Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for the ‘Law’ Category

Court Agrees to Let Spygate Cabal Hide Some of Their Emails from The Grand Jury



Trump Tower

Given that Marc Elias maintained all the emails were protected by attorney-client privilege, the court’s unquestioningly accepting his word seems strange.

Author Margot Cleveland profile




Tech executive Rodney Joffe may assert attorney-client privilege for communications he had with employees of Fusion GPS because those communications furthered Joffe and the Clinton campaign’s common interest, a federal judge presiding over the criminal case against Michael Sussmann ruled yesterday. Prosecutors will now be greatly limited in the material they may elicit from one of the two witnesses granted immunity in exchange for their testimony against Sussmann.

Sussmann, whose trial in a D.C. federal court on a false statement charge is set to begin on Monday, scored a victory Thursday when presiding judge Christopher Cooper rejected Special Counsel John Durham’s attempts to present the jury copies of emails previously withheld by Joffe, the Clinton campaign, and the Democratic National Committee as privileged. The ruling came in response to Durham’s motion to compel Fusion GPS to provide the court, for in camera review, 38 emails the investigative research firm withheld from the grand jury based on the Clinton campaign’s claim of attorney-client privilege and work-product privilege. The latter protects notes, memoranda, and other communications capturing the mental impressions of an attorney, or those helping an attorney prepare for litigation.

Of the 38 emails, the court held that the Clinton campaign “had no valid basis to withhold 22 of” them. Those emails, the court concluded, did not concern legal advice but involved Fusion GPS employees’ interactions “with the press as part of an affirmative media relations effort by the Clinton Campaign.” “That effort,” the court noted, “included pitching certain stories, providing information on background, and answering reporters’ questions.”

Among the emails related to the “ordinary media-relations work” undertaken on behalf of the Clinton campaign were “internal Fusion GPS discussions about the underlying data and emails circulating draft versions of one of the background white papers that was ultimately provided to the press and the FBI.” Because those emails were not written in anticipation of litigation, but instead related “solely to disseminating the information they and others had gathered,” the court held the emails were not protected by either attorney-client privilege or work-product privilege.

Although the court held those 22 emails and the related attachments were not protected by attorney-client privilege, Judge Cooper nonetheless concluded that the special counsel’s office waited too long to file its motion to compel. “As a matter of principle,” the court explained, it would not “put Mr. Sussmann in the position of having to evaluate the documents, and any implications they might have on his trial strategy, at this late date.” Accordingly, the court held, “the government will not be permitted to introduce the emails and attachments that the Court has ruled are not subject to privilege.”

In reaching this conclusion, Judge Cooper noted that the emails did not appear “particularly revelatory,” suggesting there will be little harm to the special counsel’s case against Sussmann from the court’s ruling that the emails will be inadmissible at trial. And beyond the Sussmann case, the court’s ruling inures to the special counsel’s benefit because it establishes a precedent for Durham’s team to seek access to other communications withheld based on the Clinton campaign’s claims of attorney-client privilege. In total, there were nearly 1,500 other documents Fusion GPS withheld as privileged that the special counsel’s office may move to compel the production of as part of future grand jury proceedings or trials.

While that aspect of yesterday’s ruling proves positive for the broader special counsel’s investigation, the court’s conclusion that 16 of the 38 other emails remain privileged creates larger problems for Durham’s team. Eight of those emails also involved internal communications among Fusion GPS employees, the court noted, but because the court was “unable to tell from the emails or the surrounding circumstances whether they were prepared for a purpose other than assisting Perkins Coie in providing legal advice to the Clinton Campaign in anticipation of litigation,” the court deferred to claims by Fusion GPS’s attorney Joshua Levy and Clinton campaign attorney Marc Elias that the emails related to legal advice.

Given that Elias maintained all the emails were protected by attorney-client privilege, the court’s unquestioningly accepting his word seems strange. And if a court applies the same standard to assess whether the remaining approximately 1,500 emails are privileged, the special counsel’s office may face challenges obtaining much that matters.

