intimidate jurists.

Now, activist groups have always shopped oppo research to journalists. Most of it is so absurdly unpersuasive that no self-respecting writer, partisan or not, would take ownership of it. These days, though, with little quality control and virtually no consequences for spreading false partisan attacks, a person without journalistic ethics can probably build a career on the stuff.

Which brings me to Heidi Przybyla’s new piece at Politico: “Leonard Leo used Federalist Society contact to obtain $1.6 billion donation.” This is her second hit piece in a week — in the first, she couldn’t decipher/purposely misrepresented Neil Gorsuch’s financial disclosure form.

This one begins like so:

“Leonard Leo, who helped to choose judicial nominees for former President Donald Trump, obtained a historic $1.6 billion gift for his conservative legal network via an introduction through the Federalist Society, whose tax status forbids political activism.”

It’s difficult to untangle the accusation being leveled here. The three chilling components of the tale — “Donald Trump,” the “$1.6 billion gift,” and the “Federalist Society” — all make for good conspiratorial copy, but they have nothing to do with each other in the context of this story.

Basically, a well-known Washington operative named Leonard Leo was introduced to a prospective donor by his old Federalist Society coworker. According to the piece, which is thin on specifics, it looks like Leo, who had helped Trump with his originalist judicial nominees, convinced Barre Seid to give him funding instead of the Federalist Society, which he promised to disseminate more effectively. That’s it.

Who knows, maybe Przybyla is under the impression that it’s illegal for one-time employees of 501(c)(3)s to interact with any prospective political donors they meet through old acquaintances. Maybe she thinks prospective donors to tax-exempt groups are forever prohibited from speaking or giving to any political operatives. Maybe she thinks there are a special set of rules only conservatives must follow. But dropping the words “tax status forbids political activism” at the top of the story is clearly meant to insinuate that some unscrupulous behavior will be exposed.

Sorry. All we learn after reading the 1700-word piece is that a bunch of normal Washington, D.C. fundraising stuff is happening and that no one broke any law or did anything unethical. The point of the piece, as it is with the recent spate of these stories, is to create the impression of unethical behavior. Specifics aren’t important. That’s why the story is padded with journalistic-sounding red herrings and a string of scary words like “dark money” — a term favored by activist journalists who want to make completely legal and ethical contributions to completely legitimate political causes sound creepy, illicit, ominous, and unsavory.

According to Przybyla, for example, the pro-court packing smear outfit Demand Justice is a “progressive judicial group.” Leo, on the other hand, helms a “dark money vehicle,” a “dark money group,” and even a “dark money network,” all phrases that appear in this one Politico piece. “Dark money” is mentioned seven times in case you miss its first six appearances.

In the end, the real crimes here are that conservatives are raising money and that a “conservative” legal movement has experienced some success and stands in the way of unconstitutional, progressive policy goals. That makes leftists angry. That’s the story.  

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

Author David Harsanyi profile




7th-grader sent home for wearing ‘there are only two genders’ T-shirt takes school officials to task

By: MICHELE BLOOD | May 01, 2023


Image source: Middleborough Educational Television YouTube channel screenshot

A middle school student who says he was sent home for wearing a T-shirt that said “there are only two genders,” bravely, brilliantly, and bluntly addressed the matter at a Middleborough Public Schools Committee meeting.

“I never thought that the shirt I wore to school … would lead me to speak with you today,” 12-year-old Liam Morrison said, having lowered the microphone to deliver his statement.

Young Liam is a seventh-grader at Nichols Middle School in Middleborough, Massachusetts, Fox News Digital reported.

Liam explained that he was taken out of gym class in March for what turned out to be a “very uncomfortable talk.” He said two adults told him the shirt he was wearing was making some people feel “unsafe” and that he would have to remove it to return to class.

The preteen said that though he was told he was not in trouble, it felt like he was.

When he said he did not want to remove his shirt, school officials called his father to pick him up, according to Liam’s account.

“Thankfully, my dad supported my decisions,” Liam said.

“What did my shirt say? Five simple words: There are only two genders. Nothing harmful, nothing threatening. Just a statement I believe to be a fact.”

Then Liam got to the heart of the matter, and the young, bespectacled gentleman held nothing back.

“I was told that my shirt was ‘targeting a protected class.’ Who is this protected class? Are their feelings more important than my rights?”

Liam said he didn’t complain when he saw diversity posters and pride flags in the school “because others have rights to their beliefs just as I do.”

Liam said no students or staff told him they were bothered by what he was wearing. To the contrary, he said. Some students said they supported him and wanted a similar T-shirt.

Despite being told his shirt was a “disruption to learning,” Liam said no one stormed out of class or burst into tears.

“I experience disruptions to my learning every day. Kids acting out in class are a disruption, yet nothing is done,” Liam said. “Why do rules apply to one but not another?”

“I feel like these adults were telling me it wasn’t OK for me to have an opposing view.

“Their arguments were weak, in my opinion,” Liam said, briefly looking up from his papers, directing his gaze at the adults on stage.

“I have learned a lot in this experience. … I learned that adults don’t always do the right thing or make the right decisions.”

“I know I have the right to wear a shirt with those five words. Even at 12 years old, I have my own political opinions and I have a right to express those opinions, even at school. This right is called the First Amendment to the Constitution.”

“I hope you will speak up for the rest of us so we can express ourselves without being pulled out of class,” Liam concluded, thanking the committee for its time.

Watch 12-year-old Liam Morrison address the Middleborough Public Schools Committee meeting starting at 09:40 below.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Court Rulings Give North Carolina And Florida Republicans Major Wins For Election Integrity



People voting on Election Day

North Carolina and Florida Republicans chalked up major wins last week after a series of court rulings upheld their respective election integrity efforts.

On Friday, the North Carolina Supreme Court overturned its previous decision banning gerrymandered districting in the state. Last year, the court’s then-Democrat majority (4-3) “threw out a state Senate map from the Republican-led state legislature and maintained congressional boundaries that had been drawn up by trial judges.” After Republicans won the state’s two Supreme Court races during the 2022 midterms, the high court’s new conservative majority (5-2) opted to rehear the case earlier this year.

“In its decision today, the Court returns to its tradition of honoring the constitutional roles assigned to each branch,” wrote Chief Justice Paul Newby in Friday’s decision. “This case is not about partisan politics but rather about realigning the proper roles of the judicial and legislative branches. Today we begin to correct course, returning the judiciary to its designated lane.”

In December, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Moore v. Harper, a case pertaining to the North Carolina redistricting fiasco. As The Federalist’s Margot Cleveland reported, the justices will ultimately decide whether a state court has the ability to usurp the constitutional power of state legislatures and “impose its own map for congressional districts drawn after the decennial census.”

[READ: In Moore v. Harper, SCOTUS Could Decide Who Gets The Final Say In A 2024 Election Dispute]

In addition to gerrymandering, the North Carolina Supreme Court also issued separate rulings upholding a previously passed voter ID law and overruling a trial court decision that permitted convicted felons on probation or parole to vote. In December 2018, the GOP-controlled General Assembly passed a bill mandating citizens show a form of valid ID when voting several weeks after North Carolina voters approved a photo ID constitutional ballot initiative.

In September 2021, a trial court struck down the 2018 statute, repeating the false claim that such laws discriminate against racial minorities. The then-Democrat-controlled Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling in December. Much like with its prior gerrymandering ruling, the high court’s new Republican majority decided to rehear the case.

According to The News & Observer, a local news outlet, acceptable forms of valid voter ID include a U.S. passport, an unexpired North Carolina driver’s license, a local or state government employee ID card, or a state voter identification card.

Legal Victory for Florida Republicans

Meanwhile, Florida Republicans scored a major victory for election integrity last week after a federal appeals court upheld a 2021 law aimed at enhancing security procedures regarding the use of mail-in ballots and ballot drop boxes. On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled in a 2-1 decision that the March 2022 ruling by U.S. District Judge Mark Walker — an Obama appointee — was severely flawed.

In his decision, Walker alleged that Florida lawmakers demonstrated “intent to discriminate against Black voters” and asserted that the statute is “the stark result[] of a political system that, for well over a century, has overrepresented White Floridians and underrepresented Black and Latino Floridians.” The appeals court disagreed, writing that “the findings of intentional racial discrimination rest on both legal errors and clearly erroneous findings of fact.”

The court further admonished Walker’s faulty legal analysis, particularly his error in claiming that “a racist past is evidence of current intent.”

Under our precedent, this history cannot support a finding of discriminatory intent in this case. Florida’s more recent history does not support a finding of discriminatory intent,” wrote Chief Judge William Pryor.

Notably, Walker is also the judge tasked with overseeing Disney’s ongoing lawsuit against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

Shawn Fleetwood is a Staff Writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Author Shawn Fleetwood profile




Judge Forces Sorority Girls to Disclose Identities to Stop Disturbing ‘Trans’ Male from Moving into Their House



Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority with trans member
At stake is the destruction of female-only organizations and the safety of the University of Wyoming Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority sisters.

Author Evita Duffy-Alfonso profile




AU.S. district court judge ordered University of Wyoming sorority sister plaintiffs to reveal their names in a lawsuit against Kappa Kappa Gamma’s University of Wyoming chapter for allowing a transgender-identifying man to be inducted.

According to local news, “The six sorority sisters sued the Kappa Kappa Gamma’s parent organization, its president and the school’s first transgender sorority member late last month in a closely watched case. They alleged that the sorority did not follow its bylaws and rules, failed to uphold its mission, breached its housing contract with members, and misled them by admitting a transgender student.” The plaintiffs filed the suit anonymously as “Jane Does” and assigned the pseudonym “Terry Smith” to the trans-identifying sorority member.

Patsy Levang, a member of Independent Women’s Network’s North Dakota Chapter and former Kappa Kappa Gamma National Foundation president, told The Federalist that the plaintiffs asked for anonymity twice out of fear of “retribution,” but the judge denied their requests. Concerns for the women’s safety have become extra heightened after college swim athlete Riley Gaines was attacked by transgender radicals at San Francisco State University. According to Levang, one of the original seven plaintiffs left the case after the judge’s decision.

“These are young, young women — between 18 and 21, and we want to do nothing to jeopardize their safety,” said Levang, who added that the girls will have “guaranteed” security at all times during public appearances. 

‘An Erection Visible Through His Leggings’

If the lawsuit is unsuccessful, transgender-identifying man Artemis Langford, who was admitted into the sorority in 2022, will move into the Kappa Kappa Gamma chapter house in the fall of 2023. 

The lawsuit states that Langford is 6’2’’ tall, weighs 260 pounds, has not undergone any apparent chemical or surgical trans medical interventions, and rarely attempts to look like a female. It also reveals that the female plaintiffs feel extremely uncomfortable around Langford, who has allegedly engaged in bizarre and even “threatening” behavior, such as staring at the women without talking for hours, asking inappropriate questions, and at one point having “an erection visible through his leggings.”

During the recruitment process, Langford “avoided answering questions about his hobbies, passions, or involvement in other organizations,” according to the lawsuit. Instead, it says, he inquired about whether he could live in the sorority house and “talked about his desire to be near cadavers and to touch dead bodies.”

“One sorority member walked down the hall to take a shower, wearing only a towel. She felt an unsettling presence, turned, and saw Mr. Smith watching her silently,” the lawsuit reads. The suit also alleges that Langford “repeatedly questioned the women about what vaginas look like, breast cup size, whether women were considering breast reductions and birth control.” 

During a yoga class sponsored by the Panhellenic Union for sorority members at the University of Wyoming, Langford allegedly “sat in the back of the room for an hour and watched the assembled women flex their bodies.” The suit also alleges that Langford has repeatedly used his phone to covertly take pictures of the women in the sorority house without their consent.

When one plaintiff raised her concerns about Langford, chapter officials — under the direction of national leadership — gave her materials so she could “educate” herself. And a witness in the case was allegedly “threatened with discipline if she does not agree that [Langford] is a woman.”

‘Intimidated’ into Inducting a Man 

The plaintiffs said they were “intimidated” into inducting Langford into the sorority, and according to reports about the lawsuit, officers and employees from the national organization “actively pressured members of the chapter to support [Langford’s] admission to the sorority, ignoring bylaws and standing rules that would have foreclosed his initiation.” The voting process was also allegedly altered for Langford, and he was not admitted via secret ballots, as is standard practice. 

The lawsuit contends that instead of following official bylaws, Kappa Kappa Gamma admitted Langford based on a 2018 “Guide for Supporting Our LGBTQIA+ Members,” which says the sorority accepts both “women” and “individuals who identify as women.” After the lawsuit was filed, Kappa Kappa Gamma Executive Director Kari Kittrell Poole reiterated the sentiments within the guide, telling the Associated Press that the sorority does not discriminate based on so-called gender identity. 

However, the collegiate plaintiffs disagree with Poole on what it fundamentally means to be a woman. “An adult human male does not become a woman just because he tells others that he has a female ‘gender identity’ and behaves in what he believes to be a stereotypically female manner,” they said. 

“[Kappa Kappa Gamma] has been a place that values the good, the true, the beautiful, the leadership growth in women,” Levang told The Federalist. Levang made it clear she doesn’t oppose Langford’s decision to identify as a woman. She does, however, oppose the destruction of female-only organizations, the integrity and politicization of her former sorority, and the safety of the University of Wyoming Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority sisters. 

“I look at those young women, and I think they deserve at least what I was afforded,” said Levang. “This whole thing takes single-sex organizations and just throws it out the door. It’ll literally destroy [women’s spaces]. But then I think the overall plan is to destroy the level that women have gained.”

Verified Complaint and Attachments by The Federalist on Scribd

Evita Duffy-Alfonso is a staff writer to The Federalist and the co-founder of the Chicago Thinker. She loves the Midwest, lumberjack sports, writing, and her family. Follow her on Twitter at @evitaduffy_1 or contact her at

6 Reasons The IRS Whistleblower Will Blow Open DOJ’s Biden Family Protection Racket



Joe and Hunter Biden
The IRS whistleblower should terrify those behind the DOJ’s Biden family protection racket.




An Internal Revenue Service (IRS) whistleblower hinted to congressional leaders last week that the FBI improperly blocked aspects of the Hunter Biden investigation and that Biden-appointed U.S. attorneys blocked an indictment against the president’s son on tax charges. The carefully worded letter also indicated Attorney General Merrick Garland had testified inaccurately when he told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Trump-appointed Delaware U.S. attorney had the authority to file charges against Hunter Biden in other jurisdictions. 

Here are six reasons this whistleblower should terrify those behind the DOJ’s Biden family protection racket.

1. Whistleblower Has Corroborating Evidence

While Wednesday’s letter from the whistleblower’s attorney to the congressional oversight chairs spoke only in cryptic terms, as I detailed on Friday, individuals claiming to be “directly familiar with the case” revealed the whistleblower had accused two Biden-appointed U.S. attorneys of refusing “to seek a tax indictment against Hunter Biden despite career investigators’ recommendations to do so.” 

The sources also claimed the whistleblower’s disclosures establish that Garland refused Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss’s request for special counsel protection and that Garland testified inaccurately when he represented to the Senate Judiciary Committee that Weiss had full authority “to bring cases in other jurisdictions if he feels it is necessary.” 

It isn’t merely the seriousness of the whistleblower’s accusations that should shake those sheltering Hunter Biden, however, but the promise of corroborating evidence.

The whistleblower’s attorney, Mark Lytle, reportedly maintains his client can “identify contemporaneous witnesses to corroborate his claims of political interference.” The whistleblower will “be able to talk about these meetings that he attended, that were with both agents and prosecutors … and how he summarized those meetings and put it in writing and distributed those to folks within the IRS and sometimes other agents,” Lytle claims, adding that those contemporaneous memoranda and emails will “end up corroborating his credibility.”

Sources also maintain DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz has already begun reviewing documents that purportedly corroborate the whistleblower’s claims. They say he has sought out both IRS and FBI witnesses, indicating several paths exist to confirm the accusations of political bias.

2. IRS Agent Is Nonpartisan and Credentialed

The whistleblower’s apparent nonpartisan pedigree is another reason for participants in the Biden protection racket to be afraid. The whistleblower is “not a political person” and does not have a “political agenda,” Lytle told Fox News last week. He “is a career law enforcement official who hasn’t made any political donations and doesn’t even use social media,” the IRS agent’s attorney told Just the News. 

“He is just a guy who likes his job as a law enforcement officer, as an investigator, and he takes it seriously, and he’s dedicated,” Lytle explained, adding, “And when he sees something that is not routine and doesn’t follow the rules, or … something maybe is affected by politics — that’s what made him come forward.”

“My client wrestled with whether or not to come forward,” the whistleblower’s attorney told Fox News. He had “sleepless nights. He decided he could not live with himself if he stayed quiet and said nothing.”

Also strengthening the whistleblower’s claims of a nonpartisan motivation is his insistence that “when he comes forward, this is not to talk to just one party or the other party.” Lytle stressed his client wants both sides of the political aisle to “ask him questions and cross-examine him.” 

That Lytle is one of the whistleblower’s attorneys will also negate concerns of partisanship, given the attorney previously represented Yoel Roth, Twitter’s former head of trust and safety, during the heated Republican-controlled weaponization hearings. Lytle is also “currently defending a former FBI supervisor named Timothy Thibault who has been accused of pro-Biden political bias.” Before retaining Lytle, the whistleblower hired “prominent Democrat lawyer Mark Zaid, who previously represented clients whose allegations about a call with the Ukrainian president led to Donald Trump’s first impeachment in 2019.”

His dedicated service at the IRS will likewise bolster the whistleblower’s credibility. As an IRS special agent for more than 10 years, the whistleblower reportedly has been “trusted with international investigations,” received several commendations, and taught “other agents how to properly do investigations.” His lengthy experience will strengthen his claims that “protocols that would normally be followed by career law enforcement professionals in similar circumstances” were not followed in the case of the politically connected Hunter Biden. 

3. Dual Authorization Was Required

The IRS whistleblower’s claims that two Biden-appointed U.S. attorneys inappropriately, and for political reasons, “declined to seek a tax indictment against Hunter Biden” carry more weight given the dual-authorization procedures required by the DOJ for criminal tax cases.

The Department of Justice Manual provides that the tax division oversees federal criminal tax enforcement. Thus, while a grand jury is empowered to investigate tax crimes, “the Tax Division must first approve and authorize the United States Attorney’s Office’s use of a grand jury to investigate criminal tax violations.” Accordingly, in tax cases, prosecutions generally require two independent assessments that criminal prosecution is appropriate. 

In the case of Hunter Biden, both career investigators and career prosecutors in the DOJ tax division signed off on the recommended charges, the whistleblower maintains. That dual approval suggests the evidence underlying the proposed charges was strong. It also pits the two Biden-appointed U.S. attorneys, who allegedly declined to seek charges against the president’s son, against the recommendations of two distinct sets of career employees.

4. Criminal Violations Seem Obvious

“Of course, Biden officials are interfering in his son’s case — why else has Hunter skated for five years?”

That title from former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy’s Friday New York Post article capsulizes perfectly another reason those running the Biden family protection racket should be shaking: The political favoritism shown Hunter Biden is obvious.

Who else could lie on a federal firearm form to purchase a handgun — only to lose physical possession of the gun and have it turn up across the street from a school — without getting charged with a federal crime? 

As McCarthy wrote, “The gun offenses are so straightforward that they’d take a competent investigator five days, not five years, to wrap into a prosecutable case.” Likewise, “[s]ome of the tax offenses, which stretch back seven years or more, are so undeniable that liens were placed on Hunter’s properties…”

A public that for years has witnessed the president’s son escape any consequence for his clearly criminal conduct will easily nod along to the whistleblower’s claims of political favoritism: The IRS agent’s accusations aren’t just believable — they are self-evident.

5. The Timing Is Suspect

The timing also renders the whistleblower’s claims believable. Recall that in March of 2022, The New York Times began prepping the country for an indictment of Hunter Biden by soft-peddling his criminal conduct. The Times even previewed several potential defenses the president’s son could assert to counter the series of predicted criminal charges. 

The Times article was a transparent attempt to get ahead of an anticipated story, namely that a grand jury had indicted Hunter Biden. But a grand jury indictment never dropped. Instead, about six months later, the whistleblower reportedly filed complaints related to the investigation with the U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration and the DOJ’s Office of Inspector General. The whistleblower’s complaints indicated charges had been recommended and approved by the tax division but never materialized because the Biden-appointed U.S. attorneys did not seek grand jury indictments as recommended.

The New York Times’ efforts to groom Americans to discount the seriousness of the expected criminal charges wasn’t needed because the DOJ and FBI already had the president’s son covered.

6. The Scandal Reaches the FBI and POTUS

The Biden-appointed U.S. attorneys who allegedly declined to seek grand jury indictments against the president’s son are not the only ones implicated, however. The whistleblower’s allegations reportedly also reach FBI headquarters, although that does not necessarily mean Director Christopher Wray. 

The unnamed sources further maintain the whistleblower’s disclosures claim that “specific DOJ employees placed strictures on questions, witnesses and tactics investigators may be allowed to pursue that could impact President Biden.” This accusation suggests political corruption beyond the refusal of the DOJ to charge Hunter Biden with tax crimes. 

Whether the “specific DOJ employees” refers to individuals working at FBI headquarters or elsewhere with the DOJ is unclear. Either way, the whistleblower’s claim conflicts with Garland’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he had left the matter of Hunter Biden to the Delaware “U.S. Attorney’s office and the FBI squad working with him.” 

Garland’s testimony suggests that whoever instituted those “strictures” acted without the authority to do so. That is bad enough, but the implication is worse: namely that either FBI headquarters or other DOJ employees have kept the president from being incriminated during the multi-year unraveling of Hunter Biden’s complicated “business” ventures. 

Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Judge Nukes Alvin Bragg’s Request To Quash Subpoena Because ‘No One Is Above The Law’



Alvin Bragg
‘By bringing this action, Bragg is engaging in precisely the type of political theater he claims to fear,’ the court wrote.

Author Margot Cleveland profile




A federal judge on Wednesday denied Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s request for a court order to prevent the House Judiciary Committee from questioning a former prosecutor involved in the investigation of Donald Trump. Bragg, however, didn’t just lose on the merits. The court’s 25-page order eviscerated the Manhattan D.A. — and his former prosecutor, Mark Pomerantz.

Two weeks ago, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, issued a subpoena directing Pomerantz to appear before the House Judiciary Committee at 10:00 on April 20, 2023. Pomerantz was previously a special assistant district attorney before abruptly resigning because Bragg had allegedly decided not to seek criminal charges against Trump.

Bragg responded to news of the subpoena by directing Pomerantz not to provide any information about his prior work to the Judiciary Committee. He also filed a complaint in federal court against Jordan and the committee, seeking an order declaring the Pomerantz subpoena invalid. Bragg simultaneously sought entry of a temporary restraining order to freeze the subpoena pending resolution of his lawsuit.

On Wednesday, federal Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied Bragg’s request to stop the Judiciary Committee from questioning Pomerantz. “Mr. Pomerantz must appear for the congressional deposition. No one is above the law,” Vyskocil wrote in a transparent swipe at the New York prosecutor who hung his pathetic indictment on that platitude. 

While Bragg posited that the Judiciary Committee lacked a valid legislative purpose to issue the subpoena, Vyskocil rejected that argument. Congressional committees have the constitutional authority to conduct investigations and issue subpoenas, the court explained, and the court’s role is “strictly limited to determining only whether the subpoena is ‘plainly incompetent or irrelevant’” to any legitimate committee purpose. Because Jordan and the committee identified several valid legislative purposes underlying the subpoena, the court held Bragg could not quash it.

The court also held that the “speech or debate clause,” which provides that “for any Speech or Debate in either House,” Senators and Representatives “shall not be questioned in any other Place,” likely would prevent Bragg from suing Jordan and the committee.

Vyskocil also rejected Bragg’s argument that requiring Pomerantz to submit to questioning would infringe on the attorney-client and work-product privilege the Manhattan D.A.’s office held regarding communications Pomerantz was privy to. Here, the court stressed that the indictment of Trump occurred long after Pomerantz had resigned and that any privilege that may have existed was likely waived by Pomerantz publishing his book, “People vs. Donald Trump: An Inside Account.”

“As its subtitle indicates, the book recounts Pomerantz’s insider insights, mental impressions, and his front row seat to the investigation and deliberative process leading up to” the Trump indictment, the court wrote. Yet Bragg did next to nothing to stop the publication of the book. Under these circumstances, “Bragg cannot seriously claim that any information already published in Pomerantz’s book and discussed on prime-time television in front of millions of people is protected from disclosure,” the court concluded.

It Gets Better

The court’s conclusion, however, wasn’t the highlight of the decision. Rather it was Vyskocil’s summary of how the country arrived at a place where it sees a state prosecutor filing a complaint in federal court against the House Judiciary Committee that includes 35 pages and a vast majority of exhibits that “are nothing short of a public relations tirade against former President and current presidential candidate Donald Trump.”

That descriptor alone should give pause to anyone still believing Bragg’s indictment of Trump was righteous. But the opinion highlighted many more facts that confirm the targeting of Trump was a witch hunt.

For instance, it included many excerpts from Pomerantz’s book showing the criminal charges against Trump were ridiculous. So-called “hush money” payments to Stormy Daniels “did not amount to much in legal terms,” Pomerantz wrote. “Paying hush money is not a crime under New York State law, even if the payment was made to help an electoral candidate.” 