But it was the court’s ruling concerning the final eight emails that has the most immediate effect on the special counsel’s office, namely its prosecution of Sussmann for allegedly lying to former FBI General Counsel James Baker. The last eight emails, with attachments, consisted of two email chains initiated by Joffe to both Sussman and Fusion GPS employee Laura Seago. In opposing disclosure of the email threads, Joffe asserted that “the purpose of the [] communications at issue was to obtain [Fusion’s] assistance in cybersecurity and technical matters to allow Mr. Sussmann to provide [Mr. Joffe] competent, informed legal advice.”

The court held that Joffe’s communications to Sussmann were protected by attorney-client privilege even though the emails included a non-lawyer, Seago, because attorney-client privilege extends to communications by third parties that an attorney hires to facilitate “the effective consultation between the client and the lawyer.” In reaching this conclusion, the court reasoned that Seago’s “involvement related to the technical analysis of the data, which would naturally inform Mr. Sussmann’s advice to his client about the data.”

The court, however, ignored the fact that Fusion GPS, for whom Seago worked, was hired by Perkins Coie to assist the Clinton campaign and the DNC, not Joffe. And Joffe did not pay for Fusion GPS’s services, nor did Perkins Coie charge Joffe. Further, as the special counsel noted in its briefing of the issue, “Perkins Coie also had no agreement, contract, or other arrangement reflecting that Fusion GPS was providing services specifically to aid Perkins Coie’s legal representation of [Joffe].”

Nonetheless, the court held the email threads between Joffe, Sussmann, and Seago were protected by attorney-client privilege based on case law holding communications that further “a common interest” are protected. What the court didn’t say, though, but what must be true under privilege law and “the common interest rule” is that the court believed the communications furthered a common goal of Joffe and the Clinton campaign.

“The joint defense privilege,” or “the common interest rule,” is “an extension of the attorney-client privilege that protects from forced disclosure communications between two or more parties and/or their respective counsel if they are participating in a joint defense agreement.” The common interest rule “protects communications between the parties where they ‘are part of an on-going and joint effort to set up a common defense strategy’ in connection with actual or prospective litigation.” That rule applies to communications subject to the attorney-client privilege, including communications with technical experts retained to assist in the legal defense.

In this case, as prosecutors stressed in their briefing, there was no “formal or informal legal relationship” between Joffe and the DNC and the Clinton campaign. Case law holds, however, that the “parties need not agree in writing to pursue a common interest; the doctrine permits an exchange of confidential information when the parties have clearly and specifically agreed in some manner to pool information for a common goal.” But “without a written agreement, the party’s burden of proving that a statement was made in the common interest will undoubtedly be more difficult.”

Yet, even without a written agreement, the court found a “common interest” existed to protect Joffe’s communications with Fusion GPS’s Seago, who was hired by Elias to provide legal support to the Clinton campaign. And what was that “common interest?”

According to Joffe, he hired “Sussmann to assist him in a specific legal matter – namely, to advise him how to share sensitive information concerning an extremely litigious Presidential candidate with either investigative journalists or Government agencies without revealing his identity and exposing himself to potential liability, frivolous litigation, and/or threats of violence and/or harassment.”

So, in concluding a “common interest” existed between Joffe and the Clinton campaign, the court implicitly also found “the parties have clearly and specifically agreed in some manner to pool information for a common goal,” here the goal of feeding the press and the government the Alfa Bank hoax.

The end results then are that the special counsel’s office cannot compel Fusion GPS to turn over the eight emails between Joffe, Sussmann, and Seago. But yesterday’s holding has broader consequences for the trial because, in closing its 11-page opinion, the court noted that it “will apply the principles set forth above to any assertions of privilege during witness testimony at trial.”

That means if prosecutors seek to elicit testimony from Seago, or any other employee of Fusion GPS for that matter, on various communications with Joffe, the court could rule the questions out of bounds based on attorney-client privilege. Given that the special counsel was forced to provide Seago with immunity to obtain her testimony at Sussmann’s trial, the court’s ruling yesterday represents a setback to Durham’s case.

Durham does have a few options, including asking the appellate court to resolve the issue of privilege before the trial starts. Prosecutors may instead decide to push forward and play any claim of privilege by Seago on the stand to their advantage, using it as further evidence that Sussmann was representing Joffe and the Clinton campaign when he presented Baker with the Alfa Bank material. They may also point to the “common interest” underlying the privilege analysis as proof that yes, there was a joint venture between the Clinton campaign, Joffe, and others, sufficient to overcome the defendant’s hearsay objections to other evidence.