The book excerpts quoted by the court included numerous additional problems Pomerantz saw with the legal theory Bragg eventually relied upon in charging Trump. Trump and his legal team have been highlighting these same many flaws. And now a federal judge just told the country that the “very experienced, sophisticated, and extremely capable attorney” Pomerantz — who had wanted to charge Trump — agreed with all (or most) of Trump’s legal arguments. 

The court also noted that Pomerantz was a “pro bono” attorney for the Manhattan D.A.’s office. This should strike the public as strange, especially in light of the well-heeled credentials the opinion highlighted: his clerkship at the Supreme Court, his work as a federal prosecutor, and his many years as a criminal defense attorney and partner at the prominent New York City law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.

While the court omitted any mention of Paul, Weiss’ connections to the Biden administration and Democrats, referring to Pomerantz’s “pro bono” status should raise some red flags.

If not, Vyskocil was more explicit elsewhere in the opinion, such as when she said she was “unmoved by Bragg’s purported concern at the prospect of ‘inject[ing] partisan passions into a forum where they do not belong.’”

“By bringing this action, Bragg is engaging in precisely the type of political theater he claims to fear,” the court wrote.

Beyond chastising Bragg for playing politics, Vyskocil rebuked him for his legal arguments, most devastatingly when Bragg argued the court should quash the subpoena of Pomerantz to ensure the grand jury’s secrecy.

“The secrecy of the grand jury proceedings in the pending criminal case was compromised before the indictment was even announced,” Vyskocil countered, citing CNN’s coverage of the charges against Trump based on leaks. 

The court also unleashed a few zingers on Pomerantz. While Pomerantz complains he is in a “legally untenable position” because he will be forced to make a choice between “legal or ethical consequences” or “potential criminal and disciplinary exposure,” the court “notes that Pomerantz is in this situation because he decided to inject himself into the public debate by authoring a book that he has described as ‘appropriate and in the public interest.’” 

And in response to Pomerantz making “it abundantly clear that he will seek to comply with Bragg’s instructions” not to respond to the subpoena, the court remarked that Pomerantz “claimed deference to the District Attorney’s command is a surprising about-face, particularly given that Pomerantz previously declined the District Attorney’s request to review his book manuscript before publication.”

What Next?

Those already well-versed in the outrageousness of the indictment will take delight in the court’s ripostes. The question remains, however, whether the opinion’s detailed summary of the flaws in Bragg’s legal theory — as identified by Pomerantz himself — will convince the remainder of the country that the indictment is a sham. Or will they discard Vyskocil’s decision as a Trump-appointee diatribe?

Maybe it will take the Judiciary Committee questioning Pomerantz on those precise weaknesses for the unconvinced to realize that once again Trump is right — it is a witch hunt. 

We should know soon whether the questioning will go forward and whether Pomerantz will respond to the questions or follow Bragg’s directive. But if the latter, both Bragg and Pomerantz will find themselves back in front of Vyskocil because the Trump appointee wisely ruled that any future disputes related to the Pomerantz subpoena or other subpoenas related to the Judiciary Committee’s inquiry must be filed in the same case mater. 

Vyskocil’s devastating conclusion likely caused Bragg as much heartache as her denial of his motion to declare the subpoena of Pomerantz invalid. For Bragg knows that absent reversal by the Second Circuit, the same outcome awaits further challenges of the House Judiciary Committee’s subpoena power.

Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.


White House insists no ‘political interference’ in Hunter Biden probe after IRS whistleblower comes forward

By Brooke Singman | Fox News | Published April 20, 2023 12:22pm EDT


EXCLUSIVE: The White House on Thursday dismissed allegations from a whistleblower who claims the Biden administration has mishandled the federal investigation into Hunter Biden, and said President Biden has upheld his commitment to ensure the investigation is “free from any political interference.”

“Since he took office and consistent with his campaign promise that he would restore the independence of the Justice Department when it comes to decision-making in criminal investigations, President Biden has made clear that this matter would be handled independently by the Justice Department, under the leadership of a U.S. Attorney appointed by former President Trump, free from any political interference by the White House,” White House spokesman Ian Sams told Fox News Digital on Thursday.

“He has upheld that commitment,” he added.

The White House comment came after an IRS criminal supervisory agent seeking whistleblower protections said the investigation into Hunter Biden is being mishandled by the Biden administration. The whistleblower is claiming “clear” conflicts of interest, including by giving the president’s son “preferential treatment,” and says politics are “improperly infecting decisions and protocols that would normally be followed by career law enforcement professionals in similar circumstances if the subject were not politically connected.”


Hunter Biden gets off plane with president
President Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, step off Air Force One at Hancock Field Air National Guard Base in Syracuse, N.Y., on Feb. 4, 2023. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

Hunter Biden has been under federal investigation since 2018. The federal investigation into his “tax affairs” began amid the discovery of suspicious activity reports (SARs) regarding funds from “China and other foreign nations.” In 2020, it became known that the FBI had subpoenaed the laptop purportedly belonging to Hunter Biden in the course of an existing money laundering investigation.

Hunter Biden confirmed the investigation into his “tax affairs” in December 2020, after his father was elected president. The investigation is being led by Trump-appointed Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss.


Since taking office, the White House has maintained that the president never spoke to his son about his business dealings, and has continued to say that the president was never involved in them. Officials also say the president has never discussed investigations into members of his family with the Justice Department.

Ahead of his presidency, Biden’s campaign proposed a plan to “prevent the president or White House from improperly interfering in federal investigations and prosecutions.”

Joe and Jill Biden exit Marine One
President Biden and first lady Jill Biden arrive at Fort Lesley J. McNair in Washington from a weekend trip to Rehoboth Beach, Del., on July 10, 2022. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

On the first day of his administration, President Biden issued an executive order establishing an administration-wide ethics pledge, which required officials to commit to conduct that “upholds the independence of law enforcement and precludes improper interference with investigative or prosecutorial decisions of the Department of Justice.”

But the IRS whistleblower is alleging the investigation into Hunter Biden is being mishandled.

The whistleblower’s attorney, Mark D. Lytle of the Washington, D.C.-based law firm Nixon Peabody LLP, wrote to lawmakers in both the House of Representatives and the Senate to say his client has been overseeing the “ongoing and sensitive investigation of a high-profile, controversial subject since early 2020 and would like to make protected whistleblower disclosures to Congress.”


Lytle informed lawmakers that his client has “already made protected disclosures internally at the IRS, through counsel to the U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, and to the Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General.”

Lytle said the protected disclosures “contradict sworn testimony to Congress by a senior political appointee” and involve “failure to mitigate clear conflicts of interest in the ultimate disposition of the case.”

Joe and Hunter Biden
Since President Biden took office, the White House has maintained that he never spoke to his son about his business dealings, and has continued to say that the president was never involved in them. (Andrew Harnik-Pool/Getty Images)

Lytle also said his client has also detailed examples of “preferential treatment and politics improperly infecting decisions and protocols that would normally be followed by career law enforcement professionals in similar circumstances if the subject were not politically connected.”


“My goal is to ensure that my client can properly share his lawfully protected disclosures with congressional committees,” he wrote, offering to meet in person to provide more detail on his client’s testimony.

The letter was sent to top Republicans and Democrats on the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the Senate Finance Committee, and the House Ways and Means Committee.

Republicans on the House Oversight Committee have been investigating Hunter Biden’s business dealings, as well as business dealings and ventures involving other members of the Biden family. The committee is investigating whether those business arrangements pose a risk to U.S. national security, and whether President Biden is involved.

Brooke Singman is a Fox News Digital politics reporter. You can reach her at or @BrookeSingman on Twitter.

IRS Whistleblower on Hunter Biden Wants Protection

Kevin Jackson | April 19, 2023


Hunter Biden, Kevin Jackson
 Image credit: Washington Post

As predicted, Republicans turned up the heat on the Biden Crime Family. So, America and the world will soon learn just how far the tentacles go in the Biden family’s corrupt business.

Remember when Barack Obama’s IRS targeted conservative organizations? Lois Lerner got a wrist slap, and all was well with the Leftist world. Oh the irony.

According to MSN,

An IRS special agent involved in the federal investigation into Hunter Biden’s taxes is seeking whistleblower protections to provide what are said to be sensitive disclosures about the probe to Congress.

Sensitive disclosures. The same sensitive disclosures the Bidens with help from Fed Chief Janet Yellen fought to conceal, perhaps? But thanks to the Chinese-owned Cathay Bank, the Republicans got a peek under the kimono.

The story continues,

Attorney Mark D. Lytle, a lawyer for the unnamed IRS employee, wrote in a letter Wednesday to a bipartisan group of lawmakers that he represents a “career IRS Criminal Supervisory Special Agent who has been overseeing the ongoing and sensitive investigation of a high profile, controversial subject since early 2020” and would like to make protected whistleblower disclosures to Congress.

While Lytle did not name Biden in the letter obtained by NBC News, a source familiar with the matter who also verified the authenticity of the letter said the investigation in question refers to the federal probe into the finances of President Joe Biden’s son Hunter.

Did not name Biden? How funny is that. Who else could it be that one would ask for whistleblower protection. Certainly not Trump or his kids. If you “drop dime” on the Trump, you get a medal. But if you drop dime on a Democrat, you need witsec.

As for authenticity, MSN isn’t the only source. The letter was previously reported by CBS News and the Wall Street Journal.

What does the IRS agent want to disclose?

Things will get ugly for Hunter Biden and the Biden Syndicate. Because according to Lytle, the IRS special agent is prepared to provide information that would “contradict sworn testimony to Congress by a senior political appointee”. Let be honest: this testimony will burn more than a “senior political appointee”. I can only imagine the conversation happening with the people involved in the coverups for the Bidens. Which goat will be selected for this suicide mission?

Along with burning at least on Biden appointee, the information provided will reveal failures to handle “clear conflicts of interest” in the case, as well as detail instances of “preferential treatment and politics improperly infecting decisions and protocols.”

FBI Director Chris Wray: Is this thing on?!

We know the DOJ, and specifically the FBI helped the Bidens. But given the potential forensic cavity search this agent may have performed, who knows where this will lead. As one might expect, the Treasury Department and the IRS did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Justice Department and IRS declined to comment.

Stay tuned boys and girls. The dam is about to break.

Whistleblower Disheartened: Hunter Biden Still Pulling Strings

Tiffany Layne | April 19, 2023


Hunter Biden, Kevin Jackson
 Image credit: Washington Post

It’s hard to grapple how the Bidens continue to get a hard pass for the MANY scandals they’ve orchestrated. Yet, that’s exactly what happens again and again.

In the months before the 2020 election, news of Hunter Biden’s laptop broke. Of course, leftists and the mainstream media branded the scandal a form of Russian disinformation.

Why would Hunter want to admit his drug binges, orgies with Russian hookers that were sometimes financed by dear old dad, Burisma payments, selling access to the Big Guy, or the many other scandalous behaviors the abandoned laptop unearthed? Taking ownership of one’s own wrongdoing is not a leftist skillset.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green just issued a statement regarding more proof of the unethical and often illegal behaviors the Biden family engaged in. Yet, we haven’t seen a Biden indictment, impeachment, or cancellation.

From Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene:

We just finished reviewing the financial records in the treasury. What I saw was over 2000 pages of jaw dropping information. There’s basically an enterprise wrapped around Joe Biden involving not only multiple family members, more than we thought there were, but other people as well. Just a complete conglomerate of Lies. These shell companies where money was passing through from foreign countries. China, Ukraine, but many more countries than just those.

There’s a lot of information the American people deserve to know of the Biden family and the crimes they’ve been involved in. And the Oversight Committee has a much bigger investigation to do than we ever thought was possible.

I just saw evidence of human trafficking that involves prostitutes not only from here in the United States, but foreign countries like Russia and Ukraine. This is unbelievable that a President and a former Vice President, not only his son Hunter Biden, but many more family members extending past Hunter Biden and his immediate family.

We’re going to have to really get to work. This is an investigation that needs to be revealed to the American people. And not only do we have questions about Hunter Biden himself, but this is going to extend into developing a web of corruption, a web of fake companies that’s going to reveal money that came in from many foreign countries and went directly into the personal bank accounts of the Biden family where they have financially benefited directly from Joe Biden’s seats of power. We look forward to investigating, exposing for this for the American people and we’ll see where it goes from there.

Pulling Strings

Of course, at this point we know what the crimes are. The only question is ‘why aren’t these crimes being prosecuted?’. It’s a disheartening situation, to say the least. Especially if you happen to be the whistleblower who stuck your neck out to hold these crooked leftists accountable.

Fox News reports:

An IRS Criminal Supervisory Agent seeking whistleblower protection claims the investigation into Hunter Biden is being mishandled by the Biden administration. In a letter dated April 19, 2023, attorney Mark D. Lytle of the Washington, D.C.-based law firm Nixon Peabody LLP tells members of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate that his client has been overseeing the “ongoing and sensitive investigation of a high-profile, controversial subject since early 2020 and would like to make protected whistleblower disclosures to Congress.”

The story was first reported by the Wall Street Journal, and Fox News has since confirmed the story through a source familiar with the investigation that the subject at issue is Hunter Biden.

In Wednesday’s letter, Lytle said his client has already made legally protected disclosures internally at the IRS. The protected disclosures, Lytle notes, “contradict sworn testimony to Congress by a senior political appointee.”

Lytle also said his client has information that the investigator failed to mitigate “clear conflicts of interest,” adding that the investigator allegedly allowed preferential treatment and politics to infect decisions and protocols normally followed by law enforcement professionals if the subject was not politically connected.

“My goal is to ensure that my client can properly share his lawfully protected disclosures with congressional committees,” Lytle said in the letter. “Thus, I respectfully request that your committees work with me to facilitate sharing this information with congress legally and with the fully informed advice of counsel.”

Representatives for the first son did not immediately respond to questions regarding the alleged mishandling of the investigation. The president’s son has been under federal investigation since 2018, which is being led by Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss, a prosecutor appointed by former President Donald Trump.

Fox News first reported in December 2020 that Hunter Biden was a subject/target of a grand jury investigation, which was prompted, in part, by Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) regarding suspicious foreign transactions.

He has not been charged with ANY crimes.

House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., told Fox that efforts by the Biden administration to block efforts to charge Hunter were “deeply concerning.”

“The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability has been following the Bidens’ tangled web of complex corporate and financial records. It’s clear from our investigation that Hunter and other members of the Biden family engaged in deceptive, shady business schemes to avoid scrutiny as they made millions from foreign adversaries like China,” he said. “We’ve been wondering all along where the heck the DOJ and the IRS have been. Now it appears the Biden administration may have been working overtime to prevent the Bidens from facing consequences.”

Op-ed: The Post Office fired me for honoring the Lord’s Day. Supreme Court must make this right

 By Gerald Groff | Fox News | Published April 13, 2023 2:00am EDT


My roots in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania run deep.  Growing up here it was rare to see businesses open on Sundays.  It was the Lord’s Day.  We spent the morning in church, the afternoon with family, and honored God by resting from our regular labor—something God commanded we do in the fourth of the Ten Commandments.

I never thought I would lose my job for honoring the Lord’s Day. 

As I matured, I looked for jobs that would respect the Lord’s Day.  The United States Postal Service seemed a perfect fit.  Not only could I drive the rural routes of my boyhood, it famously did not deliver on Sundays.  I could have a good career and respect the Lord’s Day.

It was an ideal job until the Postal Service contracted with Amazon to provide Sunday delivery.  At first, we managed to find a workable solution: I would work every holiday that did not fall on the Lord’s Day and take extra route work on weekdays and Saturdays to make up for not working Sundays. 


As much as I was able to accommodate the Post Office, stepping in to help other employees when they needed it most, the Postal Service would not accommodate me.  If I were a full-time rural carrier, it would be no problem.  Full-time carriers have enough seniority to be contractually exempt from work on Sundays.  If I had been willing to compromise what I believed and worked just a few Sundays, I would have reached seniority to get a full-time route and gone on to have a long career with the U.S. Postal Service.

Authorities say a mail dropbox outside of a Pennsylvania post office has been struck dozens of times by thieves searching for money and checks. 
Authorities say a mail dropbox outside of a Pennsylvania post office has been struck dozens of times by thieves searching for money and checks.  (FOX 29 Philadelphia)

It was either I violate God’s command to me and honor the Lord’s Day by keeping it holy or honor Him and trust Him with the outcome.  On the verge of my ideal career, I surrendered all my seniority, unwilling to sacrifice my hope of becoming a full-time carrier at the prospect of refusing God’s decree—even if it meant working just one Lord’s Day.

The response by the Postal Service was brutal.  I felt targeted for almost two years.  Rather than respect my religious beliefs, the Postal Service chose to make an example out of me.  Postal management sent me for eight different “pre-disciplinary interviews” at the main post office.  Each one took about two hours out of my work day, and I still had to finish all of my routes—and without overtime pay.

My employer purposefully assigned me more work than the same carriers I had been supporting every Saturday and holiday by working so they could have time off with family.  Without explanation or justification, USPS docked my pay.  If I had just compromised what I believed about the Lord’s Day—even just a handful of times—all of it would have gone away.  Compromising what we believe is never the right choice.

Surely an employer the size of the Postal Service could have found a way to accommodate a single employee’s religious beliefs.  Instead, it disciplined me so severely, it was quit or be fired.

Gerald Groff lives in Lancaster, Pennsylvania and is a former postal employee.  The U.S. Supreme Court will hear his case on April 18, 2023. 
Gerald Groff lives in Lancaster, Pennsylvania and is a former postal employee.  The U.S. Supreme Court will hear his case on April 18, 2023.  (First Liberty Institute)

Now, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether religious employees like me who work extra shifts, holidays, and cover for his colleagues deserve a religious accommodation in the workplace.  Only God knows the final outcome; I still trust Him even if my decision to honor the Lord’s Day cost me my career. 

Our nation has a long history of protecting employees from being treated differently just because of their faith.  That is something woven into the fabric of our nation, including Lancaster County.  The heritage of respect and tolerance our nation has shown to the Old Order Amish and Mennonites who are my neighbors in Lancaster County is a lovely thing.  Yet the U.S. Postal Service refused to extend that religious tolerance to me.

I hope the Supreme Court reaffirms our nation’s commitment to providing equal opportunity and fair treatment in the workplace.  No employee should be forced to make the same decision the Postal Service forced upon me: faith or job.

Gerald Groff lives in Lancaster, Pennsylvania and is a former postal employee.

Sam Brinton Avoids Jail Time For Stealing Women’s Luggage While Meme Creator Faces 10 Years Behind Bars



Sam Brinton

Nearly 80 percent of Americans believe there is a two-tiered justice system. Last week’s courtroom episodes only validate the public’s perception.

On Friday, President Joe Biden’s allegedly “non-binary” nuclear waste expert, Sam Brinton, was sentenced in a grand larceny case over stealing women’s luggage from U.S. airports. Police say Brinton stole a bag from Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas with an estimated worth of around $3,670. Authorities also charged Brinton with stealing luggage at a second airport in Minnesota.

The former Energy Department official took a plea deal over the Las Vegas bag theft Friday, agreeing to pay a $3,670 fine to the victim and a $500 criminal fee — no jail time required. The Minnesota theft remains an open case, with the next hearing scheduled for Monday, according to Fox News.

Contrast Brinton’s slap on the wrist to a pro-Trump meme creator convicted of illegal election influencing last month, and it’s no wonder Americans see a two-tiered justice system. Douglass Mackey faces 10 years behind bars over a 2016 post mocking how low Democrats want to set barriers to the ballot box.

“Save time Avoid the line Vote from home. Text ‘Hillary’ to 59925 and we’ll make history together This November 8th,” the post read. Fine print at the bottom added, “Must be 18 or older to vote. One vote per person. Must be a legal citizen of the United States. Voting by text not available in Guam, Puerto Rico, Alaska or Hawaii. Paid for by Hillary For President 2016.” 

Federal prosecutors didn’t care that most online users played into the prank by texting the number “Hillary for Prison.” The DOJ indicted Mackey in January last year, 74 months after the 2016 presidential contest.

Brinton’s crime, meanwhile, inflicted real harm on those who lost their luggage.

Asya Idarous Khamsin is a Houston-based Tanzanian fashion designer whose luggage was allegedly stolen by Brinton in 2018. Khamsin went on Fox News’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight” three weeks ago to discuss what happened after her bag went missing. Khamsin said she and her husband saw Brinton wearing clothes resembling the custom-made designs matching the apparel in her lost bag when the pair turned on Fox News in December.

“Oh my God, I was shocked,” Khamsin said. “For more than 40 years, I work[ed] hard. All my work, it’s very paining.”

“I was asking myself how this person got my custom-made designs because it’s one of a kind, and wear them without fear and display in public,” Khamsin added. “I don’t accuse him as a thief, but there is [a] question to be answered here.”

The Texas-based fashion designer went on to share how the lost luggage caused her to miss a show and “let down my people.”

Mackey, on the other hand, is faced with a decade in prison over an online joke.

Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist and the author of Social Justice Redux, a conservative newsletter on culture, health, and wellness. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Sign up for Tristan’s email newsletter here.

Author Tristan Justice profile




Fraud-Prone Poverty Programs Are Ripping Off Taxpayers Nationwide



US Capitol
If the new Republican House majority wants to focus on fraud, start by looking at poverty programs.

Author Shad White profile



Three years ago, my office, the Mississippi Office of the State Auditor, learned through a whistleblower tip that Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds may have been misspent by the Mississippi agency handling that money. Several months later and after an investigation by my team, we revealed the startling truth: Tens of millions of welfare dollars had been embezzled.

TANF funds were used in Mississippi to pay for drug treatment at a luxury Malibu resort for the friend of the head of the agency dispersing the funds. It paid for an investment in an experimental concussion drug company. It financed religious concerts with no proof they were attended by the needy, nice cars for the heads of an influential local nonprofit — along with paying off a speeding ticket for one of them — and excessive rent for property owned by the people handing out the money.

And of course, national outlets from ESPN to the late-night comics picked up on our discovery that Hall of Fame quarterback Brett Favre was paid $1.1 million on a contract requiring him to give speeches he never gave. He also successfully lobbied for $5 million in welfare funds to be spent on a volleyball court at his alma mater where his daughter played.

All told, this was the largest public fraud in state history. Local and federal prosecutors took our findings and indicted six of the culprits. We arrested them, and five have pleaded guilty. The FBI continues to investigate the case, working with our entire case file and my team to get to the bottom of everything.

Nationwide Problem

Sadly, large fraud schemes in poverty alleviation programs have streamed across the headlines of newspapers around the country lately. In the last couple of months, federal prosecutors indicted two nonprofit executives in Minnesota for stealing $250 million from a program to feed hungry kids. In June of 2022, the New York Post reported the head of a New York nonprofit was paid millions in taxpayer funds to house the poor while living in an expensive high-rise and funneling taxpayer money to his for-profit businesses. The list goes on.

Now that Republicans have taken the majority in the U.S. House, they have a fresh opportunity to explore why the billions taxpayers spend on the poor are so prone to this sort of abuse. In November, House Republicans sent a letter to Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra arguing, “The Mississippi case is emblematic of a systemic problem: TANF lacks necessary guardrails making it susceptible to fraud.” They asked HHS to describe what they were doing to prevent the problem in the future.

This was a great start, and Republicans should double down on efforts to extirpate fraud from these kinds of programs. Connected powerbrokers who happen to run a nonprofit should not be the primary beneficiaries of our government’s spending for the poor. The House Ways and Means Committee should hold hearings to identify the best policy changes for these programs.

Proposals for Improvement

Here are a few ideas to get them started: Federal monitors should ensure state agencies are policing the nonprofits that take funds, tighter restrictions should be placed on how TANF can be spent (poverty programs should be focused on getting people into the workforce — period), and state agency heads should sign documents under penalty of perjury attesting to the number of poor people who were helped by their spending.

Finally, HHS should regularly report improper TANF spending to Congress. As House Republicans have noted, “Nearly every government assistance program is required to report improper payments on an annual basis, TANF is not.”

Voters expect government to act quickly to stop fraud in these programs. The belief that influence peddlers have rigged government spending for their benefit is bipartisan. Putting a stop to these sorts of schemes in poverty programs would appeal to a broad cross-section of Americans. Billions of dollars are spent across hundreds of these programs, so the savings could be massive if Congress gets this right. And most importantly, hard-earned taxpayer dollars might actually benefit the poor in our country.

Shad White is the 42nd State Auditor of Mississippi.

Judge’s Abortion Pill Opinion Tells The Truth About ‘Unborn Humans,’ And The Left Can’t Stand It



abortion pill protest after Roe v. Wade was reversed
In his 67-page straight-talking opinion, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk stuck to the facts — something Americans desperately need to hear after decades of euphemistic discussions about abortion.

Author Margot Cleveland profile




“Unborn humans.” “Eugenics.” “Head, hands, and legs, with defined fingers and toes.” “Shame, regret, anxiety, depression, drug abuse, and suicidal thoughts.”

Federal Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s Friday decision freezing the FDA’s approval of the abortion-pill combination, mifepristone and misoprostol, included these phrases and more. And while the left is already attacking Kacsmaryk’s 67-page straight-talking opinion in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA by framing it as filled with anti-abortion rhetoric, the Trump appointee stuck to the facts — something Americans desperately need to hear after decades of euphemistic discussions about abortion.

After a brief introduction in which Kacsmaryk highlighted the FDA’s two decades of stonewalling that delayed a legal challenge to the 2000 approval of the abortion drugs, the court opened with the basic facts. The plaintiffs — doctors and medical associations that provide health care to pregnant and post-abortive women and girls — sued the FDA, challenging several administrative actions related to the approval of the chemical abortion drugs. 

‘Unborn Humans’

The court then explained the drugs and their functioning: “Mifepristone — also known as RU-486 or Mifeprex — is a synthetic steroid that blocks the hormone progesterone, halts nutrition, and ultimately starves the unborn human until death.” But “because mifepristone alone will not always complete the abortion,” the court continued, “the FDA mandates a two-step drug regimen: mifepristone to kill the unborn human, followed by misoprostol to induce cramping and contractions to expel the unborn human from the mother’s womb.”

Calling an unborn human an “unborn human” immediately triggered abortion activists, but as Kacsmaryk explained in a footnote, such terminology is scientifically correct, whereas the lawyers and courts “often use the word ‘fetus’ to inaccurately identify unborn humans in unscientific ways.”

“The word ‘fetus,’” Kacsmaryk explained, “refers to a specific gestational stage of development, as opposed to the zygote, blastocyst, or embryo stages.” And because the FDA’s approval of the abortion drugs applies at multiple “gestational stages,” the word “fetus” would be inaccurate.

It is understandable that abortion activists want to hide the humanity of unborn humans, but that doesn’t make the science less real: It just means girls and women who have bought the “clump of cells” narrative will suffer when faced with the truth, which chemical “at home abortions” force. 

“The mother seeing the aborted human ‘appears to be a difficult aspect of the medical termination process which can be distressing, bring home the reality of the event and may influence later emotional adaptation,’” the court wrote, based on the record evidence. “For example, one woman was surprised and saddened to see that her aborted baby ‘had a head, hands, and legs’ with ‘[d]efined fingers and toes.’” 

Another woman alleged that “she did not receive an ultrasound or any other physical examination before receiving chemical abortion drugs from Planned Parenthood.” According to the record, “The abortionist misdated the baby’s gestational age as six weeks, resulting in the at-home delivery of a ‘lifeless, fully formed baby in the toilet,’ later determined to be around 30-36 weeks old.” 

Harm to Women

Beyond exposing the reality that abortion kills an unborn human, Kacsmaryk’s opinion also refuted the “popular belief and talking points” that using the abortion pill is “as easy as taking Advil.” Here, the federal judge detailed the factual evidence. Among other things, “bleeding from a chemical abortion, unlike surgical abortion, can last up to several weeks,” and by being done at home, “without physician oversight,” it can lead “to undetected ectopic pregnancies, failure of rH factor incompatibility detection, and misdiagnosis of gestational age — all leading to severe or even fatal consequences.” 

The opinion also countered the claim that side effects are rare by highlighting evidence that “over sixty percent of women and girls’ emergency room visits after chemical abortions are miscoded as ‘miscarriages’ rather than adverse effects to mifepristone.” 

The evidence also shows emotional and psychological injury, Kacsmaryk stressed, with 77 percent of women who underwent a chemical abortion reporting “a negative change” after the at-home abortion, and 38 percent of women reporting issues “with anxiety, depression, drug abuse, and suicidal thoughts because of the chemical abortion.” 

While the abortion industry prefers to cite its own evidence, as Kacsmaryk noted, those studies are flawed both because of the miscoding of chemical abortions as miscarriages and because the FDA stopped requiring the reporting of non-fatal adverse reactions.

Eugenic Roots

The left also didn’t like Kacsmaryk exposing the eugenic beliefs of the Population Council, which had sought FDA approval for the abortion drugs. John D. Rockefeller founded the Population Council in 1952, “after he convened a conference with ‘population activists’ such as Planned Parenthood’s director and several well-known eugenicists,” the court wrote. Attendees of that conference discussed “the problem of ‘quality,’” and concluded that “[m]odern civilization had reduced the operation of natural selection by saving more ‘weak’ lives and enabling them to reproduce,” thereby resulting in “a downward trend in … genetic quality.”

“[m]odern civilization had reduced the operation of natural selection by saving more ‘weak’ lives and enabling them to reproduce,” thereby resulting in “a downward trend in … genetic quality.” …….. “Natural Selection”????? Can you say, “disciples of Margarete Sanger”?

Many Americans remain oblivious to the historical backdrop eugenics played to the abortion movement, and activist groups prefer they remain in the dark. The sunlight Kacsmaryk shined upon that truth infuriates them.

Political Pressure

Judge Kacsmaryk also exposed the political pressure placed on the FDA to approve the abortion drug — something Americans are likely to appreciate more today in the aftermath of the FDA’s hasty approval of the Covid mRNA shots. 

In the case of the abortion pill, the FDA took the unprecedented step of arranging a meeting between the French pharmaceutical company that owned the patent rights and the eventual drug sponsor, the Population Council. “The purpose of the FDA-organized meeting was ‘to facilitate an agreement between those parties to work together to test [mifepristone] and file a new drug application.’” 

Evidence further shows the Department of Health and Human Services “initiated” another meeting to determine how the Clinton administration “might facilitate successful completion of the negotiations” between the French firm and the Population Council to ensure the group secure patent rights and eventual FDA approval.” In fact, Clinton’s HHS secretary “believed American pressure on the French firm was necessary.”

Then after the Population Council submitted a new drug application, the FDA proposed detailed restrictions to address safety concerns, including that the drug be administered by doctors “trained and authorized by law” to perform surgical abortions; trained in administering mifepristone and treating adverse events; and able to provide treatment at a medical facility that had the equipment necessary to perform surgical abortions, resuscitation procedures, and blood transfusion, within one hour’s drive. The FDA’s restrictions were leaked to the press, prompting a political firestorm. 

So Much for Safety

The FDA later abandoned the above safety mandates and approved the drug for use to kill unborn humans aged seven-weeks gestation or younger. The FDA further required three “in-person office visits: the first to administer mifepristone, the second to administer misoprostol, and the third to assess any complications and ensure there were no fetal remains in the womb.” All adverse events were also required to be reported. 

In 2002, the FDA removed even more of the safety restrictions, increasing the maximum gestational age from seven-weeks gestation to 10-weeks gestation, reducing the number of office visits from three to one, increasing the drug dosage, allowing non-doctors to prescribe and administer chemical abortions, and eliminating the requirement for non-fatal adverse reactions to be reported. Then in 2019, the FDA approved a generic version of the abortion pills, and on April 12, 2021, the FDA announced it would allow abortion pills to be dispensed through the mail. 

“Whether FDA abandoned its proposed restrictions because of political pressure or not,” the court wrote, “one thing is clear: the lack of restrictions resulted in many deaths and many more severe or threatening adverse reactions.” But “due to FDA’s lax reporting requirements, the exact number is not ascertainable,” Kacsmaryk stressed. 

Straight Facts

But it was not on politics that Kacsmaryk based his decision to freeze the FDA’s approval of the abortion pill. Rather, in his methodical opinion, the federal judge explained that the FDA lacked the authority to accelerate approval of the drug under what is called “Subpart H” of the FDA. That subpart only allows for accelerated approval of drugs that treat “serious or life-threatening illnesses” — something pregnancy is not. 

Kacsmaryk also concluded the evidence the FDA supposedly relied upon to approve the abortion drugs failed to support the conclusion that they were “safe and effective under particular conditions of use.” And finally, Kacsmaryk held the FDA’s approval of mail distribution violated the 1873 Comstock Act, which makes it illegal to use the mail to deliver any “article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion.” 

The Biden administration has already filed a notice of appeal with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and in issuing his opinion in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, Kacsmaryk entered a temporary stay, which he or the court of appeals will likely make permanent pending resolution of the case. Thus, abortion pills will remain available for now. 

How the Fifth Circuit and eventually the Supreme Court will rule remains to be seen, but what is clear now is the abortion-loving left is desperate to keep the truth about abortion from the public and is furious that Kacsmaryk dared to expose the reality: Abortion kills unborn humans.

Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Florida Sheriff Billy Woods goes off after reporter asks about gun control following teen murders

By Audrey Conklin | Fox News | Published April 7, 2023 12:54pm EDT


Marion County Sheriff Billy Woods on Friday slammed “society,” “school districts” and gun law rhetoric after announcing the arrests of two juveniles — one of which is just 12 years old — in connection with the recent killings of three teenagers in Florida.

A third juvenile suspect remains at large, and the attorney general’s office is weighing whether to charge all three suspects as adults, Woods said during a press conference.

“The fact is: society fails them. We do not hold our juveniles accountable. We minimize their actions,” Woods said Friday.

The suspects are accused of fatally shooting 16-year-old Layla Silvernail, 16-year-old Camille Quarles, and an unnamed 17-year-old male on or around March 30 in rural Marion County.


Marion County Sheriff Billy Woods blames society and school district failures for three juvenile suspects accused of killing three teenagers around March 30.
Marion County Sheriff Billy Woods blames society and school district failures for three juvenile suspects accused of killing three teenagers around March 30. (Fox News)

Woods told reporters he had to “look into the eyes” of the suspects’ mothers and inform them of their son’s crimes.

“Really, [the suspects’ parents] don’t have a whole lot to say. If you’re a parent, put yourself in their shoes. Holy hell. Panic. I’m scared to death as a parent. Embarrassed. Ashamed. What do you think they’re gonna say?” the sheriff said.


“I am a father, and I cannot fathom what they were going through. These mothers and the mothers across this nation need all of your help because here’s what infuriates me,” he added.

"I am a father, and I cannot fathom what they were going through. These mothers and the mothers across this nation need all of your help because here's what infuriates me," Marion County Sheriff Billy Woods said.
“I am a father, and I cannot fathom what they were going through. These mothers and the mothers across this nation need all of your help because here’s what infuriates me,” Marion County Sheriff Billy Woods said. (Marion County Sheriff’s Office/Facebook)

The sheriff also criticized media and others who put the blame on guns after a shooting.

“There are individuals out there viewing … who want to blame the one thing that has no ability or the capacity to commit the crime itself, and that’s the gun,” Woods said. “These individuals committed the crime.”


He added that he does not know what the solution is, but “[t]he bad guy’s going to get a gun no matter what laws you put in place.” Woods went on to blame society and schools for not holding juveniles accountable for their crimes.

Layla Silvernail, left, and Camille Quarles, along with an unidentified 17-year-old male, were shot and left for dead in Marion County, Florida, between March 30 and April 1.
Layla Silvernail, left, and Camille Quarles, along with an unidentified 17-year-old male, were shot and left for dead in Marion County, Florida, between March 30 and April 1. (Facebook/Layla Silvernail/Camille Quarles)

“I am a father,” he said. “But here’s the one thing my boys know: growing up, the freaking barber had my permission to whip their a–es.”

The suspects in the triple homicide were involved in a burglary and robbery ring and stole their firearms from cars, Woods said.

“A simple burglary, as some people would say — but I don’t consider anything ‘simple’ when it comes to a burglary — if the law allows me, I’ll plaster their face up … on my page, on media, I will hand it out if the law allows me because parents have the right to know who their kids are hanging out with and preventing this,” Woods said.

He continued, “Our school districts, not just here, across this state and across this nation need to stop minimizing the actions of their students. Hold them accountable. That’s where the failure is.”

Police first found Silvernail with a gunshot wound, lying on the side of the road in the area of Forest Lakes Park on SE 183rd Avenue Road. Authorities transported the teenager to a hospital in critical condition, and she lost brain function until she was pronounced dead.

Three teenage shooting victims were found left for dead miles apart in Marion County, Florida, between March 30 and April 1.
Three teenage shooting victims were found left for dead miles apart in Marion County, Florida, between March 30 and April 1. (America’s Newsroom)

A day after finding Silvernail, Marion County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) deputies responded to SE 94th Street and SE 188th Court and located a deceased 17-year-old male with a gunshot wound.

The next morning, on April 1, the MCSO Major Crimes Unit, Forensic Unit and Underwater Recovery Team responded to a tip and searched the area of Malauka Loop and Malauka Loop Trace and found Silvernail’s vehicle partially submerged in a body of water. The car was about 9 miles from where Silvernail was found.


The suspects were in Silvernail’s vehicle with the victims prior to their deaths, according to the sheriff. Authorities believe all three victims were shot at the same time.

“She was there of her own free will,” Woods said of Silvernail.

Layla Silvernail's family is planning to donate the 16-year-old's organs, according to a GoFundMe.
Layla Silvernail’s family is planning to donate the 16-year-old’s organs, according to a GoFundMe. (Facebook/Layla Silvernail)

After obtaining a search warrant and searching her vehicle, authorities found 16-year-old Quarles dead from a gunshot wound in Silvernail’s car. The arrested suspects confessed to shooting Quarles in the vehicle, Woods said.

Woods previously told Fox News Digital that he believed the suspects were part of a “wannabe” or “neighborhood” gang, and the victims likely knew them for a short time.

Police have not released the name of the male victim who was killed.

Audrey Conklin is a digital reporter for Fox News Digital and FOX Business. Email tips to or on Twitter at @audpants.

House Oversight Committee subpoenas banks for Biden family financial records

By Chad Pergram , Adam Sabes | Fox News | Published April 7, 2023 3:21pm EDT


The House Oversight Committee issued subpoenas to banks asking for the Biden family’s financial records.

Fox News has confirmed that the Oversight Committee subpoenaed Bank of America, Cathay Bank, JPMorgan Chase, HSBC USA N.A., as well as former Hunter Biden business associate Mervyn Yan asking for financial records.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, complained that Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., was trying to hide information regarding the investigation from Democrats on the committee.


House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., leads an organizational meeting for the 118th Congress, at the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2023.
House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., leads an organizational meeting for the 118th Congress, at the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2023. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

In a statement to Fox News, Comer said “Ranking Member Raskin has again disclosed Committee’s subpoenas in a cheap attempt to thwart cooperation from other witnesses. Given his antics with the first bank subpoena, the American people and media should be asking what information Ranking Member Raskin is trying to hide this time. No one should be fooled by Ranking Member Raskin’s games. We have the bank records, and the facts are not good for the Biden family.

President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, step off Air Force One, Saturday, Feb. 4, 2023, at Hancock Field Air National Guard Base in Syracuse, N.Y. 
President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, step off Air Force One, Saturday, Feb. 4, 2023, at Hancock Field Air National Guard Base in Syracuse, N.Y.  (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

The Oversight Committee Democratic staff sent a memo to members on Thursday which accuses Republicans of conducting their investigation behind a “veil of secrecy.”


“Despite this massive investment of time and resources, Republican efforts on this and other congressional committees have failed to yield any evidence of misconduct by President Biden. Nevertheless, Chairman Comer has issued six document subpoenas for financial records as part of this renewed investigation, several of which have been based on information Committee Republicans know to be false,” the memo states.

The Democratic memo alleges that Republicans haven’t been publicizing their subpoenas or notifying Democrats, which has purportedly resulted in some targets of subpoenas being unaware that the committee is seeking their records.


President Biden speaks during the annual House Democrats Issues Conference at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Baltimore on March 1, 2023.
President Biden speaks during the annual House Democrats Issues Conference at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Baltimore on March 1, 2023. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

“On February 27, 2023, Chairman Comer secretly issued the Committee’s first document subpoena as part of Committee Republicans’ ongoing investigation into the Biden family to Bank of America. This subpoena sought, among other information, “all financial records” from January 20, 2009, to the present — a staggering 14-year period — for John R. Walker, a private U.S. citizen… Yet, because of Chairman Comer’s use of a secret subpoena, Mr. Walker was never notified that the Committee had subpoenaed his financial records from Bank of America, he was never notified that Bank of America turned over his records to the Committee, and he was never notified that the Committee was publicly releasing information from these records,” the memo states.

Chad Pergram currently serves as a senior congressional correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC). He joined the network in September 2007 and is based out of Washington, D.C.

Maoist survivor issues chilling warning to those celebrating Trump arrest: ‘Cheering for your own demise’

By Bailee Hill | Fox News | Published April 6, 2023 2:00pm EDT


A survivor of the Chinese Cultural Revolution issued a chilling warning on the heels of the Trump indictment, arguing the tumultuous past of communist China is “repeating itself” in the U.S.

Xi Van Fleet, a Maoist survivor, joined “Fox & Friends First” to discuss why Tuesday, the day former President Donald Trump was arraigned in Manhattan, will be remembered as one of the “darkest” days in history. 

“You are cheering for your own demise, because… April 4th, 2023, would be remembered as one of the darkest day[s] in America when the Democrats made our country… a banana republic of communism,” Fleet told Todd Piro on Thursday. 


The former president was formally charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. He pleaded not guilty to all charges. The indictment was predicated on Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s years-long investigation into alleged hush money payments prior to the 2016 election. 

He has faced rampant bipartisan criticism surrounding the strength of the charges, and some have even tabled the move as “political persecution.”

Former President Donald Trump arrives at Trump Tower in New York on Monday for his expected booking and arraignment the following day on charges arising from hush money payments during his 2016 campaign.
Former President Donald Trump arrives at Trump Tower in New York on Monday for his expected booking and arraignment the following day on charges arising from hush money payments during his 2016 campaign. (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura)

Fleet noted that when she was growing up in China, Mao weaponized the law to target his political enemies, and that is now happening in the U.S., she warned. 


“When the totalitarian wins, no one is safe, we will all become victim[s],” Fleet said. “After the cultural revolution, what happened is China was brought to ruins and 20 some million lives lost. American people need to learn the history of the communism and to see that it is repeating right here in America.”

Hung Cao, who is a retired Navy captain, fled Vietnam decades ago, just before the fall of Saigon. He echoed Fleet’s sentiment on Thursday, saying Americans are falling “prey” to totalitarian leadership in wake of the indictment. 

“My grandfather was hauled away in the middle night. He was a magistrate and murdered in front of my mom, and so it’s just one of those things where if this can happen in the United States, that it can happen anywhere,” Cao said. 

“This is why I fought for this country for so many years. I wore uniform for 30 years and fought in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, for things like this, and here we are,” he continued. “We’ve fallen prey to all of this.”


Meanwhile, some critics worry China is celebrating the unprecedented indictment, in an effort to derail the significance of American democracy on the world stage. This could, in turn, have an impact on heightening bilateral tensions over Taiwan as relations between Washington and Beijing remain icy at best. 

The South China Morning Post, a media organization funded by the pro-China e-commerce firm Alibaba, published an op-ed saying China is “chuckling at the irony” of Trump’s arrest. 

“Chinese didn’t always feel the need, nor have the ammunition, to lampoon the U.S. political system,” the article says. “However, the generation of young people who shouted ‘Long live President Wilson’ at the end of World War I, and the idealistic generation who endorsed a ‘fight for freedom and democracy’ in Tiananmen Square in 1989, have little in common with young Chinese people today who see no upside to emulating American democracy.”


A delegation of U.S. lawmakers traveled to Taiwan to meet with the island’s leaders, despite clear warnings from Chinese officials that came on the heels of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s historic meeting with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen in Simi Valley, California, on Wednesday. 

“We have to show them that we’re going to stand with them and have the Seventh Fleet standing by to support them in case something happens,” Cao said. 

The Chinese military had a fleet surrounding the island during the lawmakers’ visit, according to Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas. Despite the “intimidation” tactics, he insisted the delegation would not succumb to the threats.   


Bailee Hill is an associate editor with Fox News Digital. Story ideas can be sent to 

Rep. James Comer: Investigation into Biden Corruption ‘Doesn’t Look Good for POTUS’



James Comer on Biden family corruption
‘This investigation is moving along at a lot faster pace, I think, than most people would have predicted,’ Comer said.

Author Jordan Boyd profile




In the House Oversight Committee’s (HOC) latest update on its investigation into the corruption of President Joe Biden, Chairman James Comer announced several former Biden family associates have eagerly agreed to speak with Republicans about how they were “left out to dry” by the Bidens.

“It doesn’t look good for @POTUS,” Comer warned during a Fox News segment on Monday.

Comer said that the HOC is in discussions with four associates who have inside knowledge about the foreign dealings the Bidens made with several of America’s political enemies. This, combined with potential testimony from two other associates who are currently tied up in litigation concerning their roles in Biden family businesses, could give the committee proof that the White House is compromised.

“If you look at everyone who’s ever been in business with Biden, whether it be Hunter Biden or Joe Biden, none of them ended well, none of the businesses ended well. Most of the businesses never got started off the ground,” Comer said. “Any money that was transferred in from China or adversaries around the world ended up in the Bidens’ back pockets.”

Now, Comer said, the HOC also has possession of the Biden family’s “suspicious activity” reports from the Treasury Department and subpoenaed the family’s bank records which will expedite Republicans’ investigation significantly.

The HOC confirmed in March that several Biden family members, including Hunter Biden, James Biden, Hallie Biden, an unknown “Biden,” and companies linked to the family “collectively received $1.3 million in payments from accounts related to Rob Walker, a Biden family associate.” Within six months of Vice President Joe Biden leaving the White House and after several bank transfers, the Bidens received the money.

Comer said the HOC still did not know who the unnamed Biden was in the China transaction because the Biden family holds so many bank accounts and LLCs.

“That right there is a red flag,” Comer said. “That’s one reason they got so many bank violations. If they’re in a legitimate business, why do you have to have so many different LLCs, and why, when China sends you a wire, do you have to send it through one, two, or even three LLCs to launder it before then hits a Biden bank account? This whole thing stinks to high heaven.”

Despite this, Comer said that once the HOC gains access to the LLCs, it can assess the Biden family’s bookkeeping habits.

“It’ll be interesting to see how and if they paid any taxes on this revenue that was coming in from our adversaries around the world,” Comer said. “What all did they write off?”

He also expressed optimism about the speed of the HOC’s investigation thus far.

“This investigation is moving along at a lot faster pace, I think, than most people would have predicted,” Comer said.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

No One Is Above the Law? Give Me A Break



The Clintons at Donald Trump's inauguration
On exacting poetic political justice.

Author David Harsanyi profile




Lock Donald Trump up, or don’t lock him up, but don’t tell me that “no one is above the law.” It’s one of the most ludicrous fantasies peddled by the left.

Plenty of people are “above the law.” James Clapper, who lied under oath to Congress about spying on the American people, is above the law. John Brennan, who lied about a domestic spying operation on Senate staffers, is above the law. Unlike Trump advisor Peter Navarro, Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder was never going to be handcuffed and thrown in prison for ignoring a congressional subpoena. He is above the law.

Trump’s 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton, is also above the law. The then-Secretary of State set up a private server in her home to circumvent transparency surrounding her slush-fund foundation. She sent 110 emails containing marked classified information, and 36 of those emails contained secret information. Eight of the email chains contained “top secret” information. Every one of those instances was a potential felony punishable with up to ten years in prison.

We learned all of this from James Comey, then FBI director, who noted that Hillary had been “extremely careless” in conducting her business. Comey didn’t recommend charges because, he claimed, the state couldn’t prove Clinton’s intent — even though “gross negligence,” not intent, was the only standard he needed. Gross negligence and extreme carelessness are synonyms. Comey concocted a new standard to protect Clinton because she is above the law.

When Hillary’s husband, also above the law, perjured himself under oath, Democrats argued that puritanical conservatives were only pursuing Bill because of some trumped-up charge over “sex.” Using that logic, Trump’s campaign finance charges related to Stormy Daniels’ “hush money” are also about sex. This is different because Trump is the boogeyman, and everyone knows he’s guilty of something. The important thing is getting that mug shot.

Don’t worry, though; former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says, “Everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence.” By “everyone,” she means Republicans. And if you think this authoritarian formulation is an accident, you haven’t been paying attention. When Democrats were smearing Brett Kavanaugh as a (gang) rapist a few years back, Mazie Hirono was asked whether the then-nominee deserved the “same presumption of innocence as anyone else in America?” After all, this wasn’t about any judicial disagreement but about alleged criminal behavior. The Hawaii senator responded, “I put his denial in the context of everything that I know about him in terms of how he approaches his cases.”

In other words, if you’re a conservative, your politics are evil; and if your politics are evil, you’re probably evil. I imagine that was the rationalization used by Kamala Harris when reading obvious fabrications about Kavanaugh into the Congressional Record. It is likely the rationalization of Lois Lerner or Merrick Garland — both above the law — when they weaponized government agencies against political opponents. It is almost surely the rationalization of Alvin Bragg. This is what justifies the contemporary left’s increasing comfort with deploying the state to punish and destroy political enemies. For many progressives, the legal system isn’t merely a tool for criminal justice (if that) but a way to exact poetic political justice.

(Though it should probably be mentioned that Alvin Bragg promised to use the DA’s office to enact social justice, not any kind of impartial or neutral justice. People who don’t pay for public transportation, those who trespass, those who resist arrest, those who obstruct governmental administration, or those involved in prostitution, are all above the law in New York City.)

Despite there being perfectly sound political arguments against Trump, we have been on a hysterical journey that has taken us from accusing Trump of being a seditious actor working on the orders of an antagonistic foreign government — the most successful conspiracy theory ever spun in American politics — to indicting him on some rickety seven-year-old campaign finance violation charge. Giving a porn star “hush money” is an immorality, not an illegality. Are DAs now going to be in the business of indicting political opponents who put $130,000 on the wrong side of the ledger during a race that cost hundreds of millions of dollars? I look forward to this kind of justice being meted out equally.

Everyone knows, of course, what’s going to happen when (or if) Republicans return the favor. Cries of fascism, that’s what. When Harry Reid blew up the judicial filibuster, it was to preserve the republic. When Republicans use that very precedent for themselves, they are power-hungry partisans. When Democrats throw congressmen off subcommittees, they do it for democracy. When Republicans follow suit, they are bigots. When a Republican governor retaliates against Disney for involving itself in educational issues, it’s 1933 all over again. But when a Democrat governor punishes companies like Walgreens for their stand on abortion drugs, it is a blow against injustice. This goes on and on and on.