Whether yesterday’s ruling represents an overall loss to Sussmann or the special counsel is yet to be seen, but what is clear is that it is another damning indictment of Hillary Clinton.

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.

Justice Samuel Alito Speaks About Historic Supreme Court Leak for First Time Since Roe v. Wade Decision Divulged to Press

Reported By Jim Hoft | Published May 13, 2022


Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito delivered a virtual speech at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School on Thursday. This was his first public appearance since a SCOTUS insider leaked the upcoming Roe v. Wade decision to the liberal press.

A SCOTUS insider leaked the decision to far-left media outlet Politico which ran it last week. The leak happened to coincide with the release of the documentary “2000 Mules” that proved the 2020 election was stolen by a network of leftist ballot traffickers in the battleground states.

Alito told the audience on Thursday after being asked about the decision, “The court right now, we had our conference this morning, we’re doing our work. We’re taking new cases, we’re headed toward the end of the term, which is also a frenetic time as we get our opinions out.”

The FBI and law enforcement still have not found the leaker after a two week investigation. It’s funny how bad they are when the culprit is helping the leftist cause.

Huffington Post reported:

Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court justice who authored the leaked draft majority opinion showing the court is preparing to strike down landmark Roe v. Wade abortion rights, addressed the leak for the first time Thursday.

“This is a subject I told myself I wasn’t going to talk about today regarding, you know — given all the circumstances,” Alito said at an event at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, in response to a question about how the justices were getting along, according to The Washington Post.

The nine high court justices met in private Thursday morning for the first time since Politico published Alito’s draft last week.

“The court right now, we had our conference this morning, we’re doing our work. We’re taking new cases, we’re headed toward the end of the term, which is always a frenetic time as we get our opinions out,” Alito said.

“So that’s where we are,” he continued.

Chief Justice John Roberts told a meeting of lawyers and judges at a judicial conference in Atlanta on May 5 that he hoped “one bad apple” would not change “people’s perception” of the Supreme Court, according to CNN.

Roberts previously confirmed the authenticity of the leaked document and said he had ordered an investigation. The source of the leak remains unknown.

Jim Hoft

Jim Hoft is the founder and editor of The Gateway Pundit, one of the top conservative news outlets in America. Jim was awarded the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award in 2013 and is the proud recipient of the Breitbart Award for Excellence in Online Journalism from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation in May 2016.

Pro-abortion groups claim responsibility for setting fire pro-life office on fire: report

Reported By Ryan Foley, Christian Post Reporter | Wednesday, May 11, 2022


The pro-life group Wisconsin Family Action had its headquarters attacked with two Molotov cocktails and graffiti following the leaking of a draft opinion of a United States Supreme Court case that could overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that legalized abortion nationwide. | Screenshot: Twitter/AlexanderShur

Authorities are investigating after groups of pro-abortion advocacy organizations identifying themselves as “Jane’s Revenge” claimed credit for vandalizing the headquarters of a pro-life advocacy group in Wisconsin, vowing to carry out future attacks if their pro-life counterparts do not “disband.” 

Robert Evans, a reporter with the Netherlands-based news operation Bellingcat, took to Twitter Tuesday to share the contents of a message he received from Jane’s Revenge, which purportedly claimed responsibility for the vandalism at Wisconsin Family Action’s headquarters in Madison, Wisconsin, on Sunday.

The exterior of the pro-life organization’s headquarters was vandalized with graffiti, a molotov cocktail was thrown through a window and an office at the facility was set on fire. 

Earlier this week the office of a Wisconsin anti abortion organization was firebombed.

I have received a statement from the group claiming responsibility. They call themselves “Jane’s Revenge” (a reference to the Jane Collective).

More follows.— Robert Evans (The Only Robert Evans) (@IwriteOK) May 10, 2022

The incident at Wisconsin Family Action is one of several examples of violence directed at pro-life groups and churches following Politico’s publication of a draft U.S. Supreme Court opinion that suggests the court could reverse the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

Jane’s Revenge, which described itself as “not one group, but many,” attributed the act of vandalism to outrage over the leaked Supreme Court opinion. The Christian Post has not independently verified the validity of the statement shared by Evans. Evans said the statement was sent to him through an anonymous intermediary that he trusts. The statement is titled “first communique.”