Not that anyone cares about double standards anymore. I’m not naïve. And no one is innocent in politics. But the contemporary left’s utter and growing disdain for any semblance of limiting principles — the kind of abuse that helped Trump win the presidency in the first place — continues to do profound damage to the system. Trump is an easy target. The next target, I assure you, will be a Republican who is even “worse than Trump.” And the justifications for throwing out norms to stop them will be exactly the same.

Conservatives who contend that Democrats won’t like where the Trump arraignment leads are probably engaged in some wish-casting. Those who hold the upper hand in our major institutions aren’t too worried about short-term threats of retribution. And, anyway, progressives love Calvinball, a “system” of constantly shifting norms that rewards those most willing to use power. That’s the point.

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist, a nationally syndicated columnist, a Happy Warrior columnist at National Review, and author of five books—the most recent, Eurotrash: Why America Must Reject the Failed Ideas of a Dying Continent. He has appeared on Fox News, C-SPAN, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, ABC World News Tonight, NBC Nightly News and radio talk shows across the country. Follow him on Twitter, @davidharsanyi.

Trump pleads not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records linked to 2016 hush money payments

By Brooke Singman , Jake Gibson | Fox News | Published April 4, 2023 3:52pm EDT


Former President Donald Trump pleaded not guilty in New York City court Tuesday after being charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. The charges, which are related to hush money payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign, came out of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s years-long investigation. 

Bragg alleged that Trump “repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.”

In 2019, federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York opted out of charging Trump related to the payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal. The Federal Election Commission also tossed its investigation into the matter in 2021.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump sits at the defense table with his defense team in a Manhattan court during his arraignment on April 4, 2023, in New York City.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump sits at the defense table with his defense team in a Manhattan court during his arraignment on April 4, 2023, in New York City. (Photo by Seth Wenig-Pool/Getty Images)

Trump surrendered to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and was arraigned in court Tuesday afternoon after being indicted by a Manhattan grand jury last week.

The indictment was unsealed in court during Trump’s arraignment Tuesday before Judge Juan Merchan, the trial judge presiding over the case. Trump was charged in a New York Supreme Court indictment with 34 counts of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.

Bragg is alleging that Trump falsified New York business records in order to “conceal damaging information and unlawful activity from American voters before and after the 2016 election.” 

“During the election, TRUMP and others employed a ‘catch and kill’ scheme to identify, purchase, and bury negative information about him and boost his electoral prospects,” Bragg alleged. “TRUMP then went to great lengths to hide this conduct, causing dozens of false entries in business records to conceal criminal activity, including attempts to violate state and federal election laws.” 

Former US President Donald Trump makes his way inside the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse in New York on April 4, 2023. 
Former US President Donald Trump makes his way inside the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse in New York on April 4, 2023.  (Photo by ED JONES/AFP via Getty Images)

According to New York state law, a charge of falsifying business records in the first degree alleges that the defendant committed a crime of falsifying business records with the intent to defraud. The intent to defraud would be an intent to commit another crime. 

Trump pleaded not guilty. The judge did not impose a gag order. The judge said he would like to move ahead as expeditiously as possible with the case. The next hearing in the case is Dec. 4, 2023 in the same Lower Manhattan court.

The prosecution wants a trial in January 2024—the height of the GOP presidential primary season. Trump’s defense wants to delay that as long as possible.

Bragg alleged former Trump attorney Michael Cohen orchestrated the hush money payments on behalf of Trump. 
Bragg alleged former Trump attorney Michael Cohen orchestrated the hush money payments on behalf of Trump.  (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)

According to the indictment, Bragg alleged that Trump, from August 2015 to December 2017, “orchestrated a ‘catch and kill’ scheme through a series of payments that he then concealed through months of false business entries.”

Bragg alleges that American Media Inc., the parent company of the National Enquirer, paid $30,000 to a former Trump Tower doorman, who claimed to have a story about a child Trump had out of wedlock.

Stormy Daniels reacted to former President Donald Trump's arraignment with an X-rated tweet.
Stormy Daniels reacted to former President Donald Trump’s arraignment with an X-rated tweet. (Phillip Faraone/Getty Images/Photo by Seth Wenig-Pool/Getty Images)

Bragg also alleges American Media Inc. paid $150,000 to a woman who alleged a sexual relationship with Trump. It appears Bragg is referring to former Playboy model Karen McDougal.


Playboy model Karen McDougal, right. 
Playboy model Karen McDougal, right. 

Trump “explicitly directed a lawyer,” an apparent reference to Michael Cohen, to “reimburse” American Media Inc. in cash, Bragg charges. He alleged that Cohen, “12 days before the presidential general election,” wired $130,000 to an attorney for an adult film actress—an apparent reference to Stormy Daniels.

Cohen pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years in prison for violating campaign finance laws related to the payments, among other federal charges. Cohen pleaded guilty to arranging the payments but maintains that Trump directed them.

Former US President Donald Trump arrives at Manhattan Criminal Court in New York City Tuesday, April 4, 2023. Mandatory Credit: 
Former US President Donald Trump arrives at Manhattan Criminal Court in New York City Tuesday, April 4, 2023. Mandatory Credit:  (Thomas P. Costello – USA Today Network)

Bragg alleged that after the election, Trump reimbursed Cohen through a series of monthly checks— “first from the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust – created in New York to hold the Trump Organization’s assets during TRUMP’s presidency – and later from TRUMP’s bank account. In total, 11 checks were issued for a phony purpose.”

“Nine of those checks were signed by TRUMP,” Bragg charges. “Each check was processed by the Trump Organization and illegally disguised as a payment for legal services rendered pursuant to a non-existent retainer agreement.

“In total, 34 false entries were made in New York business records to conceal the initial covert $130,000 payment . . . Further, participants in the scheme took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the reimbursements.”

Opponents of former US president Donald Trump protest outside the Manhattan District Attorney's office in New York on April 4, 2023.
Opponents of former US president Donald Trump protest outside the Manhattan District Attorney’s office in New York on April 4, 2023. (Photo by ANGELA WEISS / AFP/ Photo by ANGELA WEISS/AFP via Getty Images)

The former President of the United States, and the leading Republican presidential candidate for 2024, was indicted by a Manhattan grand jury Thursday after a years-long investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, which began in 2019. 

Trump was not handcuffed, as some are during an arraignment, after making arrangements with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. Detectives within the office handled the arrest of the former president.

The payments to Daniels and McDougal had been investigated by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York and by the Federal Election Commission.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg speaks on Donald Trump arraignment April 4, 2023.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg speaks on Donald Trump arraignment April 4, 2023. (Fox News)


The charges against the former president come after federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York opted out of charging Trump related to the Daniels payment in 2019.

Also, the Federal Election Commission, in 2021, dropped its case on the same issue— examining whether Trump violated election law with the $130,000 payment made to Stormy Daniels, after it “failed by a vote of 2-2 to…find reason to believe that Donald J. Trump knowingly and willfully violated” federal election law.” 


“The People of the State of New York allege that Donald J. Trump repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal crimes that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election,” Bragg said in a statement after the arraignment. 

“As the Statement of Facts describes, the trail of money and lies exposes a pattern that, the People allege, violates one of New York’s basic and fundamental business laws,” Bragg said. “As this office has done time and time again, we today uphold our solemn responsibility to ensure that everyone stands equal before the law.” 

Trump has slammed the DA’s investigation and the indictment as “Political Persecution and Election Interference at the highest level in history.”

Fox News’ Bill Mears contributed to this report. 

Brooke Singman is a Fox News Digital politics reporter. You can reach her at or @BrookeSingman on Twitter.

If ‘No One Is Above The Law,’ Democrats And Their Partisan Pawns Would Be Arraigned, Not Trump



POTUS Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton
If Democrats truly valued rule of law, they would pursue cases against many more people before even considering indicting Trump.

Author Jordan Boyd profile




America’s two-tiered justice system status was solidified on Thursday after a Manhattan grand jury voted to hit former President Donald Trump with a felony indictment and the threat of imprisonment. Cue the chorus of Democrats and corporate media mouthpieces who spent all of Thursday night on Twitter condescendingly warning: “no one is above the law, not even the former president.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the anti-Trump Adams, former Rep. Adam Kinzinger, Rep. Adam Schiff, and even Trump’s ex-attorney Michael Cohen say Trump- or anyone else- doesn’t just get a free pass because he’s a 2024 presidential candidate. Yet, it doesn’t take an expert to know that the sole reason Trump ever faced indictment is because his political enemies requested it.

In addition to suggesting that Trump is not “above the law,” former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi claimed that the former president has the opportunity to “prove innocence” in court. Of course, the law, smugly touted by Pelosi, dictates that defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty- not the other way around.

Whether Pelosi’s “innocence” comment was a Freudian slip or a genuine assertion, we may never know. What we do know is that for years, Democrats have operated under the belief that their party members and their partisan allies are above the law.

1. The Criminals Alvin Bragg Refused To Prosecute

While Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg was busy searching for ways to indict Trump, violent criminals were taking over New York City streets.

During Bragg’s first year in office, major crime in New York City increased by 22 percent. Since then, the DA has made a career out of reducing charges for armed robbers, freeing cop-beaters, relaxing bail, and letting violent antisemites off.

Bragg’s soft-on-crime policies may have earned him left-wing billionaire financier George Soros’ favor and dollars, but even Democrat-voting New Yorkers know that he’s no stranger to giving better treatment to convicts than law-abiding people like this bodega owner who defended himself against a murderous criminal.

2. Hillary Clinton

If Democrats truly cared about campaign finance law violations, they would have already prosecuted several members of their party, including Hillary Clinton.

In 2022, the Federal Elections Commission fined Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign for falsely attributing the money that the Democrat used to orchestrate the Russian collusion hoax. If Trump is guilty of intent to conceal a campaign finance crime, a motivated prosecutor might look at the DNC and Clinton campaign’s efforts to hide their involvement in the so-called Steele “dossier” and find they were guilty of the same crime.

In addition to her election meddling, Clinton and her staff mishandled highly classified information, which resulted in at least 91 security violations. Instead of raiding her house and asking the DOJ to prosecute her, the FBI “inexplicably agreed to destroy [Clinton staffers Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson’s] laptops knowing that the contents were the subject of Congressional subpoenas and preservation letters.”

Clinton also played a central role in the decision to abandon four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, where they were murdered by terrorists.

3. Barack Obama

Before Clinton was forced to pay for her scheming, President Barack Obama faced “one of the largest fees ever levied against a presidential campaign,” $375,000, for “campaign reporting violations.” Instead of facing calls for prison time, Obama received years of protection from the corporate media and fake fact-checkers who repeatedly downplayed his violation as a proportionally small infraction compared to the billion dollars he raised on the campaign trail.

4. Election Law-Breakers Like Marc Elias

Marc Elias has repeatedly tried to undermine U.S. elections. He has such a reputation for meddling and manipulating elections that even a federal judge reprimanded him for it. Unlike Douglass Mackey, who was charged by the DOJ for posting a meme encouraging Hillary voters to “text” their votes, however, Elias has not faced any charges or unannounced raids.

5. President Joe Biden

A president avoiding paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes seems like the kind of thing federal agencies, including the recently financially invigorated Internal Revenue Service, should explore. Yet Biden, who hasn’t explained millions of dollars of his recorded income, and First Lady Jill Biden together reportedly dodged about $517,000 in Medicare and Obamacare taxes between 2017 and 2020 without scrutiny.

6. Hunter Biden

The president’s son isn’t just a walking liability for the Biden family name, he’s a glaring national security threat with a long, infamous history of using illicit drugs, engaging in possibly criminal sexual escapades with foreign women, and selling access to his dad under the guise of doing business with foreign oligarchs from places like China.

Besides all this and his reckless handling of a lost gun in 2018 — which, against normal protocol, the Secret Service reportedly helped him cover up — Hunter likely lied on federal forms about his drug use to purchase that gun, a felony, with barely a whisper of punishment.

7. Eric Swalwell

Speaking of communist China, Democrat Rep. Eric Swalwell canoodling with a known spy for the nation’s No. 1 enemy seems like a pretty serious offense. Instead of a member of the House Intelligence Committee facing consequences for giving foreign spies access to key U.S. government offices and information, Swalwell is still comfortably rage-tweeting about Trump and MAGA supporters and appearing as a guest on corrupt corporate media programs.

8. Eric Holder

Former Attorney General Eric Holder misled Congress during its investigation of the Obama-era “Fast and Furious” gun-running scandal, which used taxpayer dollars to put guns into the hands of Mexican drug lords. Holder was held in contempt, but that’s pretty much the only punishment he received for intentionally dodging subpoenas and hiding documents from congressional oversight.

9. Susan Rice

President Barack Obama’s National Security Adviser, Susan Rice, unmasked members of the Trump transition team and then lied about it. Unmasking may be a legitimate and legal process for those with the authority, but covering up an attempt to target the political enemies of the regime is an abuse of power that deserves examination.

Instead, it was yet another action taken by the U.S. intelligence apparatus to justify spying on American citizens.

10. The Pelosi Family

Suspected insider trading deserves at least a second glance by federal investigators, but it looks like, so far, Nancy Pelosi and her husband Paul have gotten away with conveniently timing their stock purchases and sales to massively grow their wealth.

[Read: “Democrats Say ‘No One Is Above The Law,’ But This List Of Their Corrupt Allies Proves Otherwise”]

The same people who love lording “no one is above the law” over Americans are the ones who think they are above any semblance of oversight or law, or constitutionality. If Democrats truly valued rule of law, illegal border crossers, Russia hoaxers, Jeffrey Epstein’s clients, pro-abortion vandals, rioters, and the people who run corrupt government agencies like the Department of Justice, the FBI, the NSA, and the Manhattan DA’s office would be the ones standing in court next week, not Trump.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

QAnon Shaman released from prison just weeks after Tucker Carlson airs footage of January 6

By: CORTNEY WEIL | March 30, 2023


Composite screenshot of Fox News YouTube video (Featured: Jacob Chansley, aka the QAnon Shaman)

Like Blaze News? Get the news that matters most delivered directly to your inbox. SIGN UP

Jacob Chansley, better known as the QAnon Shaman, who entered the Capitol on January 6, 2021, wearing patriot-themed face paint and horns but no shirt, has been released from prison early.

As of Thursday, reports from the Bureau of Prisons indicate that Chansley, 35, has been moved from federal prison to a halfway house in Phoenix, Arizona. In September 2021, Chansley pled guilty to civil disorder and violent entry to the Capitol. He and his attorney even signed a statement claiming that he entered the building through a broken door, that he “was not lawfully authorized to enter or remain in the building,” and that he “entered the Gallery of the Senate alone.”

However, Republican Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy recently released tens of thousands of hours of unedited footage of the events of January 6 to Fox News host Tucker Carlson. In turn, Carlson aired just a brief portion of that footage a few weeks ago. That footage contradicted the claim that Chansley violently entered the Capitol and that he entered the gallery alone. Rather, Capitol police appeared to escort the unarmed Chansley throughout his time in the Capitol. When Chansley eventually entered the Gallery of the Senate, he prayed for the police who “allowed” them into “this building.”


They don’t want you to see this … Big Tech does its best to limit what news you see. Make sure you see our stories daily — directly to your inbox.

Now, just weeks after that footage was released to the public through Tucker Carlson’s program, Chansley has been released from federal prison after serving 27 months in prison, 11 of them in solitary confinement. His attorney, Albert S. Watkins, praised the decision to release Chansley, who had been sentenced to serve three and a half years behind bars.

“After serving eleven months in solitary prior to his sentence being imposed, and only 16 months of his sentence thereafter, it is appropriate this gentle and intelligent young man be permitted to move forward with the next stage of what undoubtedly will be a law abiding and enriching life,” Watkins said in a statement.

Though the announcement of Chansley’s release to a halfway house came just weeks after Carlson aired what he described as “clearly exculpatory” footage of Chansley in the Capitol, others claim that the timing is merely coincidental.

“I don’t think it has anything to do with media [or] public pressure,” said former federal prosecutor Neama Ramani, who is not affiliated with the case. “Despite the violent nature of the Capitol riots, most of the rioters had little to no criminal history.”

According to the Daily Mail, federal inmates may be given a 15% reduction in their sentences at the discretion of the BOP. They can also be transferred to a halfway house for the final 12 months of their sentence. The BOP did not respond to requests for comment from several outlets.

Chansley, who is from Arizona, is scheduled to be released from the halfway house on May 25.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

No One Should Be Forced to Choose Between His Faith and His Paycheck



USPS man sitting in the back of his mail truck
Without action by the Supreme Court, employers will continue to feel safe denying religious accommodation requests.

Author Rachel N. Morrison profile



Should American employees be forced to choose between making a living and freely exercising their religious beliefs? That is the question the Supreme Court is considering in Groff v. DeJoy.

On Tuesday, a diverse group submitted amicus briefs urging the court to answer that question with a resounding “no.” More than 30 briefs were filed on behalf of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Mormons, Muslims, Seventh-day Adventists, Sikhs, Zionists, religious liberty and employment law scholars, medical professionals, nonprofit organizations, states, and members of Congress, among others.

Groff involves United States Postal Service (USPS) mail carrier Gerald Groff, a Christian, who holds uncontested sincere religious beliefs about resting, worshiping, and not working on his Sunday Sabbath. After he joined USPS in 2012, USPS contracted with Amazon in 2013 to provide mail deliveries on Sundays. Initially, USPS accommodated Groff’s Sunday Sabbath observance but later required him to work Sundays.

In accordance with his religious beliefs, Groff refused to work when he was scheduled on his Sunday Sabbath, resulting in progressive disciplinary actions by USPS. Realizing his termination was imminent, Groff resigned in 2019, leading to this religious discrimination lawsuit.

This case places the future of workplace religious accommodation rights in the hands of the Supreme Court.

Religious Accommodations in the Workplace

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Recognizing that we live in a pluralistic and religiously diverse society and that it is important for employees not to have to hide or give up their religious identities in the workplace, Congress amended Title VII in 1972 to affirmatively require employers to “reasonably accommodate” an employee’s religious observances and practices unless doing so would pose an “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.”

The necessity for a religious accommodation in the workplace arises when a job duty, rule, or policy violates an employee’s sincerely held religious belief — such as working on one’s Sabbath. In practice, Title VII’s religious accommodation right has the biggest benefit for employees of minority religions and those who have less common religious practices — from a Muslim’s hijab and daily prayers, to a Jew’s yarmulke or Friday Sabbath observance, to a Seventh-day Adventist’s Saturday Sabbath observance, and a Sikh’s kirpan (small sword), metal bracelet, unshorn hair, and beard.

In 2015, the Supreme Court held that under Title VII the clothing store Abercrombie & Fitch could not refuse to hire a female Muslim applicant because she wore a hijab in violation of the store’s “no cap” policy. As the Supreme Court explained: “Title VII does not demand mere neutrality with regard to religious practices — that they be treated no worse than other practices. Rather, it gives them favored treatment,” creating an affirmative obligation on employers.

What Does ‘Undue Hardship’ Mean?

The central issue in Groff is what the phrase “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business” entails. In a 1977 case called Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, the Supreme Court, interpreting similar language from an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guideline in effect during the events at issue, summarily stated that “undue hardship” meant merely “more than a de minimis cost.” This formulation has been adopted as the standard for Title VII by lower court judges across the country, effectively gutting the workplace religious accommodation right Congress provided employees.

Justices, judges, legal scholars, and religious leaders, among others, have criticized the Hardison court’s undue hardship formulationAs Justice Thurgood Marshall explained in his dissent in Hardison, the decision “effectively nullifie[s]” employees’ religious accommodation rights and “makes a mockery” of Title VII.

To put it simply: Hardison’s more than de minimis standard is absurd. De minimis means “very small or trifling,” and more than de minimis means merely a smidge more than “very small or trifling.” “Undue,” in contrast, means “exceeding what is appropriate or normal” or “excessive,” which is significantly more than “very small or trifling.”

Since Hardison, and to avoid application of Hardison’s non-textual standard, Congress has explicitly defined “undue hardship” in multiple statutes as “an action requiring significant difficulty or expense.” This is true for laws requiring other types of workplace accommodations, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), which provides employees accommodations for disability, and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (2022), which provides employees accommodations for the known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.

A secondary issue in Hardison is whether undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business can be met by merely showing a burden on the employee’s coworkers rather than on the business itself. In Groff, the court of appeals held that USPS satisfied its burden to demonstrate undue hardship because accommodating Groff would burden the employee’s coworkers. This standard would minimize Title VII’s religious accommodation protections, subjecting them to a “heckler’s veto by disgruntled employees,” as Judge Thomas Hardiman wrote in his dissent.

Poised to Protect Religious Accommodations

The Supreme Court has had several chances in recent years to revisit Hardison, but the court finally decided it should do so in Groff. This has led many to speculate that the court will reject Hardison’s more than de minimis formulation and clarify that undue means, well, just that — undue.

Indeed, this case should be a no-brainer. It is a simple exercise in statutory interpretation and textual definitions.

An interesting wrinkle in this case, however, is that since the USPS is an arm of the federal government, it is represented in court by the Department of Justice (DOJ).

In December 2019, the DOJ, joined by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the federal agency tasked with enforcing Title VII), told the court that Hardison’s formulation is “incorrect.” Indeed, in USPS’s brief urging the court not to hear Groff, DOJ merely argued the case was a “poor vehicle” to revisit Hardison and that the issue of a religious accommodation’s burden on coworkers “does not merit review.” The court clearly disagreed.

It would go against DOJ custom for the United States to change its position on Hardison. But it is unclear if the Biden administration will willingly support religious liberty, especially when it involves a Christian employee. We’ll find out when USPS files its response brief.

As evidenced by the number of amicus briefs filed by different faith traditions in support of Groff, religious accommodation rights in the workplace is an issue that all Americans, regardless of religion, can and should support. No one should be forced to choose between his religion and earning a paycheck.

Without action by the Supreme Court, employers will continue to feel safe denying religious accommodation requests because they can easily demonstrate a cost that is slightly more than de minimis. It is high time the Supreme Court remedies Hardison’s error.

Oral argument in Groff is scheduled for April 18, and a decision is expected by the end of June.

Rachel N. Morrison is an attorney and fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, where she works on EPPC’s HHS Accountability Project.

Teen sues hospitals, physicians over ‘coercing’ her into ‘medical mutilation’ via gender transitioning

By: MICHELE BLOOD | February 25, 2023


Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Chloe Cole, 18, is suing the hospitals and physicians who ‘coerced’ her to transition from a girl to a boy in the name of profit, Cole’s attorneys announced in a press release Thursday obtained by TheBlaze.

“I am going forward in taking legal action because every second that goes by, more blood is spilled by the same individuals and medical centers that destroyed my body and childhood,” Cole said in the statement.

“After we launched my lawsuit last year, there has been an explosion of both detransitioners and their lawsuits all over the country. Unfortunately, I am no longer alone in my pain and suffering,” Cole also said.

Detransitioners are people who underwent chemical and/or surgical transition from one gender to the other, later returning to embracing their original, biological gender. Cole is among them. Cole, a biological female suffering from gender dysphoria, underwent surgical and chemical gender transitioning procedures between the ages of 13-16.

Cole’s Center for American Liberty attorneys say doctors lied to Cole and her parents in a number of ways. Those lies included saying Cole’s gender dysphoria would never resolve itself and saying Cole was at high risk for suicide unless she was socially and medically transitioned.

Those lies amount to fraud, according to Cole’s attorneys. As a result, the young woman was subjected to a “lifetime of irreversible physical and psychological damage.”

Cole’s victimization and abuse by medical professionals was profit-driven, according to attorney Charles LiMandri. Their “fraudulent and coercive actions” resulted in “excruciating pain and suffering, permanent disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, and extreme emotional distress,” LiMandri also said.

In addition to puberty blockers and off-label cross-sex hormone “treatment,” Cole’s doctors removed her breasts, performing a radical, double mastectomy.

“Chloe’s family sought medical treatment for her at Kaiser. Her physicians and other medical professionals violated the first norm of the profession, the Hippocratic Oath, when, instead of caring for her and providing medically competent diagnoses and treatment, they permanently disfigured her for profit,” attorney Harmeet Dhillon said in the statement.

“What happened to Chloe at Kaiser should never happen to any child in America, and the Center for American Liberty is committed to protecting children like Chloe,” Dhillon added.

Dhillon Law Group and LiMandri & Jonna LLP, in conjunction with the Center for American Liberty have filed a lawsuit against the Permanente Medical Group, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan & Kaiser Foundation Hospitals who performed, supervised, and/or advised transgender hormone therapy and surgical intervention for Cole, now 18, when Cole was a minor.

Leftists Regurgitate ‘Uncle Tom’ Smear to Dim Clarence Thomas’ Legacy, But It Won’t Work



Justice Clarence Thomas doing an interview at the Library of Congress
No matter what the left throws at him, Clarence Thomas will be remembered as one of the greatest Supreme Court justices in U.S. history.

Author Shawn Fleetwood profile




Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is routinely the target of deranged smears from American leftists, and sadly, this week has been no exception with the return of the “Uncle Tom” attack.

On Tuesday, the Georgia Senate successfully passed SB 69, which, if approved by the state House and Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, would allow for the placement of a monument of Thomas on the grounds of the state capitol. In remarks to his colleagues, bill sponsor and GOP Sen. Ben Watson spoke to Thomas’ character and praised the justice for living a life “marked by tremendous achievement,” saying:

This native son of Georgia deserves a place of honor and recognition on our Capitol grounds, a place where future generations of Georgians can learn valuable lessons from his legacy and gain inspiration and belief that their lofty dreams are obtainable too in America, regardless of the circumstances into which they are born.

Meanwhile, the upper chamber’s Democrat members couldn’t have been less enthused. Not only did every single Democrat senator vote against the bill, but several of them used the opportunity to slander the Supreme Court’s most senior justice.

While some Democrats such as Sen. Nan Orrock went after Thomas’ judicial career by calling his service on the nation’s highest court “problematic,” the comments from leftist hacks like Sen. Emanuel Jones were much more vitriolic. During his unhinged diatribe, Jones referred to Thomas, the second black American to serve on the Supreme Court, as an “Uncle Tom,” and said he betrayed “his own community.”

“I’m just trying to tell you what we have in the African American community when we talk about a person of color that goes back historically to the days of slavery and that person betraying his own community — we have a term in the black community,” Jones said. “That term that we use is called ‘Uncle Tom.’ An Uncle Tom … talks about a person who back during the days of slavery sold his soul to the slave masters.”

A Pattern of Racist Attacks

Unfortunately, Jones’ Tuesday rant is just the tip of the iceberg. Through the years, so-called “progressive” Democrats have hurled a barrage of racist and degrading attacks at Thomas for the crime of daring to think for himself.

During a 2014 interview, for instance, Democrat Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi didn’t just call Thomas an “Uncle Tom”; he also claimed the justice “doesn’t like black people” and “doesn’t like being black.”

But it’s not just Democrat politicians lobbing racist insults at Thomas. Prominent legacy media members such as MSNBC host Joy Reid have also joined in on the smear campaign in recent years. After then-President Donald Trump forecasted plans to take his 2020 election challenges to the Supreme Court shortly after the Nov. 3 contest, Reid openly questioned the legitimacy of the court and invoked the “Uncle Tom” slur by referring to Thomas as “Uncle Clarence.”

“So, I think what scares people is that if [Trump] decides to do something that legally makes no sense … but if they somehow manage to stumble into the Supreme Court, do any of you guys trust Uncle Clarence and Amy Coney Barrett and those guys to actually follow the letter of the law?” Reid asked her colleagues. “No! I mean, it’s a completely politicized Supreme Court that you can’t just trust that they’re going to do the right thing.”

In addition to Reid, actor Samuel L. Jackson is among those who has levied the “Uncle Clarence” slur against Thomas.

[READ: Why The Racist Left Smears Clarence Thomas As An ‘Angry Black Man’]

Thomas Is a National Hero

Unlike many of today’s social justice warriors who love to feign “oppression,” Thomas grew up in an era of real oppression. Born into abject poverty in Pin Point, Georgia, Thomas was raised by his grandparents in Savannah during the height of segregation. With his biological father missing from his life, Thomas’ grandfather assumed the role, providing his grandson with a foundation for hard work and discipline.

Despite the harsh circumstances of his beginnings, Thomas would go on to excel in academics, attending the College of the Holy Cross and Yale Law School. After spending years working in the legal profession, Thomas was nominated by President George H.W. Bush to serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 1989. Not long after in 1991, he was nominated and confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court (no thanks to Democrat partisans like then-Sen. Joe Biden), where he has faithfully served for the past 31 years.

If we lived in a world where Democrats earnestly stood by their professed belief in championing the success of non-white people, Thomas wouldn’t be getting one statue, but a hundred. His journey to success is something that shouldn’t just be celebrated but shared to inspire others to overcome adversity and chase their dreams with hard work and strong principles. Then again, leftists’ racial pandering isn’t about helping people.

For Democrats, Thomas’ devotion to the Constitution and willingness to do right by the American people stands in the way of their conquest to centralize government power in the hands of a few elites. His originalist jurisprudence is a roadblock to that goal, therefore making it perfectly acceptable in their eyes to use any tactic, no matter how grotesque, to undermine him.

Despite their best efforts, the left’s bid to slander the legacy of this great man will fail. No matter what kind of rhetorical garbage they throw at him, Clarence Thomas will be remembered as one of the greatest Supreme Court justices and public servants in U.S. history. His understanding of what it means to be a judge and adherence to the Constitution have rightly garnered him adoration from millions of Americans. And that is something the left will never be able to change.

Shawn Fleetwood is a Staff Writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Democrats’ Unconstitutional Crusade to Disbar Texas AG Ken Paxton Shows How Far They’ll Go to Win Elections



Texas AG Ken Paxton
Democrats are working overtime to make it so painful for attorneys to represent Republicans in election cases that the next candidate will be unable to find lawyers willing to battle on their behalf.

Author Margot Cleveland profile




A state court judge refused to halt the Texas Bar’s assault on Attorney General Ken Paxton for his decision to challenge several swing states’ execution of the 2020 election in Texas v. Pennsylvania, a little-noticed perfunctory order published in late January revealed.

While the partisan targeting of Paxton represents but one of the many attempts by Democrats to weaponize state bars to dissuade attorneys from representing Republicans, court documents obtained by The Federalist reveal that in the case of the Texas attorney general, the bar went nuclear.

In March of 2022, as Paxton prepared to face Land Commissioner George P. Bush in the May 2022 GOP runoff for attorney general, news leaked that the State Bar of Texas intended to advance an ethics complaint against the Republican attorney general. Then, soon after Paxton prevailed in the primary, on May 25, 2022, the Commission for Lawyer Discipline, which is a standing committee of the State Bar of Texas, filed a disciplinary complaint against Paxton in the Collin County, Texas district court. 

While the Texas Bar’s disciplinary complaint represents an outrageous and unconstitutional attack on the attorney general, as will be detailed shortly, the backstory is nearly as troubling — both the machinations underlying the charge against Paxton and, more broadly, the barrage of politicized bar complaints pursued against Republican lawyers who provided legal advice or litigated various issues in the aftermath of the November 2020 general election.

Bars Gone Rogue

The D.C. Bar’s investigation into former Trump administration Assistant Attorney General Jeff Clark based on a complaint from Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., exemplifies the partisan co-opting of the various professional responsibility boards charged with overseeing attorneys’ conduct. 

In Clark’s case, the ethics charge was both “demonstrably false and premised on the fraudulent narratives pushed by the partisan politicians running the Jan. 6 show trial and their partners in the press.” Yet Clark has been forced to fight for his livelihood because the D.C. Bar allowed Democrats to convert a disagreement over Clark’s legal opinion into a question of professional ethics. Clark has attempted to put a halt to the proceedings by moving to remove the case to the federal district court, but Clark’s motion has been stalled there for several months.

More recently, the California State Bar joined in the political witch hunt when it filed a 35-page, 11-count disciplinary complaint against attorney and former law professor John Eastman. The California State Bar’s complaint alleged Eastman’s engagement “in a course of conduct to plan, promote, and assist then-President Trump in executing a strategy, unsupported by facts or law, to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by obstructing the count of electoral votes of certain states.” As I wrote at the time:

The 11 charges against Eastman prove troubling throughout, with the State Bar of California proposing to discipline Eastman for presenting legal analyses to his client, Trump, and for speaking publicly on his views about the election, with the bar even attempting to hold Eastman responsible for any violence that occurred on Jan. 6. The disciplinary complaint also misrepresents numerous arguments Eastman and others made concerning the 2020 election, falsely equating claims of violations of election law with fraud.

Eastman’s long and costly battle against the California Bar is only beginning. And that is precisely the point of involving state bars: to make it so painful for attorneys to represent Republicans in election cases that the next presidential candidate — or senatorial or congressional candidate — will be unable to find lawyers willing to battle on their behalf.

A Broader Campaign

These efforts are well-coordinated and well-funded, with the group 65 Project launching in March of 2022 ethics complaints against 10 lawyers who worked on election lawsuits following the 2020 presidential election. According to Influence Watch, “65 Project was ‘devised’ by Democratic consultant and former Clinton administration official Melissa Moss,” and is managed by attorney Michael Teter, a former litigation associate with the DNC-connected law firm Perkins Coie. David Brock, of Media Matters fame, advises the group, and the advisory board includes, among others, the former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D. 

The 65 Project reportedly “seeks to disbar 111 lawyers from 26 states in total,” but is “not targeting any Democratic-aligned attorneys who have challenged election laws or results in the past.” Rather, the project’s sole aim is Republican lawyers, such as Eastman, with the group pushing for Eastman’s disbarment from the Supreme Court Bar.

It is not merely private attorneys the Democrat project targets, however. In September, the 65 Project filed complaints against the attorneys general of 15 states, including Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia, advocating the bars in those states take disciplinary action against the attorneys general for conduct related to the 2020 election.

Texas AG Paxton didn’t make the list, though, because local Democrats had already taken up the charge. And here, the backstory reveals the troubling politicization of state bars is not limited to Democratic-connected groups like the 65 Project or to the bars in leftist locales such as D.C. and California.

Anti-Paxton Crusade

In Paxton’s case, the state bar received at least 85 complaints about Paxton related to Texas v. Pennsylvania. The Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel reviewed the complaints and dismissed them, finding “the information alleged did not demonstrate Professional Misconduct.” But then four attorneys appealed the dismissal, including one who, according to court filings, was the president of the Galveston Island Democrats and a friend of a Democrat seeking to run against Paxton for attorney general in the then-upcoming 2022 election. 

An appeals body within the Texas State Board reversed the dismissal of the complaints, and later a fifth complaint was added to the charges against Paxton. Paxton was then forced to respond to the allegations, which itself proved difficult because they consisted of vague rhetoric, such as claims that Paxton “violated his duty and obligations as a Texas attorney” and “filed an utterly frivolous lawsuit,” bringing “shame and disrespect to the State of Texas and the legal community of Texas.”

Nonetheless, Paxton filed a detailed response, expanded on the theories Texas asserted in the Texas v. Pennsylvania case, and provided the bar with an extensive discussion of the factual and legal basis underpinning the court filings. The Texas Bar then handed the complaints over to what Paxton described as “an investigatory panel comprised of six unelected lawyers and activists from Travis County.” 

As Paxton’s later court filings would stress, “as a group, the panel donated thousands of dollars to federal, state, and local candidates and causes opposed to Attorney General Paxton.” “What’s more,” Paxton argued in opposing the bar’s case against him, “members of the panel voted consistently in Democratic primaries for over a decade. Several have maintained highly partisan social media accounts hostile to Paxton.” 

Unsurprisingly, the partisan panel found “just cause” existed to believe that Paxton had violated a catch-all provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct, namely the canon prohibiting attorneys from engaging “in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.”

But in making this finding and filing a disciplinary petition in the state court, the Texas Bar wholely ignored the fundamental flaw in its crusade against Paxton — and one of constitutional dimension: The state bar, as a bureaucratic arm of the judicial branch, violates the Texas Constitution’s guarantee of separation of powers by challenging Paxton’s execution of his duties as attorney general.

Separation of Powers

Paxton concisely exposed this reality in his briefing, first quoting Texas precedent that teaches: “The Texas Separation of Powers provision is violated … when one branch unduly interferes with another branch so that the other branch cannot effectively exercise its constitutionally assigned powers.” “The Commission’s suit against the Attorney General violates the Separation-of-Powers doctrine,” Paxton continued, because the “decision to file Texas v. Pennsylvania is committed entirely to the Attorney General’s discretion. No quasi-judicial body like the Commission can police the decisions of a duly elected, statewide constitutional officer of the executive branch.” 

In seeking the dismissal of the state bar complaint against him based on separation-of-powers principles, Paxton’s argument shows the politicization process becomes nuclear when the target is the state’s attorney general, writing: “Unelected administrarors from the judicial branch attempting to stand in judgment of the elected attorney general who is the sole executive officers with the authority to represent the State of Texas in the Supreme Court of the United States.”

While it is bad enough that the state bar has been used as a sword to attack political enemies, such as Eastman in California and Clark in D.C., to deter attorneys in the future from representing unpopular cases or parties, the weaponization of the state bar against a state’s attorney general is not a difference in degree, but a difference in kind. As Paxton wrote:

No other attorney in Texas, no one else on the planet can bring a lawsuit on behalf of the State … but we’ve got an administrative arm of the judicial branch, unelected state bureaucrats telling the chief legal officer of the State of Texas how he can exercise his sole prerogative and his exclusive authority to bring a civil lawsuit on behalf of the State of Texas.

Yet unelected bureaucrats — many of whom are political enemies of Paxton — have put the attorney general literally on trial for exercising the executive function with which he was constitutionally charged. And while Paxton fully briefed his position — that as a matter of constitutional law and the doctrine of separation of powers, the court lacked jurisdiction to proceed on the bar’s complaint against him — the trial judge summarily rejected Paxton’s motion, merely stating the motion was “denied.”

Paxton has yet to state publicly whether he plans to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss to the Texas Court of Appeals. But as a matter of principle he should; this case represents not merely an attack on him personally, but on the position of attorney general.

The Federalist obtained copies of the relevant court filings and they are available hereherehereherehere, and here.

Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Senior suspended for wearing pro-2nd Amendment shirt to high school government class: Report

By: CORTNEY WEIL | February 09, 2023


Last fall, a high school senior in Iowa was suspended for wearing a pro-Second Amendment shirt to her government class, and now her mother is suing the teacher, the principal, and the district. On Monday, Janet Bristow of Johnston, Iowa, a northwest suburb of Des Moines, filed a lawsuit in a U.S. district court alleging that the suspension violated her daughter’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

In late August 2022, Tom Griffin taught his government students at Johnston High School that their rights were “extremely limited” once they entered the classroom, despite the 1969 landmark SCOTUS ruling, Tinker, which affirmed that students and teachers do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Griffin insisted that he would forbid students from wearing any clothing which depicts “guns, alcohol, or any other ‘inappropriate material,'” the lawsuit states.

Bristow’s daughter, identified in the lawsuit only as “A.B.,” was in that class and determined that Griffin had erred in his assessment. Two days later, on September 1, she went to school wearing a T-shirt with a picture of a rifle and the phrase “What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?” emblazoned on the front. Bristow alleged in the lawsuit that A.B. had worn that shirt before without incident and that the girl’s older brother, who graduated from Johnston High School in 2019, also wore the shirt without a problem during his time at the school.

A.B.’s shirtScreenshot of the lawsuit

But Griffin had a problem with the shirt, and he dismissed her from class and sent her to the administration. Bristow soon afterward arrived and discussed the issue with Nate Zittergruen and Randy Klein, both associate principals, and Ryan Woods, the school’s principal. Zittergruen told Bristow that the shirt could be perceived as threatening or offensive, and the administrative team gave A.B. the choice either to change her shirt or face suspension.

Chris Billings, the district’s executive director of school leadership, supported the administration and claimed that the shirt violated school dress code. So, after A.B. refused to change her shirt, she was issued an out-of-school suspension.

Later that evening, Bristow said she received an apology from Superintendent Laura Kacer as well as Billings, who said he had come to realize that the shirt is, in fact, “political speech.”

While Bristow was grateful for the apologies, she does not believe that the issue has been resolved. For one thing, Griffin has neither apologized nor clarified the issue with his class, leaving the impression that “A.B. was wrong and that her opinions were not welcome in the classroom,” the document stated. A.B. also still has the suspension listed on her school record.

In the suit, Bristow is seeking the following forms of relief:

  • affirmation that clothing featuring firearms “in a non-threatening, non-violent manner” is protected under the First Amendment;
  • a permanent injunction which will prevent the defendants listed in the lawsuit from ever restricting such clothing again in the future; and
  • compensation for damages, the costs associated with the legal process, and any other “relief” the court deems “appropriate.”

DOJ charges Planned Parenthood arson suspect in 10 days as pro-life clinic still searches for Answers

By Ryan Foley, Christian Post Reporter | January 30, 2023


Planned Parenthood in Peoria, Illinois. | Screenshot: Google Maps

The U.S. Department of Justice has announced the arrest of an Illinois man a little over a week after he allegedly set fire to a Planned Parenthood facility, as pro-life groups maintain that federal law enforcement is not acting quick enough to bring justice to those responsible for the arson of pro-life pregnancy centers and churches.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of Illinois announced Wednesday the arrest of Tyler Massengill, 32, for the malicious use of fire and an explosive and attempt to damage a Planned Parenthood facility in Peoria, Illinois. The clinic reported on its website that the building is closed indefinitely following the “substantial fire and damage.” The fire occurred in the late evening on Jan. 15, 2023, 10 days before news broke about Massengill’s arrest.

“A review of area surveillance from the fire scene revealed that at approximately 11:20 PM, an older white pickup truck with red doors parked in an area adjacent to Planned Parenthood,” the statement reads. “Video footage depicts a man walking up to the building with a laundry detergent-sized bottle. The man lit a rag on fire on one end of the bottle, smashed a window with an object, then placed the container inside of the Planned Parenthood building. He then quickly left the area on foot.”

The rest of the announcement details the collaboration between “multiple law enforcement agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Springfield Field Office; the Peoria Police Department; and the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.” If convicted on a malicious use of fire charge, Massengill faces a mandatory minimum prison sentence of five years and faces up to 40 years in prison.

Massengill could also face up to three years of supervised release and a possible fine of up to $250,000.

According to a complaint filed Wednesday, authorities received a tip about an Illinois license plate number for the pickup truck. Peoria police “conducted an inquiry of the subject plate number in a license plate reader database system which returned a photo of an older white pickup truck, with red doors,” The Journal Star quotes the complaint as reading. The complaint further stated that Massengill told investigators that he was upset after a girl he was in a relationship with three years ago got an abortion. 

The arson comes as the abortion issue has become a source of contention following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision last June, finding that the U.S. Constitution does not contain a right to abortion.

Since Politico published a leaked draft decision in the Dobbs case on May 2, pro-life pregnancy centers and churches have found themselves subject to acts of vandalism and arson. While pro-abortion groups and individuals have experienced incidents of violence, a report compiled by the Crime Prevention Research Center found that their pro-life counterparts have experienced 22 times as much violence in the 4.5 months following the publication of the leaked Dobbs draft.

Rev. Jim Harden, the CEO of CompassCare, a network of pro-life pregnancy centers whose Buffalo, New York, office was firebombed last June, praised the Peoria police for their “top-notch investigative work” in a statement released Wednesday. He also denounced the attack on Planned Parenthood, asserting that “Attacking an abortionist does not make someone pro-life, it makes them crazy.”

At the same time, CompassCare noted that after a Planned Parenthood in Kalamazoo, Michigan, was targeted in an attempted arson attack, an arrest was made after four days. CompassCare believes that partisan considerations explain why federal law enforcement has handed down only two indictments of perpetrators of violence against pro-life organizations and churches.

As no arrests have yet been made in the CompassCare firebombing case, the organization partnered with the Thomas More Society legal group earlier this month to hire independent investigators to search for the perpetrators of the June 2022 attack. Vandals broke the windows of CompassCare’s Buffalo office, lit fires at the facility and spray-painted graffiti outside the building. 

“What the situation in Peoria and Kalamazoo show is that the FBI has the tools, skill, and manpower to bring these criminals to justice when it is politically favorable,” Harden said. “They threw pro-life people a bone with the indictment of two pro-abortion extremists on January 18.”

grand jury in Florida indicted two pro-abortion activists last week for vandalizing multiple pro-life pregnancy centers throughout the state. CompassCare is not the only pro-life organization to raise questions about the lack of action taken against those who have committed pro-abortion violence.

Brian Burch, the CEO of the advocacy group CatholicVote, has repeatedly raised concerns about the DOJ’s lack of action to address violence against Catholic churches dating back to May 2020, when the death of George Floyd in police custody in Minneapolis, Minnesota, led to national unrest. He wrote a letter to the DOJ in December 2021 calling on the federal law enforcement agency to investigate the attacks on Catholic churches and symbols.

In a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan published Tuesday, Burch wrote that Associate Attorney General Venita Gupta responded to the request in January 2022, telling the advocacy group that Attorney General Merrick Garland had ordered a “15-day review to ensure that all appropriate resources are being deployed to protect houses of worship.”

Additionally, Gupta informed Burch that the “Department is taking numerous steps to address such violence, consistent with our commitment to combat unlawful acts of hate in all their forms.”

“Disappointingly, it now appears that the promises made in Associate AG Gupta’s January 2022 letter were mere platitudes,” Burch concluded in his letter to Jordan. “To date, the federal government has only found evidence to charge two individuals involved in only a handful of cases, despite hundreds of actual incidences of violence. These charges only recently came to light, indicating the more sunshine that Congress shines on the indifference of the DOJ the more likely they will do their job.”

While the FBI has offered rewards for information that could lead to arrests for the vandalism of 10 pro-life pregnancy centers, Harden contends that the law enforcement agency’s efforts are “a day late and a dollar short.” He attributed the FBI’s embrace of reward money for information about pro-abortion vandals to “the House Judiciary Committee’s demands for cooperation in their inquiry into the ‘allegations of politicization and bias [against pro-life people] at the FBI.”

Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights raised questions about a potential political bias against pro-life individuals and groups at the FBI in a Sept. 26 letter to Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa., the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“There seems to be much interest in pursuing alleged wrongdoing by pro-life activists, yet little interest in pursuing alleged wrongdoing by abortion-rights activists,” Donohue wrote. 

Donohue cited the arrest of pro-life activist Mark Houck for purportedly pushing a patient escort at a Philadelphia Planned Parenthood clinic as an example of an “overreaction for a minor infraction of the law.” Houck faces the possibility of up to 11 years in prison. Donohue contrasts Houck’s case with the “underreaction by the Department of Justice when the pro-life side is targeted.”

A GiveSendGo fundraiser set up for Houck’s family maintains that the escort was harassing Houck and his son as they prayed outside the abortion clinic, prompting them to walk away from the building.

“The escort followed them, and when he continued yelling at Mark’s son, Mark pushed him away,” the fundraiser stated. 

Houck’s case was heard this week at a federal court in Philadelphia. Judge Gerald Pappert rejected Houck’s defense attorney’s request for the case to be dismissed. The jury remained deadlocked Friday and will resume deliberations on Monday. 

Ryan Foley is a reporter for The Christian Post. He can be reached at:

Virginia Committee Passes Parental Rights Bill After School Coverup of Teen’s Dysphoria Enables Sex Trafficking



kids reading in a classroom
My daughter ‘was terribly bullied, but no one told me. … Please don’t let ideology harm another child,’ pleaded the mother of a 14-year-old girl who was isolated from her parents by school and court authorities and sex-trafficked twice.

Author Shawn Fleetwood profile




A subcommittee in the Virginia House of Delegates passed a bill on Monday that mandates public educators notify parents if their child “self-identifies” as something other than his or her natural sex. Introduced by Republican Dels. Dave LaRock, Tara Durant, and John McGuire, the measure (HB 2432) would provide parents with greater oversight into their children’s lives at school and increase transparency in public education. According to a summary of the legislation, if a school official “has reason to believe” that a student “is self-identifying as a gender different from the student’s biological sex,” said official is required “to contact as soon as practicable at least one of such student’s parents to ask whether such parent is aware of the student’s mental state and whether the parent wishes to obtain or has already obtained counseling for such student.”

Under the bill, school officials, such as counselors and clinical social workers, are barred from “encouraging or coercing a minor to withhold from the minor’s parent the fact that the minor’s perception of his or her gender or sex is inconsistent with the minor’s biological sex” or “withholding from a minor’s parent information relating to the minor’s perception that his or her gender or sex is inconsistent with the minor’s biological sex.”

Monday’s subcommittee vote came along party lines, with five Republicans voting in favor and three Democrats opposing.

Known as Sage’s Law, HB 2432 was introduced after it was revealed that a then-14-year-old Virginia girl ended up in the hands of sexual predators after her school failed to disclose her gender dysphoria to her mother. As The Federalist previously reported, the chain of events began in August 2021 when Sage began identifying as a boy and suffered intense bullying and harassment at school. Eventually, Sage ran away and was “found nine days later in Maryland, a victim of sexual assault.”

Appomattox County High School, which affirmed Sage’s new “identity” without notifying her mother, was following model guidelines issued by then-Democrat Gov. Ralph Northam’s administration on so-called gender affirmation. Such guidance has since been terminated by current GOP Gov. Glenn Youngkin.

[READ: Virginia Teen Sex-Trafficked Twice After School Hides Gender Identity From Her Parents]

Throughout Monday’s hearing on Sage’s Law, witnesses supporting the bill discussed its importance in keeping parents involved in their children’s livelihoods, especially in the school classroom. During her testimony, Sage’s mother Michele called on the subcommittee to put commonsense before ideology.

“If I had known [what was going on], this would be a much different story. [Sage] was terribly bullied, but no one told me,” Michele said. “Please don’t let ideology harm another child. Let parents do our jobs. We know our children best and we love them a million times more.”

Also called to testify at the hearing was Dr. Erin Brewer, a former “trans kid” who spoke about the importance of schools helping children through their gender dysphoria without affirming such confusion or concealing it from parents.

“I was insistent that I was a boy when I started first grade after a brutal sexual assault. If I had been affirmed by my teachers, it would have allowed me to completely dissociate from myself as a girl and create a new persona who could pretend that the horrible trauma that triggered my gender dysphoria hadn’t happened to me,” she said. “Instead of encouraging my confusion and hiding it from my mother, the school contacted my mother, got permission for me to be assessed by the school psychologist, and they came up with a comprehensive program to help me resolve my gender dysphoria. … I [one] hundred percent support this legislation.”