The Madison Police Department told NBC15 that it is aware that a group claimed responsibility for the attack on the Wisconsin Family Action office and is working with federal law enforcement to determine the claim’s validity. A spokesperson for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives told The Guardian that the agency is aware of the claims of responsibility but couldn’t offer further comment.

The message began with an insistence that “[t]his is not a declaration of war” as “war has been upon us for decades,” which “they did not want and did not provoke.” The group stated that “we been attacked for asking for basic medical care.”

“[T]oo long have we been shot, bombed, and forced into childbirth without consent,” the message stated.

The reported Jane’s Revenge communication said the vandalism at Wisconsin Family Action “was only a warning.”

“We demand the disbanding of anti-choice establishments, fake clinics, and violent anti-choice groups within the next thirty days,” the group added. “This is not a mere ‘difference of opinion’ as some have framed it. We are literally fighting for our lives. We will not sit still while we are killed and forced into servitude.”

The message proclaimed: “We have run thin on patience and mercy for those who seek to strip us of what little autonomy we have left” before accusing the pro-life movement of instigating violence in the forms of “bomb[ing] clinics and assassinat[ing] doctors with impunity.”

The most notable example of violence against abortion doctors is the assassination of Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller in 2009. Still, for the most part, violence against abortion clinics and doctors has been rare.

“Medical imperialism will not face a passive enemy,” the statement reads. “Wisconsin is the first flashpoint, but we are all over the US, and we will issue no further warnings. And we will not stop, we will not back down, nor will we hesitate to strike until the inalienable right to manage our own health is returned to us.”

Evans said the group told him that “we are in your city” and “we are in every city,” promising that “next time the infrastructure of the enslavers will not survive.”

Wisconsin Family Action had initially attributed the vandalism at its headquarters in Madison to “Anarchy 1312,” noting that a logo featuring the phrase was painted on one of its exterior walls.

Last year, before the Supreme Court announced its intention to hear the challenge surrounding Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence included “ideological agendas in support of pro-life or pro-choice beliefs” on a list of domestic violent extremists that “pose an elevated threat to the homeland in 2021.”

The document referred to them as “abortion-related domestic violent extremists.” Examples of pro-abortion violence include the 2009 murder of pro-life activist Jim Pouillon and the 2016 arson at a pro-life pregnancy center in New Mexico. 

More than a year after the DNI included “abortion-related domestic violent extremists” on a list of national security threats, abortion has emerged as a flashpoint in American politics following the publication of the draft opinion in the New Mexico case, which is not final.

The attack on the Wisconsin Family Action office is not the only incident of vandalism targeting pro-lifers since the Dobbs draft was leaked last week. Other examples of such violence include the targeting of Catholic churches in Colorado and Texas with graffiti containing pro-abortion messages, the theft of the tabernacle at another and an arson attack at Oregon Right to Life’s headquarters. 

A series of dueling protests are scheduled to take place this weekend, with Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the Women’s March collaborating to hold “Bans off our Bodies” events in Washington, D.C. and several other cities Saturday. At the same time, Students for Life of America plans to hold counterprotests in Washington and eight other cities.  

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

Illegal immigrants getting ‘pallets’ of baby formula at detention center while shelves are nearly empty in American stores, US congresswoman declares

Reported by DAVE URBANSKI | May 12, 2022


Republican U.S. Rep. Kat Cammack said that “pallets” of baby formula are being delivered to an illegal immigrant detention center in Texas while Americans’ chances of finding formula on supermarket shelves grow more slim by the day. Cammack, a Florida lawmaker who was elected in 2020, indicated in a pair of Facebook videos Wednesday that a Border Patrol agent at the Ursula facility in McAllen sent her photos showing pallets of baby formula and other food for infants that had been delivered to the detention center.

“They are sending pallets — pallets — of baby formula to the border,” Cammack said. “Meanwhile, in our own district at home, we cannot find baby formula.”

“The first photo is from this morning at the Ursula Processing Center at the U.S. border. Shelves and pallets packed with baby formula,” she wrote in a related Twitter post. “The second is from a shelf right here at home. Formula is scarce. This is what America last looks like.”

Cammack added in her first video that “we literally are struggling to find baby formula around the country; moms are struggling, going from store to store to store and then the stores are actually capping the amount of baby formula they will sell them.”