Erin Friday, a lifelong Democrat and co-founder of Our Duty, a national and international parent and child advocacy group, also spoke in support of Sage’s Law. Throughout her remarks, Friday noted her personal experiences with a gender-dysphoric daughter and stated that “schools should never keep secrets from parents.”

Opponents to Sage’s Law also spoke at the hearing, with one man claiming to be a “trans woman” arguing that such legislation is “ridiculous” and that schools should be able to conceal a child’s gender dysphoria from that child’s parents.

It should be that child’s own choice,” he said. “If we wanna tell who we wanna tell, like, that’s on us.

Despite leftists’ support for deceptively-termed “gender affirmation” and the “transitioning” of children, research has shown that “upwards of 80 percent of gender dysphoric children embrace their sex as they emerge from puberty” and that “children who are ‘affirmed’ as the opposite sex … particularly if puberty blockers are used, consistently go on to further medicalization.” Children who undergo such protocols are subjected to lifelong damage to their bodies. The practices are so horrific that nations around the world, such as England, have ended the disfiguring practices that are falsely labeled as “gender-affirming care” for minors.

“Parents should never be the last to know [about what’s going on in their children’s lives],” said Durant during the subcommittee meeting. “It’s a very strange, strange place to me that we’re in now where parents are being told to step aside, to sit down, that ‘we as educators, as counselors know better [for] your own child’ — and that’s just simply not true.”

Shawn Fleetwood is a Staff Writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

UPDATE: Mark Houck, Pro-Life Dad Targeted by Biden Regime, Acquitted of Trumped-Up Charges



Mark Houck acquitted
‘The Biden Department of Justice’s intimidation against pro-life people and people of faith has been put in its place,’ Houck’s attorney says.

Author Jordan Boyd profile




On Monday a federal jury acquitted Mark Houck, the Christian pro-life activist whose house was swarmed by FBI agents last fall in front of his wife and children. The not-guilty verdict comes more than four months after the Biden administration accused Houck of violating federal law for protecting his son from an angry abortion activist across the street from a Planned Parenthood in 2021.

After leaving the courtroom in a deadlock on Friday, on Monday a federal jury agreed Houck was not guilty of violating federal law, contrary to the Biden Department of Justice’s position.

The early-morning FBI raid on Houck’s home in front of his children and wife included battering rams and ballistic shields at the ready and was committed even after Houck’s attorney had told the U.S. Department of Justice Houck would turn himself in if they asked. Since his arrest in September 2022, Houck and his lawyers maintained “This case is being brought solely to intimidate people of faith and pro-life Americans.”

“We are, of course, thrilled with the outcome,” stated Peter Breen, head of litigation for the Thomas More Society, which defended Houck in court. “We took on Goliath – the full might of the United States government – and won. The jury saw through and rejected the prosecution’s discriminatory case, which was harassment from day one. This is a win for Mark and the entire pro-life movement. The Biden Department of Justice’s intimidation against pro-life people and people of faith has been put in its place.”

Houck is now freed from the threat of “a maximum possible sentence of 11 years in prison, three years of supervised release, and fines of up to $350,000.” He also thanked Americans and pro-lifers for their support after the FBI raid and subsequent federal prosecution.

After weeks of ignoring pro-abortion violence and threats against pro-life pregnancy support centers across the nation, dozens of FBI agents arrested Houck in front of his wife and seven children in a raid at his home in September. When Houck’s wife recounted that “they had big, huge rifles pointed at Mark and pointed at me and kind of pointed throughout the house,” the FBI defended their “guns out and ready” positions as necessary.

The Biden administration’s Department of Justice alleged Houck violated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, a law barring the physical obstruction of abortion facilities, by “attacking a patient escort” more than 100 feet away and across the street from a Planned Parenthood in Philadelphia during one of his regular trips to peacefully protest abortion.

The “patient escort,” Bruce Love, repeatedly initiated profanity-laced verbal confrontations with Houck and his son, Mark Houck Jr., said court documents. The documents also say Houck asked Love to stop multiple times to no avail. On Oct. 13, 2021, when Love escalated by invading Mark Jr.’s personal space, Houck Sr. shoved him away.

Love fell and claimed he “required medical attention,” an allegation the DOJ indictment took as fact. Brian Middleton, a spokesman for the Houck family, said the “medical attention” Love spoke of was “a Band-Aid on his finger.”

During his testimony to the jury, Houck gave his side of the story.

You consider it to be a battle, don’t you?” Assistant U.S. Attorney Ashley Nicole Martin asked Houck during the trial.

“A spiritual battle,” the father of seven replied.

Houck also disclosed that Love instigated the incident that later was used to sic federal investigators on the Houck family.

“All of this was set in motion by the escort, and that’s not a FACE violation,” Thomas More Society Senior Counsel Michael McHale said in a trial recap video on Friday. “FACE is about access to clinics. And what happened here was an escort interfering with Mark and Mark’s son.”

Houck’s son Mark Jr. also testified on Friday. In his testimony, Mark Jr. explained that Love initiated a conversation with him.

“That directly contradicted Bruce Love’s testimony,” McHale said. “Mr. Love testified that he never, has ever, talked to Mark Jr. And to have Mark Jr. on the stand today and just testify confidently and clearly that Bruce Love talked to him and said ‘Your dad’s a bad person and your dad’s harassing women.’ I really think that went a long way, at least with some people on the jury.”

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

Man who viewed violent child pornography receives probation, weekend jail sentence to be served ‘at his convenience’

By: CORTNEY WEIL | January 28, 2023


Screenshot of City of St. Helens website

Like Blaze News? Get the news that matters most delivered directly to your inbox. SIGN UP

An Oregon man who viewed pornographic videos of young girls being tortured has been sentenced to probation and 90 days in jail to be served “at his convenience,” a police report stated.

On Wednesday, Scott Johnson, 27, of St. Helens, Oregon, about 30 miles north of Portland, pled guilty to three counts of encouraging child sexual abuse in the first degree. The guilty plea represented the culmination of a two-year investigation which began when the state department of justice alerted local authorities that child pornography had been uploaded on a messaging app in the St. Helens area.

Investigators then zeroed in on Johnson as a suspect and seized his phone. A forensic investigation of the phone revealed that it contained child pornography, a police statement said. The nature of the evidence on the phone was particularly heinous. Fox News reported that it involved the “graphic sexual abuse and torture of young girls.”

“graphic sexual abuse and torture of young girls.”

When questioned, Johnson told authorities that “sometimes people will send him a message asking him if he wants to see something” and that they then sent him that material. Investigators determined that Johnson received a series of links and continued to click on all of them, even after he knew that they would direct him to child porn.

In an effort to reach a plea deal, Columbia County prosecutors offered Johnson a 60-month sentence. However, Johnson rejected that offer and decided to take his chances with the judge.

“He just rejected our offer, pleaded guilty, and asked the judge for probation over our objection,” the district attorney’s office said.

That decision worked out in his favor. According to a statement from St. Helens Police Department, “Johnson was ultimately sentenced to five years of probation and 90 days in jail to be served on weekends at his convenience.”

In Oregon, encouraging child sexual abuse in the first degree is a Class B felony, a crime which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. Johnson’s light sentence seems to follow a pattern of soft-on-crime policies in the state in recent years. In April 2022, when she was still governor, Kate Brown (D) granted clemency to a murderer who had previously been sentenced to life without parole, putting a violent criminal back on the streets, and Portland had more murders in 2021 than at any other time in history. Travellers Worldwide recently warned prospective visitors that theft and larceny, vandalism, auto theft, and assault are among “the city’s most prevalent crimes.”

Critics Say Latest Lawsuit Against Beleaguered Masterpiece Cakeshop Baker Inevitable After Weak SCOTUS Ruling

By Ashe Schow | Jan 27, 2023


On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled against Masterpiece Cakeshop baker Jack Phillips, arguing he violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act by refusing to bake a cake for a gender transition celebration.

Critics of the ruling point to Phillips’ earlier “win” at the Supreme Court, which narrowly ruled in his favor, as the reason the baker continues to be targeted by activists. In 2017, former Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion that some have argued essentially said Phillips could have lost his Supreme Court case if it hadn’t been for Colorado officials openly disparaging Phillips and his Christian views.

That narrow decision has allowed Phillips to continue to be persecuted, critics say. At the Washington Examiner, Quin Hillyer argued that the Supreme Court’s “search for the narrowest possible result merely invited further, seemingly endless rounds of new litigation.”

The latest lawsuit against Phillips comes from an activist attorney, Autumn Scardina, in Colorado who called Masterpiece Cakeshop on the same day the Supreme Court announced it would take his prior case – in which he was accused of discrimination for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. The attorney requested Phillips create a custom cake that was pink on the inside and blue on the outside to celebrate a gender transition. According to the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which represents Phillips, the attorney also called back to request a cake depicting Satan smoking marijuana in order to “correct the errors of [Phillips’] thinking.” Phillips declined to make either cake because of the messages they depicted. The activist has now sued.

“Naturally, Colorado’s courts ignored the patently offensive request for a Satan cake and instead again held Phillips responsible for illegal discrimination based on gender, his religious objections notwithstanding,” Hillyer wrote. “Today’s affirmation by the appeals court of the lower court’s ruling takes ample advantage of the loophole left open by the Supreme Court while cherry-picking from other Supreme Court religious liberty decisions to reach its desired, anti-Phillips conclusion.”

On Twitter, prominent conservative PoliMath also blamed the Supreme Court for the ongoing legal struggles of Masterpiece Cakeshop.

“The result of John Roberts pushing for the narrowest possible ruling in the earlier Masterpiece case is that they continued persecuting Jack Phillips for years,” PoliMath tweeted. “They will continue to do this to him until he dies.”

The appeals court on Thursday argued that Phillips only refused to bake the cake after learning the client was transgender and wanted to use the cake to celebrate his birthday and gender transition.

“Thus, it was Scardina’s transgender status, and her desire to use the cake in celebration of that status, that caused Masterpiece and Phillips to refuse to provide the cake,” the court wrote, arguing the cake “expressed no message.”

But ADL argues that “Phillips works with all people and always decides whether to take a project based on what message a cake will express, not who is requesting it.”

“Over a decade ago, Colorado officials began targeting Jack, misusing state law to force him to say things he does not believe. Then an activist attorney continued that crusade,” the ADF said in a statement. “This cruelty must stop. One need not agree with Jack’s views to agree that all Americans should be free to say what they believe, even if the government disagrees with those beliefs.”

Christian charity worker faces potential jail time, fine after speaking about leaving LGBT lifestyle

By Jon Brown | Fox News | January 20, 2023


A Christian charity worker in Malta could face jail time after he claimed that his faith enabled him to turn away from a homosexual lifestyle he no longer wanted.

Matthew Grech, 33, faces potential fines and imprisonment for allegedly falling afoul of his country’s ban on “conversion practices” when he explained to a local media outlet last year how he left homosexuality behind because he came to believe it was wrong.

“I was invited by this new emerging platform in Malta called PMnews to share my story and to discuss sexuality in general,” Grech told Fox News Digital, noting that he was “surprised” when police later called him early on a Sunday morning and ultimately served him with a prosecution order summoning him to court on Feb. 3.

Legal counsel for Grech maintains that his case is the first of its kind and threatens to set in motion a legal “domino effect” that could endanger freedom of speech and religious liberty throughout the Western world.


Matthew Grech, 33, faces a court date on Feb. 3 in Valletta, Malta, for allegedly advertising "conversion practices" when he gave an interview about his life.
Matthew Grech, 33, faces a court date on Feb. 3 in Valletta, Malta, for allegedly advertising “conversion practices” when he gave an interview about his life. (Christian Concern)

‘Domino effect’

According to a transcript of his interview with PMnews Malta, at no point did Grech invite anyone to attend therapy to change their sexual orientation or gender identity, though he was critical of the Maltese law and explained how he came to believe that homosexuality is not an identity, but rather a practice that was incompatible with his Christian faith.

“They knew my stance around homosexuality and sexuality in general, so they wanted to hear a little bit more about it because many shun the other side of the story,” Grech said. “But these guys wanted to explore it because they’re for freedom of speech, and they don’t like it when viewpoints are shut down simply because they are unpopular.”

Grech said that after LGBT activists with ties to the Maltese government and the Malta Gay Rights Movement (MGRM) reported him to police for the interview, he now faces up to €5,000 in fines or up to five months in prison if convicted of violating Article 3, Section 3 of Malta’s Affirmation of Sexual Orientation, Gender and Gender Expression Act, which makes it “unlawful for any person” to “advertise conversion practices.” The journalists who interviewed him also have upcoming court dates and face potential criminal sanctions for their part in conducting the interview.

MGRM did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment by time of publication.

Grech faces a court date on Feb. 3 in Valletta, Malta, for allegedly running afoul of the country's ban on advertising "conversion practices."
Grech faces a court date on Feb. 3 in Valletta, Malta, for allegedly running afoul of the country’s ban on advertising “conversion practices.” (Sylvain Sonnet via Getty Images)

Grech is slated to appear before the Court of Magistrates in Valletta on Feb. 3, where he will be assisted in legal defense by the Christian Legal Centre (CLC), a London-based nonprofit that focuses on cases of religious discrimination against Christians.

Andrea Williams, chief executive of the CLC, said in a statement provided to Fox News Digital that Grech’s treatment by Maltese authorities is discriminatory and violates “his Christian freedoms and fundamental right to free speech.”

Grech’s lawyers plan to argue that his prosecution is a violation of his right to freedom of expression guaranteed under both the Constitution of Malta and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

“The domino effect of ‘conversion therapy’ bans began in Malta,” said Williams, who warned that the case threatens to set a precedent that could spread to other Western countries “unless robust action is taken.”

European Commission headquarters lit up in the colors of the rainbow flag in support of the LGBT community in Brussels, Belgium, on May 16, 2020.
European Commission headquarters lit up in the colors of the rainbow flag in support of the LGBT community in Brussels, Belgium, on May 16, 2020. (NurPhoto / Contributor via Getty Images)

Malta, an island nation between Sicily and the coast of North Africa, was the first country in the European Union to criminalize practices that would seek to “change, repress or eliminate a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity and/or gender expression.”


The legislation, which passed unanimously in 2016, resembles conversion therapy bans throughout the world, including in 20 states and more than 100 municipalities in the U.S.

Many such bans in the U.S. apply only to minors and carve out exemptions for religious counseling, though some in other countries prohibit consenting adults from seeking help from anyone for unwanted sexual attractions and behaviors.

“They want to ban Christian counseling in churches simply because it does not conform to their religion. They claim not to be religious, but I can tell you that they are just as religious as everybody else.” — Matthew Grech

In Canada, therapists who provide any form of counseling to repress or reduce “non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behavior” or “non-cisgender identity” could face up to five years in prison, according to a law put in place last year that prompted protests from thousands of churches throughout North America because of its scope.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau participates in the annual Pride Parade in Toronto, Ontario, in 2016.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau participates in the annual Pride Parade in Toronto, Ontario, in 2016. (Rick Madonik/Toronto Star via Getty Images)

The Conservative Party-led U.K. government announced this week a plan to debate legislation to add transgender identity to Britain’s conversion therapy ban, which before applied only to sexual orientation.

The United Nations has deemed conversion therapy as tantamount to torture, and U.N. Independent Expert on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Victor Madrigal-Borloz called for a global ban on it in 2020.

‘Simply barbaric’

During a 2020 interview similar to that which led to his prosecution, Grech recalled how his gentle personality and boyhood musical interests made him a target growing up among other boys, who bullied him and mocked him as gay. He said he would assume that label as an identity and go on to become involved in sexual relationships with other men in an attempt to find male acceptance, but that he began to desire a new lifestyle upon becoming a Christian.

Grech became involved with the U.K.-based International Federation for Therapeutic and Counseling Choice (IFTCC), an organization that aims “to promote a caring, nonjudgmental environment where people who choose to move away from their unwanted feelings and behaviors can find the support they’re seeking,” according to its website.

He is also a trustee of Core Issues Trust, a group that works closely with IFTCC and supports “men and women with homosexual issues who voluntarily seek change in sexual preference and expression.”

Grech believes activists worldwide are using conversion therapy bans to silence dissenting opinions.
Grech believes activists worldwide are using conversion therapy bans to silence dissenting opinions. (Christian Concern)

Grech says there many others like him who have “very valid reasons” for seeking to move away from unwanted sexual feelings, but fears such individuals are increasingly being marginalized and driven underground by the effects of overbroad conversion therapy bans.

“To deny people access to spiritual or secular support in any context is barbaric,” he said. “It’s simply barbaric.”


Grech believes the activists propelling the sort of conversion therapy ban enforcement he is facing “don’t just want to ban forced help or support, they want to ban our views altogether.”

“They want to ban Christian counseling in churches simply because it does not conform to their religion,” he said. “They claim not to be religious, but I can tell you that they are just as religious as everybody else. They do have a belief system, they do have a very specific vision.”

LGBT campaigners join Gay Liberation Front veterans marking the 50th anniversary of the first U.K. Pride march in 1972 on July 1, 2022, in London.
LGBT campaigners join Gay Liberation Front veterans marking the 50th anniversary of the first U.K. Pride march in 1972 on July 1, 2022, in London. (Mark Kerrison/Contributor via Getty Images)

Despite its small size, Grech noted that Maltese culture is seen as a “forerunner” and “pioneer” in Europe, consistently ranking at the top of ILGA-Europe’s list of most progressive countries.

Parliamentary Secretary Rebecca Buttigieg announced last week that Malta is strengthening its conversion therapy law by adding an amendment to redefine the advertising clause “to include the publishing, advertising, displaying, distributing, referral and circulation of any material promoting the practice,” according to the Times of Malta.

“So it is concerning the other countries will follow suit, but we need to alert other nations and to show them what the real face of a conversion therapy ban is,” Grech said. “It’s just a foothold for these LGBT lobbies to get into churches and to get the pastors and get the gospel ministers to shut up and conform, and it’s just simply not sustainable.”

‘The idol of our generation’

Grech noted the irony that the first case of his kind should be in Malta, which has a notable position in the history of his faith. One of the first Roman colonies to convert to Christianity, the island featured in the New Testament as the place where the apostle Paul was shipwrecked and left unharmed from the bite of a venomous snake that emerged from a fire.

“That story speaks to us to this day, because when Paul arrived in Malta, a fire was set because it was cold, and a snake fastened itself against his arm,” Grech said, referencing the story in Acts 28. “He shook it off, told it where it needs to go, and it went back to the fire.”

“People at first thought he was being judged by the gods because that snake fastened itself around his arm, but when they saw that nothing happened to him, they changed their minds,” he said.


The apostle Paul shakes a viper off of his arm into the fire, as recounted in Acts 28.
The apostle Paul shakes a viper off of his arm into the fire, as recounted in Acts 28. (ZU_09 via Getty Images)

Grech likened the biblical story to his legal battle and the spiritual struggles of people like him who fight to maintain their faith despite their feelings amid what he sees as the tightening grip of opposition from government and the culture.

“I believe that as we survive this snake that is trying to poison us and harm us, as we look toward God, who is able to save us and redeem us, people will shift their perspective,” he said.

“We believe in the best for our nation, but there has been an idol that has been set up, and it needs to come down,” Grech added. “We are facing the idol of our generation, and we’re saying, ‘We’re not going to bow down to you, no matter what the cost.'”

Jon Brown is a writer for Fox News Digital. Story tips can be sent to

Va. Tech soccer player allegedly benched after refusing to kneel for BLM gets $100K settlement

By Michael Gryboski, Mainline Church Editor | January 12, 2023


Unsplash/Emilio Garcia

A college soccer player allegedly punished by her coach for refusing to kneel in support of the Black Lives Matter movement has won a settlement worth $100,000.

Kiersten Hening, a former soccer player with Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, will receive at least $100,000 as part of a recently reached settlement, according to reports.

At issue was the reported harassment she received from Virginia Tech Hokies soccer coach Charles “Chugger” Adair when she refused to kneel when a “unity statement” was read during a game against the University of Virginia in 2020. Hening claimed that Adair verbally abused her for refusing to kneel during the statement, benched the starting player and even pressured her to leave the team as a result.

According to the court documents cited by Fox News, while Hening “supports social justice and believes that black lives matter,” she “does not support BLM the organization,” expressing opposition over the organization’s “tactics and core tenets of its mission statement, including defunding the police.”

The settlement didn’t include an admission of wrongdoing from either side. 

For his part, Adair posted a statement to Twitter last week claiming victory, saying that he was “pleased that the case against me has been closed and I am free to move forward clear of any wrongdoing.”

The people I care about and whose opinions to me matter know the truth. They know my coaching decisions are based purely on getting our team in a position to win,” Adair continued.

Hening was starting in a different position and had been replaced by a player who also stood during the ACC Unity Statement. It’s unfortunate, but this ordeal was about a disappointment and a disagreement about playing time.”

Adam Mortara, an attorney who represented Hening, responded to the tweeted statement by noting, “Kiersten Hening was benched for her free speech and you paying a giant settlement proves it.”

“If by clarity you mean you are paying my client six figures in a settlement then you’re right that’s pretty clear. Honestly, Coach, read the Court’s opinion. You are paying. Defendants don’t pay in cases that have no standing,” Mortara tweeted.

In March 2021, Hening filed a complaint against Adair in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Roanoke Division, accusing the coach of punishing her for her political views.

“Hening’s coach is a state actor,” read the complaint. “Hening’s refusal to kneel is protected by the First Amendment. … The Constitution gives college students like Hening ‘the right to be free from [such] retaliation’ for their protected expression.”

“As a result of her coach’s actions, Hening can no longer play the game she loves, despite having two more years of NCAA eligibility. This Court should vindicate Hening’s constitutional rights and award her legal and equitable relief.”

Last month, U.S. District Judge Thomas T. Cullen issued a memorandum opinion in which he denied Adair’s motion for summary judgment and allowed the lawsuit to proceed to trial.

“The court concludes that there is sufficient evidence in the record supporting Hening’s claim that Adair’s actions, whatever his motives, adversely affected her First Amendment rights,” wrote Cullen.

Cullen also rejected Adair’s attempt to use qualified immunity, or the legal doctrine that says government officials are not liable for violating an individual’s rights unless it was a clearly established constitutional right or statute.

Cullen wrote, “it has long been the law that state officials cannot retaliate against individuals or groups, including college students, for exercising their First Amendment rights.”

The Roanoake Times reports that before the settlement, the school claimed it would present evidence showing that two other players also declined to kneel but were not met with any negative consequences. 

Coach Adair’s explanations have been consistent — Hening’s play contributed to his decision for a line-up change,” the university’s lawyers argued in court filings cited by The Times. 

Hening contends that she had started since her freshman year, and there was no reason to explain why she spent more time on the bench after she refused to kneel. 

Follow Michael Gryboski on Twitter or Facebook

Illegal alien and DACA recipient sentenced to five consecutive life sentences for the brutal murders of three Americans

By: JOSEPH MACKINNON | January 08, 2023


Image source: Greene County Sheriff’s Office

Like Blaze News? Get the news that matters most delivered directly to your inbox. SIGN UP

An illegal alien and so-called “Dreamer” who brutally murdered three American citizens in 2018 was sentenced Friday to five consecutive life sentences.

27-year-old Luis Perez, a Mexican national, shot and killed his former roommates Steven Marler and Aaron Hampton on Nov. 1, 2018, and injured two others in Springfield, Missouri. The next day, the criminal noncitizen murdered Sabrina Starr, the 21-year-old who provided him with the weapon he used in the first two slayings.

TheBlaze reported at the time of the murders that Perez had been locked up in the Middlesex County Jail just months before on suspicion of various felonies, including assault, aggravated assault, and child abuse. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials requested that the jail hold Perez while it started deportation proceedings against him, however, the jail elected instead to release the criminal noncitizen. Perez summarily went on to kill Marler, Hampton, and Starr.

John Tsoukaris, the ICE Newark field office director said, “This tragedy might have been avoided had it not been for the reckless policy required of the Middlesex County Jail by their county officials.”

Don’t miss out on content from Dave Rubin free of big tech censorship. Listen to The Rubin Report now.

County officials suggested that the blame instead lay with ICE, as the agency “has the legal authority and the resources to secure such orders from a federal judge with regard to any inmate in the county’s custody it seeks to detain or deport.”

While Greene County prosecutors initially sought to have Perez put to death for his crimes, they ultimately fought to ensure he would never again walk free, reported the Springfield News-Leader.

Assistant Greene County Prosecutor Phil Fuhrman said, “Mr. Perez is dangerous, he is violent, and he is deserving of the maximum sentence.”

Perez’s attorney pushed for leniency in terms of his client’s sentencing, suggesting that the murderous illegal alien should receive his life sentences at the same time rather than one after another, so that he might one day become eligible for parole. The thinking behind this leniency: Perez, in the U.S. unlawfully, allegedly had a tough time growing up in New Jersey.

A spokesman for ICE revealed that Perez was previously a recipient of the “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” program in 2012 and 2014, enabling him to dodge deportation and to receive a work permit.

Judge Thomas Mountjoy, who found Perez guilty of the murders in October, was not swayed by this line of argumentation, noting he was “struck by the magnitude of the violence” and that the “magnitude speaks to requiring the most severe sentence that the law would structure.”

Mountjoy gave Perez consecutive life sentences, ensuring the murderer will die in prison.

The News-Leader reported that Deboray Elkins, the mother of victim Aaron Hampton, called Perez’s victims “fallen heroes” and said Perez’s conviction in October marked a “day of jubilation.”

According to ICE, 62 illegal aliens were convicted in fiscal year 2022 for murder or manslaughter; 1,142 were convicted with assault, battery, or domestic violence; 896 were convicted for burglary, robbery, or fraud; 1,614 were convicted for driving under the influence; 365 were convicted for sex offenses; and many more faced convictions for other crimes.

While Perez’s co-defendant Nyadia Burden previously pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit murder, having bought the bullets Perez used in the murders, two others have pending charges.

Dalia Garcia stands accused of tampering with evidence, having allegedly burned clothing worn during the murders.

Aaron Anderson also remains on the hook, having been charged with being an accessory to murder.

Transsexual who butchered his parents no longer serving his 40-year sentence in men’s prison, now listed as a ‘female’ in medium-security prison

By: JOSEPH MACKINNON | December 29, 2022


Image source: YouTube video, Central Maine News – Screenshot

Like Blaze News? Get the news that matters most delivered directly to your inbox. SIGN UP

On account of legislation sponsored and approved by Democrat politicians, the 24-year-old transsexual who butchered his parents and family dog on Halloween in 2016 — claiming they provoked him by refusing to indulge his fantasy of being a woman — has received a “female” designation and is no longer in a men’s-only prison.

What are the details?

Andrew Balcer, now 24, was held at the Long Creek Youth Development Center in South Portland, Maine, prior to his conviction in 2018 for the murder of his parents. A program manager at the secure juvenile facility testified in court that Balcer demanded to be called “Andrea” while in custody and further requested that people use female pronouns when describing him, reported the Kennebec Journal.

After receiving his sentence, Balcer was sent to the Maine State Prison, a maximum-security facility for men. However, it appears that the double murderer has since had his accommodations upgraded.

The feminist publication Reduxx reported that Balcer now resides in the Maine Correctional Center in Windham, a mixed-sex medium-security facility where he is likely kept with real women.

Don’t miss out on content from Dave Rubin free of big tech censorship. Listen to The Rubin Report now.

According to the MCC website, the facility is Maine’s primary adult reception facility for both male and female residents and is where “residents sentenced to less than five years are directly admitted.”

The Maine Department of Corrections lists Andrew Balcer, a biological male looming at over six feet tall and weighing in at over 245 pounds, as a “female” with the alias “Andrea Balcer.”

Andrew BalcerMaine Department of Corrections, inmate profile

Reduxx noted that the so-called “Act to Protect the Rights of Certain Incarcerated Individuals,” sponsored by Democrat state Rep. Charlotte Warren and approved by Democrat Gov. Janet Mills in 2021, enables men to be housed with women in the event that the men identify as women.

The act “provides to a person residing in a correctional or detention facility the right to have that person’s consistently held gender identity respected and acknowledged and to have staff and representatives of the correctional or detention facility use the pronouns, titles and names identified by the person.

Extra to affirming the inmate’s supposed gender dysphoria, housing and search procedures must be consistent with the inmate’s gender identity.

In addition to potentially residing with real women, Balcer is also permitted dysphoria-affirming apparel.

Fox News Digital noted that MDOC Commissioner Randell Liberty rolled out a policy in 2020 requiring state-run prisons to provide clothing that aligns with an inmate’s so-called gender identity, meaning that men can be given bras and women can receive chest binders. Balcer would be eligible to receive such gear.

The murders

WGME reported that on Oct. 31, 2016, Balcer murdered his parents, Alice and Tony Balcer, and then slaughtered the family’s chihuahua because it kept barking.

In a 911 call played in court, Balcer confessed to the murders, saying, “I snapped. I took my little Ka-Bar [U.S. Marine Corps combat knife] there and I drove it straight into my mother’s back.”

Balcer later told Maine State Police detectives that he had stabbed his mother when she came over to give him a comforting hug.

The murderer noted at the time of the 911 call — which was punctuated by his apparent laughter — that his mother’s corpse was lying on the floor, “messy.”

“My father came up because he heard her screams and I stabbed the f*** out of him,” said Balcer. “I stabbed the dog too. She was barking.”

Alice Balcer was reportedly stabbed nine times and Tony Balcer was stabbed 13 times.

The murderer reportedly asked his brother Christopher Balcer if he wanted to die, but ultimately permitted him to escape unmolested.

Judge Eric Walker said, “The only possible motive for the murders appears to be Andrew’s perception that his parents were unwilling or unable to deal with his transgender issues. We will never know if Antonio or Alice Balcer would have been accepting, because they were ambushed and murdered by Andrew.”

Contrary to the murderer’s claims, Alice Balcer’s brother Carl Pierce said, “There was no hatred. There was no malice. There was no ill will. There was resignation to be sure but ultimately there was acceptance.”

The murderer’s brother Christopher Balcer similarly suggested that the victims had been accepting of their killer’s identity, reported the Sun Journal.

Christopher Balcer also suggested that the murderer’s claims of abuse at the hands of his parents were similarly lies, calling the allegations “the most absurd I’ve ever heard in my life.”

Christopher shared a letter he sent to his brother in jail with the Kennebec Journal, in which he wrote, “I still hear our dearest mother’s screams, every night as I fall asleep. Every morning as I awaken, they echo in my head. Her screams as she was stabbed by the son she doted on so much, the son she only wanted the world for, and would accept nothing less.”

“I remember the foul things you accused her of, and the looks of horror upon the family’s faces as they heard about them. You are an inhuman creature and the fact that you continue to pretend otherwise sickens me,” added Christopher.

Andrea Balcer sentencing

Justice Dept. sues Republican Arizona governor over shipping container border wall

By: CARLOS GARCIA | December 15, 2022


Image Source: KPHO-TV YouTube video screenshot

Like Blaze News? Get the news that matters most delivered directly to your inbox. SIGN UP

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Republican Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey over his order to pile up shipping containers at the border to create a wall and deter illegal migrant crossings. Ducey began filling gaps in the border wall with shipping containers stacked on top of each other in August. The Department of Justice objected to the policy, and Ducey filed a lawsuit in October to keep the container wall in place.

Arizona is taking action to protest on behalf of our citizens,” he said at the time. “With this lawsuit, we’re pushing back against efforts by federal bureaucrats to reverse the progress we’ve made. The safety and security of Arizona and its citizens must not be ignored. Arizona is going to do the job that Joe Biden refuses to do — secure the border in any way we can. We’re not backing down.”

On Wednesday, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit in an Arizona district court accusing the state government of acting unconstitutionally.

Don’t miss out on content from Dave Rubin free of big tech censorship. Listen to The Rubin Report now.

Officials from Reclamation and the Forest Service have notified Arizona that it is trespassing on federal lands,” the lawsuit said. “Not only has Arizona refused to halt its trespasses and remove the shipping containers from federal lands, but it has indicated that it will continue to trespass on federal lands and install additional shipping containers.

The government also argued that Ducey is violating the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which says that federal laws take precedence over state laws when there’s a conflict between the two.

Ducey has said that the state has stacked about 130 shipping containers along 3,820 linear feet.

On Wednesday, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom said California was in a fiscal crisis over the number of illegal immigrants who had been sent to the state by the federal government.

Here’s more about the container wall conflict:

Feds sue Gov. Doug Ducey over shipping containers at the border

Skirt-wearing biological boy sexually assaulted 2 female students last year – superintendent finally fired following grand jury report

By: CANDACE HATHAWAY | December 07, 2022


Loudoun County School Board Superintendent Scott Ziegler (Image Source: WUSA video screenshot)

Like Blaze News? Get the news that matters most delivered directly to your inbox. SIGN UP

The Loudoun County School Board fired Superintendent Scott Ziegler following a grand jury report regarding the district’s handling of two sexual assaults committed by a biological boy who claimed to be transgender, Fox News Digital reported.

In May 2021, the skirt-wearing biological male student was accused of raping a 15-year-old female student in the girls’ bathroom. The story received national attention when the victim’s father, Scott Smith, accused Loudoun County School District of covering up the sexual assault to protect to its transgender policy. Following the horrifying attack, the biological boy was removed from the school and quietly sent to another school in the same district, where the student was accused of sexually assaulting another girl in October 2021.

The attacker faced charges and was found guilty of both sexual assaults.

Monday’s grand jury report stated that the district showed a “stunning lack of openness, transparency and accountability, both to the public and to the special grand jury.”

Don’t miss out on content from Dave Rubin free of big tech censorship. Listen to The Rubin Report now.

The report noted that the district “failed at every juncture.” According to the report, the school board attempted to “thwart, discredit and push back” against the grand jury’s investigation.

The grand jury slammed Ziegler for claiming at a school board meeting in June of last year that he did not have any knowledge of the first sexual assault and that there was no “record of assaults occurring in our restrooms.” In that meeting, Ziegler also stated that “the predator transgender student or person simply does not exist.”

The investigation into the district’s handling of the assault revealed that the superintendent was, in fact, aware of the initial assault. In a May 28 email, the superintendent alerted school board members about the reported attack.

Senior district officials subsequently met in private to discuss the sexual assault that occurred in the school bathroom, internal emails revealed. The report noted that LCSD “bears the brunt of the blame” for the second sexual assault and that it “could have and should have been prevented.” However, the grand jury did not find that there was a “coordinated cover-up” between school officials and the board.

“A remarkable lack of curiosity and adherence to operating in silos by LCPS administrators is ultimately to blame for the October 6 incident,” the report stated.

LCPS was provided with eight recommendations to increase school safety and avoid a similar incident in the future. The grand jury’s investigation did not result in any indictments.

COMMENTARY: Walmart Mass Shooter Left Behind Suicide Note – Includes 4 Words Media Doesn’t Want to Talk About

 By C. Douglas Golden | November 26, 2022


The way you can tell the media is going to move on from the shooting at a Chesapeake, Virginia, Walmart that claimed the lives of six people is that there’s absolutely no handle for them.

Race? Not a factor — accused shooter Andre Bing, who later killed himself, was black. The gun? Not an AR-15 or an associated long rifle — the handgun he used was legally purchased. His victims weren’t chosen for any other reason than that they were his coworkers at the store.

And there are four words you definitely won’t hear them talk about from the alleged shooter’s suicide note: “led by the Satan.”

The note, which Chesapeake police say they found on the phone of the 31-year-old Bing, was released in a series of tweets on Friday.

In the rambling screed, Bing said he was offended because his coworkers compared him to serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer.

Trending: Watch: CNN Anchor Watches Narrative Collapse, Left Stunned When She Finds out Colorado Shooting Suspect is ‘Non-Binary’

“I would never have killed anyone that entered my home,” he said, calling his fellow employees “idiots with low intelligence” who tormented him with what he described as “evil twisted grins.”

“Sorry God I’ve failed you, this was not your fault but my own,” he wrote. “I failed to listen to the groans of the holy spirit which made me a poor representation of You.”

“My only wish would have been to start over from scratch and that my parents would have paid closer attention to my social deficits,” he continued.

“Sorry everyone but I did not plan this, I promise things just fell in place like I was led by the Satan.”

So, guess how many times Satan was mentioned in CNN’s write-up of the suicide note? Zero.

Instead, we got this: “The note — found on his phone — talks about God, the holy spirit, and how the author felt his ‘associates’ were mocking him.”

Nowhere in the article is it mentioned how he was addressing God or talking about the Holy Spirit. One is left with the distinct impression he was inspired by God, not by the embodiment of sin and evil.

Related: Watch: CNN Anchor Watches Narrative Collapse, Left Stunned When She Finds out Colorado Shooting Suspect is ‘Non-Binary’

By ignoring Satan, the media ignores the fact very real spiritual evil exists. “We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one,” 1 John 5:19 reads. Even a CNN reporter can look at the outlet’s own homepage and realize how true the last part of that equation is.

Focusing on that, however, would lead too many readers to ruminate on the state of our fallen world and to blame individuals — not guns, politicians or religion — for the shooting.

With the shooting at a Colorado Springs, Colorado, gay nightclub, those scapegoats were too easy. It was the fault of religion. Of Tucker Carlson and Lauren Boebert. Of the so-called “assault weapon.”

This time, four disgusting words spell out what motivated this and so many other mass murderers: “led by the Satan.”

Expect the media to do everything to avoid talking about the inconvenient fact that good and evil are real, objective things. They’re going to avoid it because they want to exist in a godless bubble where good and evil are determined by manmade standards.

Tragically, shootings like the one in Chesapeake show exactly what happens when those concepts are left to human arbiters.

C. Douglas Golden

Contributor, Commentary

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia. Specializing in political commentary and world affairs, he’s written for Conservative Tribune and The Western Journal since 2014.



Media outlet revises story about Joe Biden after legal scholar exposes ‘whopper of a claim’

By: CHRIS ENLOE | November 22, 2022


Kris Connor/WireImage

Like Blaze News? Get the news that matters most delivered directly to your inbox. SIGN UP

The Associated Press revised a story about the Hunter Biden scandal after constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley spotlighted the “whopper of a claim” within it.

On Saturday, the AP wrote about House Republicans and their plan to investigate President Joe Biden for potentially being involved in his son’s business dealings despite his denials. Buried deep within the story was a paragraph absolving the president of any wrongdoing. The AP reported:

Joe Biden has said he’s never spoken to his son about his foreign business, and nothing the Republicans have put forth suggests otherwise. And there are no indications that the federal investigation involves the president.

Turley quickly called out the “breathtaking but telling” claim.

“[T]he Bidens have succeeded in a Houdini-like trick in making this elephant of a scandal disappear from the public stage,” Turley wrote on his website. “They did so by enlisting the media in the illusion. However, this level of audience participation in the trick truly defies belief.”

He then detailed the circumstantial evidence that appears to contradict Biden’s claims about not being involved in Hunter’s business dealings, including voice messages, emails, and claims from Tony Bobulinski, a former business partner of Hunter Biden.

Don’t miss out on content from Dave Rubin free of big tech censorship. Listen to The Rubin Report now.

The AP later deleted its suggestion that Republicans have failed to produce evidence backing their suspicions.

Joe Biden has said he’s never spoken to his son about his foreign business, and there are no indications that the federal investigation involves the president,” the AP story now reads.

According to Turley, the edit — which the AP does not disclose in an editor’s note — “creates a new problem.”

Rather than simply stating the fact, AP seems to struggle to shield the President. There is every indication that ‘the federal investigation involves the president.’ Not only is the President discussed in key emails under investigation, but the grand jury heard testimony that the ‘Big Guy’ is Joe Biden,” he explained, adding a link to this story.

Supreme Court Clears Way For Congress To Access Trump’s Tax Returns



Former U.S. President Donald Trump Makes An Announcement At His Florida Home
Joe Raedle/Getty Images

The Supreme Court has denied former President Donald Trump’s request to block the House Ways and Means Committee from reviewing his tax returns.

The committee has long been attempting to review six years of tax returns and files in connection with Trump and eight of his businesses. Trump had appealed to the Supreme Court to stop the committee from reviewing his tax returns, but the court turned down Trump’s request Tuesday.

On Oct. 27, a three-judge panel on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Trump’s request to block the tax returns, pushing him to file the emergency appeal in the Supreme Court, CNN reported. Trump asked the court Oct. 31 to temporarily block the committee from viewing his tax returns as the court considered his case, and Chief Justice John Roberts granted that request. (RELATED: Supreme Court Okays Masks On Planes During Public Health Emergencies)

The Tuesday court ruling also vacated Roberts’ order.

Trump’s Oct. 31 application claimed the committee’s tax return review request would, if allowed to stand, “undermine the separation of powers and render the office of the Presidency vulnerable to invasive information demands from political opponents in the legislative branch.”

Attempted murder suspect freed from jail after allegedly plowing through 25 LA sheriff’s recruits and leaving behind ‘bodies everywhere, bones sticking out and bleeding’

By: JOSEPH MACKINNON | November 18, 2022


Image source: YouTube video – KTTV

Like Blaze News? Get the news that matters most delivered directly to your inbox. SIGN UP

The driver accused of plowing through a large group of 75 law enforcement recruits in Los Angeles County on Wednesday has been named, charged, and released. Investigators now believe the incident to have been intentional.

In a statement on Nov. 17, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department indicated that 22-year-old Nicholas Joseph Gutierrez was charged with attempted murder on peace officers and that additional charges were pending.

CNN reported that while investigators have strong suspicions that the suspect meant to inflict harm on the recruits, they first need to shore up those suspicions with substantial evidence.

Since the department is usually required to present a case to the district attorney within 48 hours of a suspect’s arrest, they provisionally cut Gutierrez loose after his initial arrest. According to the Los Angeles Times, Gutierrez’s original arrest was deemed a detention.

LASD Deputy Deanna Mares told CNN: “It’s not like they arrested the wrong suspect. … They just want to make sure the investigation is going to be complete.”

Don’t miss out on content from Dave Rubin free of big tech censorship. Listen to The Rubin Report now.

Sgt. Gerardo Magos similarly suggested that there was ample evidence but that law enforcement just wanted “to make sure it’s properly presented.”

Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva suggested that part of the reason investigators are taking more time is that they don’t trust the leftist district attorney to do his job.

The sheriff told NewsNation, “We operate under prosecutor George Gascón. We definitely have grave concerns about his ability to prosecute. We are actually going to provisionally release him (Gutierrez) until we can have the case ironclad, iron-proof, and submitted to the DA for filing consideration. Right now, we want to tie up all the loose ends on the case and then present it to the DA.”

Gutierrez is reportedly due in court on Friday.

Gutierrez allegedly drove 30 to 40 mph the wrong way up a street near the sheriff’s STARS Center Academy in Whittier, California, where 75 sheriff’s deputy recruits were jogging. The suspect is said to have mowed down 25 recruits, some of whom reportedly lost limbs.

Twenty of the victims are with the LASD; two are with the Glendale PD; two are with the Bell PD; and one is with the Pasadena PD.

The Independent reported that were it not for a light pole, even more people could have been injured.

Captain Pat MacDonald said, “Thank God for that light pole, because the vehicle ultimately hit it and stopped, as opposed to possibly hitting more recruits.”

Five recruits were left in critical condition. According to the Los Angeles Times, over a dozen others suffered “life-altering” injuries of varying severity.

Villanueva described the aftermath to NewsNation: “It was a bedlam, chaos, you know, there were bodies everywhere, bones sticking out and bleeding profusely. It was a pretty traumatic scene.”

“In fact, the paramedics that were there had never seen something of that scale. It was almost like an airplane accident, but everyone was alive, thankfully,” added Villanueva.

As of Thursday night, seven recruits were reportedly still in the hospital, two of whom remained in critical condition.

The LASD noted that homicide investigators would present the case to the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office on Friday for filing considerations.

Villanueva believes the vehicular attack to have been a “deliberate act.”

In one video of the incident caught on a nearby security camera, it appears as though the suspect oriented his vehicle toward the victims:

Surveillance video shows moment of horrific Whittier crash that injured 25 recruits

The sheriff said on Wednesday that there were no skid marks at the scene, suggestive of a failure or a refusal to apply the brakes when driving toward the recruits. After allegedly mowing down the prospective deputies, Gutierrez allegedly remained in the Honda CR-V with his foot still on the accelerator.

A field sobriety test indicated that Gutierrez was not drunk on the morning of the brutal incident. The Los Angeles Times indicated that marijuana may have been recovered from the suspect’s vehicle.

Two dozen LA sheriff recruits injured after car plows into group

Detransitioner to sue ‘mutilators’ who ‘butchered’ her body

By Ryan Foley, Christian Post Reporter | November 15, 2022


Detransitioner Chloe Cole, 17, speaks about her experience undergoing trans medicalization as a young teenager in a meeting with Florida Surgeon General Joseph A. Ladapo in July 2022. | Screengrab: Twitter/Joseph A. Ladapo

A detransitioner is suing doctors who performed body mutilating sex-change surgeries on her as a minor, seeking to hold accountable the “mutilators” who “butchered” her. 

Chloe Cole, an 18-year-old detransitioner residing in California, has filed a notice of intent to sue the medical facilities that performed procedures that have left her disfigured. The notice of intent to sue in California Superior Court lists three doctors practicing in the Los Angeles area and two medical companies based in California as defendants in the pending lawsuit. The lawsuit will move forward 90 days after the publication of the notice of intent to sue, on Feb. 9, 2023, “unless this matter can be resolved prior to that time.”

A detransitioner is a person who formerly self-identified as the opposite sex but has now become comfortable with their biological sex. 

In a statement announcing the letter of intent to sue, Cole described her teenage years as “a culmination of excruciating pain, regret, and most importantly injustice.” Cole recalled that she was “emotionally and physically damaged and stunted by so-called medical professionals in my most important developmental period.”

I was butchered by an institution that we trust more than anything else in our lives,” she added. “What is worse is that I am not alone in my pain. I will ensure that the blood and tears of detransitioners like me will not be in vain. It is impossible for me to recoup what I have lost, but I will fight to ensure that no other children will be harmed at the hands of these liars and mutilators.”

Harmeet Dhillon, CEO of the Center for American Liberty, is representing Cole in her litigation. Dhillon vowed to “hold the ‘professionals’ involved accountable for their deliberate choices to mutilate children and financially benefit from it without regard to the human tragedies they’ve created,” adding, “We will break the cycle of them breaking America’s children before it’s too late.”

The notice of intent to sue elaborates on Cole’s circumstances: “Chloe is a biological female who suffered from a perceived psychological issue ‘gender dysphoria,’” the document states. “Under Defendants’ advice and supervision, between 13-17 years old Chloe underwent harmful transgender treatment, specifically, puberty blockers, off-label cross-sex hormone treatment, and a double mastectomy.”

The notice classified Cole’s experience as a form of “medical experimentation,” adding, “She now has deep emotional wounds, severe regrets, and distrust for the medical system.” Specifically, the letter adds that because of acts carried out by the defendants, Cole “suffered mutilation to her body and lost social development with her peers at milestones that can never be reversed or regained.”

“Defendants coerced Chloe and her parents to undergo what amounted to a medical experiment by propagating two lies. First, Defendants falsely informed Chloe and her parents that Chloe’s gender dysphoria would not resolve unless Chloe socially and [medically] transitioned to appear more like a male. Chloe has been informed by her parents that Defendants even gave them the ultimatum: ‘Would you rather have a dead daughter or a live son?’”

The notice of intent to sue notes that “the vast majority of childhood gender dysphoria cases resolve by the time the child reaches adulthood, with the patient’s self-perception reverting back to align with their biological sex.

According to the letter, “Despite an undeniable body of relevant medical literature, Defendants never once informed Chloe of the possibility, indeed the high likelihood, that her gender dysphoria would resolve, without cross-sex treatment, by the time she reached adulthood.

Defendants fraudulently concealed that information from Chloe that the only way to resolve her psychological condition was to undergo physical, chemical, and social transition to a male role,” the document added. 

Citing a longterm study finding that “gender dysphoric individuals who undergo sex reassignment continue to have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behavior, and psychiatric morbidity as compared with the general population,” the letter lamented that “Defendants intentionally obscured these facts and defrauded Chloe and her parents in order to perform what amounted to a lucrative transgender medical experiment on Chloe.”

Although Cole was “advised that the distress she experienced because of her gender dysphoria would resolve as she transitioned,” her “distress always came back worse” following the “initial relief” that occurred after “each phase of transition.” Cole’s double mastectomy, which was performed on her at 15, caused her to experience suicidal thoughts and a deteriorating state of mental health.

Cole told Fox News opinion host Tucker Carlson last week that the doctors named as defendants in the letter committed medical malpractice. The notice of intent to sue outlined some of the claims of medical malpractice, including the absence of “specific information regarding the actual risks of the testosterone and puberty blockers” she was first prescribed at age 13. 

Side effects of puberty blockers include: “Permanent fertility loss, painful intercourse, impairment of orgasm, reduced bone development and inability to obtain peak or maximum bone density, stopped or stunted widening and growth of the pelvic bones for reproductive purposes, increased risk of osteoporosis and debilitating spine and hip fractures as an adult, increased morbidity and death in older age due to increased risk of hip fracture, negative and unknown effects on brain development, emotional liability such as crying, irritability, impatience, anger, and aggression, and reports of suicidal ideation and attempt.”

While much of the notice of intent to sue contains redacted information about the medical consequences of the experimental procedures performed on Cole’s body, the document concludes with an assessment of damages caused by the drugs and operations performed on her body over the course of several years. Cole will seek $350,000 from each of the three doctors named as defendants in the lawsuit and both healthcare organizations where the procedures were performed, making it possible that she could be awarded up to $1,750,000 in damages altogether.

The notice of intent to sue comes shortly after Cole has emerged as one of the most prominent detransitioners in the U.S. Cole founded the support group Detrans United, established to provide detransitioners who regret their attempts at gender transitions with a platform to voice their “dissent against ‘gender-affirming care,’ [and] influence policy.”

Cole has voiced her dissent against sex-change surgeries for minors by calling into a school board meeting last month at Conejo Valley Unified School District in Ventura County, California. Cole expressed concern about the school district’s distribution of a book to 8-year-old students teaching that children could be born in the wrong body. Cole warned that exposing children to such material could lead them to make ill-fated decisions like the ones she made when she was experiencing gender dysphoria.

“I will not be able to breastfeed any children I have in the future and my sexuality has permanently been affected because I was allowed to make adult decisions starting at 13, and then again at 15,” she said at the meeting. “This is what happens when children are sexualized and exposed to developmentally inappropriate and confusing content and ideas from a young age. This is what happens when we treat children like adults and expect them to have the mental faculties for proper long-term decision making.”