The congresswoman called it “unconscionable” and said the administration of President Joe Biden is responsible for the “open border policy” that is “crushing the middle class.”

“They hate everything about [former President] Donald Trump so much … they’re willing to hurt their own citizens,” Cammack added, saying it’s “absolutely outrageous.”

Cammack posted a second video later Wednesday and was no less outraged, saying the Border Patrol agent told her, “Kat, you would not believe the shipment I just brought in.”

She went on to say that “he has been a Border Patrol agent for 30 years, and he has never seen anything quite like this. He is a grandfather, and he is saying that his own children can’t get … baby formula.”

While she wasn’t happy that the baby formula was going to “illegals that are crossing into the United States,” Cammack said “it is not the children’s fault at all.”

Rather what is “infuriating” is “that this is another example of the America last agenda that the Biden administration continues to perpetuate,” she added.

“I don’t know about you, but if I am a mother in anywhere, any-town America, and I go to my local Walmart or Target or Publix or Safeway or Kroger or wherever it may be that you shop, and you are seeing their shelves, and you are seeing signs that you are not able to get baby formula, and then you see the American government sending by the pallet thousands and thousands of containers of baby formula to the border, that would make my blood boil,” Cammack also said.

Cammack told her viewers that Republicans in Congress are doing what they can about the issue, but “we have zero leverage.”

The federal Office of the Administration for Children & Families — which oversees the Office of Refugee Resettlement — on Thursday didn’t immediately respond to TheBlaze’s request for comment on Cammack’s claims.

(H/T: Washington Examiner)

Planned Parenthood Profits Big from Getting Kids Hooked on Transgender Hormones Through The School-To-Clinic Pipeline



Planned Parenthood building

Long the nation’s chief abortion provider, Planned Parenthood has branched out. Its latest endeavor? Sterilizing America’s youth. Planned Parenthood has quietly been in the gender transition business since at least 2017. Today, more than a third of its offices — 239 clinics in more than 40 states — provide transgender services. And it’s not stopping there.

While those seeking puberty blockers or surgical procedures are referred elsewhere, Planned Parenthood is offering access to cross-sex hormones, promoting gender ideology in sex ed programs, and establishing “well-being centers” in local high schools. The organization is looking to cash in on gender transition for years to come.

Easy Access

Just how readily does Planned Parenthood provide the gender-confused with cross-sex hormones? Consider the case of detransitioner Helena Kirschner. She received testosterone during her first visit — without blood work or a mental health referral.

Sadly, Kirschner is not the exception. Offices guarantee that patients can receive hormones without an evaluation of their mental health. They also promise that, in most cases, patients can expect same-day prescriptions.

Already thousands of kids are getting hormones like candy. Three California regional offices of Planned Parenthood recorded almost 4,000 gender-related visits from July 2019 to June 2021. In one California region, more than 750 cycles of hormones were prescribed in a year. These numbers are not representative for California; other Planned Parenthood offices in the state don’t even bother reporting these services.

Planned Parenthood offices state they only offer hormones to minors aged 16 or older with parental consent, but that is not the whole truth. In California, minors may receive “sensitive care,” like transition services, without parental permission. Given Planned Parenthood’s past deception, there’s no reason to think the organization won’t bend its own rules for profit.

And that’s just California. Thirty-three states plus D.C. have laws that, to some degree, allow minors to obtain routine health care without parental consent. In states where “gender affirming care” is deemed “medically necessary,” minors may be able to transition without parents knowing. And hormones may just be one Planned Parenthood appointment away.

All of this is deeply troubling. Despite Planned Parenthood’s deceptive marketing, transition is not proven to be the best medical practice. We know that 88 to 98 percent of gender dysphoric kids will reconcile with their biological sex if allowed to go through puberty “untreated.” Moreover, those who do transition are estimated to be 19 times more likely to commit suicide than their peers.

Comprehensive Sex-Ed

Even before Planned Parenthood helps minors transition, it teaches them to desire it. Across the country, schools hire Planned Parenthood or its affiliates to lead sex ed. And its reach is not insignificant. Nationally, 1.2 million students receive Planned Parenthood’s affiliate sex ed programming each year, according to the organization’s last annual report.

While curriculum requirements vary by state, these programs promote everything