In light of the concerns about the longterm impacts of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and body-mutilating surgeries on minors, the states of AlabamaArizona and Arkansas have banned such procedures for children younger than 18, while the Florida Boards of Medicine and Osteopathic Medicine voted to do the same earlier this month. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services classified such procedures as a form of child abuse, as has the state’s Republican attorney general

Ryan Foley is a reporter for The Christian Post. He can be reached at:

Middle school dean placed on leave after Project Veritas video exposes teacher sexualizing students, talking about panties of ‘naughty’ girls

By: PAUL SACCA | November 11, 2022


iStock / Getty Images Plus

Like Blaze News? Get the news that matters most delivered directly to your inbox. SIGN UP

A dean at a high-priced Connecticut private school has been placed on leave after a Project Veritas video appears to show him sexualizing his students.

Iman Rasti is the middle school dean, writing center director, and seventh-grade English teacher at the Greens Farms Academy, according to his LinkedIn account. He was reportedly caught on video making sexually explicit comments about his underage students entrusted to his care. Rasti seemingly admits to being sexually turned on by his seventh-grade students.

The undercover Project Veritas journalist asked Rasti if he was ever “tempted” by his students, and he nodded in agreement, then said, “Every day.” Rasti then appeared to confess being sexually aroused by his students: “It’s very hard. I mean, literally and figuratively.”

When asked about being sexual with his students, the dean noted, “That possibly means me losing my job, my reputation – it’s risky, way too risky.”

Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe said the female journalist recorded two hours of video speaking with Rasti – including the teacher making sexual remarks about his students.

Don’t miss out on content from Dave Rubin free of big tech censorship. Listen to The Rubin Report now.

“Like, one thing they [students] do these days, they sit down in front of me, they purposefully sit down somewhere in the class that is literally directly in front of me,” Rasti said. “They spread their legs wide open and that is just brutal. Brutal.”

“Every day, there is different panties on: green, black, white,” he stated. “And they [students] make sure – it’s like they talk to each other, the three of them do that.”

“They open their legs, and I am teaching, and I see what I see,” Rasti told the undercover journalist at a restaurant. “They make sure that the panties are positioned in a way that I actually see the thing.”

Rasti is seen on video telling the Project Veritas journalist that he has seen the genitalia of his female students.

Rasti – who was hired by the school in 2019 – said he is distracted by the girls spreading their legs during the class. He said, “Well, how can you concentrate? How can you continue talking with your classroom when you see that?”

“I don’t know for women – if you see, I don’t know, I guess for women it’s sexy to see a man with a hard-on,” Rasti continued. “Maybe it’s sexy, I don’t know.”

The teacher said of his students, “And they smile, and they smirk at me, and they close and open, close and open a couple of times. They’re naughty.”

“When girls start having sex, it’s interesting for someone like me who has been in and out of relationships all my life, and married, and all of that,” he admitted.

Rasti theorized that you can see “changes in face and appearance” of adolescent girls once they begin having sex.

“You see a 15-year-old girl, and then next year they come back to school and she’s a woman,” he declared. “There is no way she has gained weight just doing nothing, so it is clear that she has had sex. A lot of sex.”

“Part of the reason why those girls give me attention – in addition to me being genuine with them and honest with them – I think it’s maybe they get that vibe, that sexual tension. I feel like they get it now,” he added. “They lost their head with the TikToks.”

Rasti met with the Project Veritas journalist a second time, and he made a shocking confession.

“I get the vibe, it’s obvious, but I refuse, because I don’t f*** my students. That’s my principle,” the dean said, but added, “I don’t do that, but sometimes I make exceptions. Sometimes.”

Rasti then admitted that he had numerous sexual encounters with his students when he was a college professor.

“Not with my K-12, but college, I had sex with many, many, many, many of my students,” he seemingly bragged.

After Rasti’s exposure in the Project Veritas video, Greens Farms Academy placed Rasti on leave.

“We have just been made aware of a report of inappropriate comments allegedly made by a teacher at GFA,” Greens Farms Academy spokesperson Michelle Levi told the Hartford Courant. “We are placing the employee on leave and will be promptly investigating this matter and taking appropriate action.”

Levi said the school sent a message about the situation to the parents of students on Thursday night. The school also provided parents with “resources” that could offer assistance.

Westport Police Capt. David Wolf told the outlet that police are aware of the damning video, but there is no investigation at this time.

Tuition for seventh-grade students at Greens Farms Academy is $48,770.

(WARNING: Explicit language)

Connecticut School Director Placed “On Leave” After Detailing Sexual Fantasies with Minor Students

Targeting of pro-lifers shows FBI is ‘rotted at its core’: report

By Ryan Foley, Christian Post Reporter


MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images

A new report compiled by congressional Republicans suggests that the FBI is “rotted at its core,” citing the targeting of pro-life activists and parents concerned about their children’s education.

Republicans on the United States House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee released a report Friday titled “FBI Whistleblowers: What Their Disclosures Indicate About the Politicization of the FBI and the Justice Department.” The report contains approximately 1,000 pages of correspondence between lawmakers and current and former agency employees and the executive branch seeking clarification and documents related to actions lawmakers view as concerning. 

“Over the last year, a multitude of whistleblowers have approached Judiciary Committee Republicans with allegations of political bias by the FBI’s senior leadership and misuses of the agency’s federal law-enforcement powers,” the report states. “Whistleblowers describe the FBI’s Washington hierarchy as ‘rotted at its core,’ maintaining a ‘systemic culture of unaccountability,’ and full of ‘rampant corruption, manipulation, and abuse.’”

The report specifically outlined information obtained from whistleblower testimony and other sources revealing how “actions by FBI leadership show a political bias against conservatives.” It expressed particular concern about the FBI’s embrace of an “anti-life agenda” while allowing “attacks on pro-life facilities and churches to go unabated.” 

For its part, the FBI is insisting that it continues to go about its business in a politically neutral way. In a statement shared with The Christian Post, the law enforcement agency asserted that “we follow the facts without regards to politics.”

“The FBI has testified to Congress and responded to letters from legislators on numerous occasions to provide an accurate accounting of how we do our work. The men and women of the FBI devote themselves to protecting the American people from terrorism, violent crime, cyber threats and other dangers,” the statement added. “While outside opinions and criticism often come with the job, we will continue to follow the facts wherever they lead, do things by the book, and speak through our work.” 

The document identified the harassment and threats U.S. Supreme Court justices have found themselves subject to following the leak of the draft decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which concluded that the U.S. Constitution does not contain a right to abortion, as violations of federal law: “In the face of ongoing threats to the justices and their families, the DOJ has, without any public explanation, neglected to institute a single prosecution for those acting in apparent violation and even brazen defiance of the law.”

After classifying the attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers following the leak of the Dobbs decision as violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, the report maintained that the DOJ was abiding by a double standard when it comes to enforcing the federal law. It lamented that “the administration has looked the other way on violence targeting pro-life groups and facilities” while acting “thuggish” in enforcing the provisions of the FACE Act preventing the assault of abortion clinic workers.

“On Sept. 23, an FBI SWAT team raided the home of Pennsylvania resident Mark Houck to arrest him on an indictment charging FACE Act violations punishable by up to 11 years in prison, based on simple shoving incidents. The warrant alleged that on Oct. 13, 2021, Houck shoved a Planned Parenthood volunteer escort outside a clinic. Houck’s wife, however, explained that Houck was provoked by the Planned Parenthood activist making ‘crude … inappropriate and disgusting’ comments to Houck’s 12-year-old son.”

The report added that the FBI deployed 15 vehicles and 25 agents to his home, where they pointed guns at Houck and his family, all because of a confrontation between the pro-life activist and the Planned Parenthood escort as he and his son prayed outside the abortion clinic. It added that while the FBI “claims that it is investigating ‘a series of attacks and threats targeting pregnancy resource centers, faith-based organizations, and reproductive health clinics,’” it hinted at a double standard because “the FBI has not executed any SWAT team ‘dawn’ raids to make arrests in these cases.”

The document contained additional examples of the DOJ’s FACE Act enforcement, which resulted in pro-life activists facing 11 years in prison.

In addition to suggestions of a political bias against pro-lifers, the report pointed to a similar derision toward “parents resisting a far-left educational curriculum.” It recounted the memorandum authored by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland directing law enforcement agencies to address a “disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence” toward school officials. 

The document stressed that the memo came five days after the National School Boards Association likened the “malice, violence, and threats” directed at school officials to “a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes” and suggested that the federal government use counterterrorism statutes to prosecute those engaged in such behavior. The DOJ memo and the NSBA letter prompted considerable backlash, leading to Garland testifying before Congress. 

While Garland assured lawmakers that he did not view “parents getting angry at school boards” as an example of domestic terrorism, a May 20 report released by the NSBA indicated that the Biden administration collaborated with the organization to craft the Sept. 29, 2021, letter that predated the memo. 

According to the NSBA report, “White House officials discussed the existence of the [NSBA] Letter, its requests, and the contents of the Letter with Department of Justice officials more than a week before the Letter was finalized and sent to President [Joe] Biden.”

Friday’s report added that “the FBI quickly operationalized Attorney General Garland’s directive,” with FBI officials creating a new threat tag titled “EDUOFFICIALS” that applied to all “investigations and assessments of threats specifically directed against school board administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.” The report cited “information from whistleblowers” revealing that “the FBI has opened investigations with the EDUOFFICIALS threat tag in almost every region of the country and relating to all types of educational settings.”

Examples of incidents that led to FBI investigations included a mother informing a school board “we are coming for you.” The complaint that led to the investigation presented the woman as a threat because of her membership in a so-called “right-wing mom’s group” titled “Moms for Liberty” and her status as a “gun owner.” 

Another parent that became the target of an FBI investigation vocally expressed opposition to mask mandates, with the complaint against him implying that he “fit the profile of an insurrectionist” because “he rails against the government,” “believes all conspiracy theories” and “has a lot of guns and threatens to use them.” 

The complainant admitted to the FBI that they had “no specific information or observations of … any crimes or threats” and submitted the complaint because the FBI had created a website “to submit tips to the FBI in regards to any concerning behavior directed toward school boards.” 

Other findings in the report declared that “The FBI is artificially inflating and manipulating domestic violent extremism statistics for political purposes,” adding: “the FBI downplayed and sought to reduce the spread of the serious allegations of wrongdoing leveled against Hunter Biden,” “the FBI is abusing its foreign surveillance authorities” and “the FBI is purging employees who refuse to align themselves with the leadership’s political ideology.”

It also denounced the raid upon former President Donald Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago over the summer. 

Ryan Foley is a reporter for The Christian Post. He can be reached at:

NBC Removes Report Claiming Paul Pelosi Walked Away from Police, ‘Did Not Immediately Declare’ Emergency



Screen Shot 2022-11-04 at 2.58.14 PM
Screenshot/Twitter/Benny Johnson

NBC pulled an aired report from its website that said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband Paul opened the door to their house, walked away from police and “did not immediately declare an emergency” the morning he was attacked.

“Sources familiar with what unfolded within the Pelosi residence now revealing, when officers responded to the high-priority call, they were seemingly unaware they’d been called to the home of the Speaker of the House,” NBC News reporter Miguel Almaguer said in the Nov. 4 “Today” report. “After a knock and announce, the door was opened by Mr. Pelosi. The 82-year-old did not immediately declare an emergency or try to leave his home, but instead began walking several feet back into the foyer toward the assailant and away from police.”

NBC removed the report from the show’s website the same day, stating, “The piece should not have aired because it did not meet NBC News reporting standards.”

David DePape allegedly broke into the home early on Oct. 28, said he wanted to speak with Nancy Pelosi, and eventually attacked her husband with a hammer, according to a federal affidavit. The Speaker and her protective detail were in Washington, D.C., when the incident occurred, U.S. Capitol Police said.

Paul Pelosi has since returned home after being hospitalized. NBC added it was unclear why “Pelosi didn’t try to flee, or tell responding officers he was in distress.” (RELATED: Paul Pelosi’s Attacker Was In The US Illegally: REPORT)

The report referenced a state-level court filing against DePape. He has pleaded not guilty to all state-level charges against him, CNN reportedincluding attempted murder, false imprisonment and threatening the life or serious bodily harm to a public official.

DePape is also federally charged with assaulting a U.S. official’s immediate family member with the intent to retaliate against the official on account of the performance of official duties and attempting to kidnap a U.S. official on account of the performance of official duties.

NBC did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Clarence Thomas delivers knockout punch when hearing pro-affirmative action claim: ‘I’ve heard similar arguments in favor of segregation’

By CHRIS ENLOE | November 01, 2022



Like Blaze News? Get the news that matters most delivered directly to your inbox. SIGN UP

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said Monday that pro-affirmative action arguments being made before the court reminded him of pro-segregation arguments.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina on Monday. The significance of the cases cannot be overstated. First, the court will decide whether race can play a role in college admissions, which is currently legal and is known as “affirmative action.”

Second, the court will determine “whether Harvard College is violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by penalizing Asian American applicants, engaging in racial balancing, overemphasizing race and rejecting workable race-neutral alternatives,” according to SCOTUSBlog, and whether “a university can reject a race-neutral alternative because it would change the composition of the student body, without proving that the alternative would cause a dramatic sacrifice in academic quality or the educational benefits of overall student-body diversity.”

Don’t miss out on content from Dave Rubin free of big tech censorship. Listen to The Rubin Report now.

During oral arguments, Thomas asked North Carolina Solicitor General Ryan Park for a definition of “diversity” and to explain the “educational benefits” of diversity.

“Mr. Park, I’ve heard the word ‘diversity’ quite a few times, and I don’t have a clue what it means,” Thomas noted. “It seems to mean everything for everyone.

“I’d like you to give us a specific definition of diversity,” he asked.

Park, however, could not provide a specific definition of “diversity.”

“First, we define diversity the way this court has in this court’s precedents, which means a broadly diverse set of criteria that extends to all different backgrounds and perspectives and not solely limited to race,” he responded.

Regarding the educational benefits of diversity, Park claimed there is no dispute whether diversity is beneficial in education. When pushed further, he pointed to studies about stock trading that claim “racially diverse groups of people making trading decisions perform at a higher level.”

“The mechanism there is that it reduces groupthink and people have longer and more sustained disagreement, and that leads to a more efficient outcome,” Park claimed.

Thomas fired back, “Well, I guess I don’t put much stock in that, because I’ve heard similar arguments in favor of segregation too.”

Thomas’ objection to affirmative action is well known. In a previous case — Grutter v. Bollinger, the case that could be overturned — Thomas explained how the racial considerations innate in affirmative action are dehumanizing.

“The Constitution abhors classifications based on race not only because those classifications can harm favored races or are based on illegitimate motives, but also because every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all, he wrote in an opinion.

In another affirmative action case, Fisher v. University of Texas, Thomas explicated his comparison to arguments for segregation. “It is irrelevant under the Fourteenth Amendment whether segregated or mixed schools produce better leaders,” he wrote.

“Indeed, no court today would accept the suggestion that segregation is permissible because historically black colleges produced Booker T. Washington, Thurgood Marshall, Martin Luther King, Jr., and other prominent leaders,” he explained. “Likewise, the University’s racial discrimination cannot be justified on the ground that it will produce better leaders.”

Border Patrol Agents and Illegal Venezuelan Migrants Violently Clash at Southern Border




Border Patrol agents and illegal migrants from Venezuela had a violent clash at the southern border on Monday, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) said in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation. The incident occurred when the group of Venezuelans, who were engaged in a protest, tried to cross the border from Mexico into El Paso, Texas, along the Rio Grande River, illegally, CBP told the DCNF. The situation grew tense as one of the protestors assaulted a border agent with a flag pole and another person threw a rock that injured one of the agents.

The attacks led agents to deploy “crowd control measures” that included a pepper ball launching system. (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: ‘Facilitators Of Traffickers’: Guatemalan President Says US Needs To ‘Pressure’ Countries To Stop Flow Of Illegal Migrants)

The group then returned to Mexico, CBP said, adding that the incident is under review.

“Customs and Border Protection’s Office of Professional responsibility will review the incident. The situation is still on going, further information may be provided as it becomes available,” CBP said.

Due to an early October Biden administration rule, Venezuelan migrants who cross into the U.S. illegally are expelled immediately to Mexico. CBP encountered over 187,000 illegal Venezuelan migrants during fiscal year 2022, according to agency statistics. Some migrants from Venezuela may come due to a “perception that once they reach the border, they have a greater chance of remaining in the United States, based on a misunderstood perception of temporary protected status,” an internal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) document obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation in late October said.

“These actions make clear that there is a lawful and orderly way for Venezuelans to enter the United States, and lawful entry is the only way,” DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said of the policy at the time.

However, it is unclear if the incident is related to the policy change.

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Blocks Jan. 6 Committee

 By Jack Davis  October 27, 2022


Efforts by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol incursion to examine phone records of the Arizona Republican Party chairwoman have been stymied by a member of the U.S. Supreme Court’s liberal wing.

Justice Elena Kagan on Wednesday temporarily blocked the panel from accessing the phone records of Dr. Kelli Ward and her husband, Mark Ward, according to The Hill.

Kagan’s order was terse, saying, “Upon consideration of the application of counsel for the applicants, it is ordered that the October 22, 2022 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, case No. 22-16473, is hereby stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court.

“Likewise, respondent T-Mobile USA, Inc. is temporarily enjoined from releasing the records requested by the House Select Committee pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court.

“It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Friday, October 28, 2022, by 5 p.m. (EDT).”

Kagan was involved because she is the justice assigned to handle emergency requests from Arizona.

The Wards had sued to block access to their phone records. After losing their case at the district court level, they appealed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit voted 2-1 to deny their bid to protect their records, according to CNN.

That prompted the emergency appeal to Kagan. “This is an unprecedented case with profound precedential implications for future congressional investigations and political associational rights under the First Amendment,” the Wards said in the appeal.

“In a first-of-its-kind situation, a select committee of the United States Congress, dominated by one political party, has subpoenaed the personal telephone and text message records of a state chair of the rival political party relating to one of the most contentious political events in American history—the 2020 election and the Capitol riot of January 6, 2021.”

The appeal painted the case as potentially setting a dire precedent.

“If Dr. Ward’s telephone and text message records are disclosed, congressional investigators are going to contact every person who communicated with her during and immediately after the tumult of the 2020 election. That is not speculation, it is a certainty. There is no other reason for the Committee to seek this information,” the Wards’ filing said.

“There can be no greater chill on public participation in partisan politics than a call, visit, or subpoena, from federal investigators,” they wrote.

The appellate panel ruled against the Wards, saying the federal subpoena “is substantially related to the important government interest in investigating the causes of the January 6 attack and protecting future elections from similar threats.”

“The investigation, after all, is not about Ward’s politics; it is about her involvement in the events leading up to the January 6 attack, and it seeks to uncover those with whom she communicated in connection with those events,” Judges Barry Silverman and Eric Miller wrote in the majority opinion. “That some of the people with whom Ward communicated may be members of a political party does not establish that the subpoena is likely to reveal ‘sensitive information about [the party’s] members and supporters.’”

The two judges who formed the majority castigated the activities of the Wards, who were electors pledged to former President Donald Trump.

“Ward participated in a scheme to send spurious electoral votes to Congress, a scheme that the committee describes as ‘a key part’ of the ‘effort to overturn the election’ that culminated on Jan. 6,” the opinion said.

In her dissent, Judge Sandra Ikuta said the Wards have valid constitutional rights that were insufficiently considered.

“The communications at issue here between members of a political party about an election implicate a core associational right protected by the First Amendment,” Ikuta wrote.

“Regardless of Ward’s position regarding the 2020 election, her right to engage in discussions with her political associates remains entitled to First Amendment protection against the government’s compelled disclosure of her political affiliations,” the judge said. “We must be vigilant to protect First Amendment rights — even when raised by an individual alleged to have engaged in a nefarious ‘scheme.’”

Jack Davis


Jack Davis is a freelance writer who joined The Western Journal in July 2015 and chronicled the campaign that saw President Donald Trump elected. Since then, he has written extensively for The Western Journal on the Trump administration as well as foreign policy and military issues.

Clarence Thomas’s Duty is to the Constitution, Not a Constituency of Black Men


Rerad more at

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
If you listen to corporate media, you’d think Clarence Thomas is a dark-skinned white supremacist. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

Author Mark Paoletta profile




MSNBC host Tiffany Cross recently went on a rant about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in which she referred to him as “Tom” (short for the derogatory term “Uncle Tom”) and invoked a series of other ugly and disrespectful names. But while Cross and her fellow leftwing TV hosts have been spewing hatred, Thomas has been laying out a jurisprudence of faithfulness to the text of the Constitution that now represents a view held by the majority of justices on the Supreme Court. This view does away with the nonexistent constitutional “right” to abortion while reigning in out-of-control federal agencies and giving the Bill of Rights the respect it deserves.

Cross criticized Thomas for not representing black men in his jurisprudence, but where did she get the idea that a supreme court justice is supposed to represent a constituency? In our system of government, a judge’s job is to decide cases according to the Constitution and the law, without regard to any person. Take, for instance, Justice Sonya Sotomayor’s views on affirmative action. It is certainly not her job to represent the median views of Hispanics, 68 percent of whom oppose race being a factor in college admissions, yet she continues to support racially preferential admissions systems that categorize people by their heritage and not their merits. 

Contrary to Cross’s claim, working-class black Americans historically have been in agreement with Thomas’ views on virtually every contentious issue. Thomas has long been opposed to affirmative action and racial preference programs, and so are most black Americans. According to a 2022 poll from Pew Research Center, 59 percent of black Americans are against race factoring into college admissions. It is unlikely Cross is a part of this 59 percent. 

Justice Thomas has opined for thirty years that there is no constitutional right to abortion. According to a 2020 Gallup article, from 2001-2007, only 24 percent of black Americans believed abortion should be legal in all circumstances. From 2017-2020, only 32 percent did. In a May 2022 YouGov poll, 81 percent percent of black respondents said that abortion should be banned after the 25th week. Cross likely is unwilling to tolerate any limit on abortions up to the moment of birth, which would put her far outside the mainstream of black Americans.  

Thomas has ruled that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage. While that is wholly different than whether one supports or supports same-sex marriage, it is notable that a large percentage of black Americans have, until very recently, been opposed to the practice. According to Pew Research, only 21 percent of black Americans supported same-sex marriage in 2004, only 30 percent in 2010, and 51 percent in 2019, and now it is 59 percent.

On topics where Thomas has not ruled from the bench, it is noteworthy that 81 percent of black parents support school choice, but the NAACP opposes school choice. Sixty-nine percent of black Americans support Voter ID laws. Only 28 percent of black Americans support leftist calls to defund the nation’s police. 

Why do Cross and black leadership groups, like the NAACP, continue to be so out of touch with the black Americans they claim to represent? Why do they prioritize the goals set by rich white socialists? Perhaps it is because the NAACP receives significant funding from a majority of white leftwing organizations and labor unions and, therefore, may feel obligated to parrot the views of their funders. Certainly, that’s what happened in 1991 when the NAACP opposed Justice Thomas’ nomination at the insistence of the white labor unions, despite his support in the black community. Cross works for, in her own words, “a white-run media” company, and she pushes far-left views, whereas Thomas has a lifetime appointment and answers only to the Constitution and his conscience.   

Elites have worked to destroy Thomas for years because, among other things, he exposes how out of step they are with the concerns of everyday black Americans. Thomas has argued for affirmative action programs that help students of all races from disadvantaged backgrounds, but the major beneficiaries of racial set-aside programs are wealthy blacks and Hispanics. A recent analysis showed that 71 percent of blacks and Hispanics at Harvard were from wealthy families. These wealthy individuals prevent the truly disadvantaged members of their communities from getting ahead. 

During her tirade, Cross also attempted to smear Thomas by mentioning the ridiculous “pubic hair on a Coke can” comment that Anita Hill bizarrely claimed Thomas made to her many years ago. But the majority of the American people – men and women – did not believe Anita Hill’s testimony at Thomas’ confirmation hearings in 1991. A New York Times/CBS News poll showed people believed Thomas by 58-24 percent. Only 26 percent percent of women believed Anita Hill.   

In 1998, Anita Hill was interviewed by Tim Russert on “Meet the Press,” where she trashed two women who claimed to have been sexually harassed or assaulted by then-President Bill Clinton, one of whom Clinton later settled with out of court for $850,000. After Hill had zealously defended Clinton, Russert asked if there were a double standard on harassment allegations for liberals and conservatives. Hill said there is a double standard, saying, “We live in a political world, and the reality is that … there are … larger issues other than just individual behavior.” Hill meant that if you are pro-abortion, women’s groups will give you a pass if you sexually assault or harass women. Despite Hill being a blatant fraud, Cross still used her antics to smear Thomas. 

The left and the out-of-touch black leadership have attacked Thomas since he joined the Reagan administration forty years ago. Nevertheless, he does not care what they think or say. Cross’s attacks may play well to her leftist audience, but that’s not a lot of people, given she is the second lowest-rated show on the lowest-rated cable news network. 

Nevertheless, it’s important to respond to these attacks to demonstrate how out of touch she and her colleagues are. On the other hand, Thomas will continue building a long-lasting legacy by writing well-reasoned opinions and persuading a majority of his colleagues to join him in ruling in a manner that is faithful to the Constitution.

Mark Paoletta served as a lawyer in the George H.W. Bush White House Counsel’s office and worked on the confirmation of Justice Thomas. He is a senior fellow at Center for Renewing America, and partner at Schaerr Jaffe.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: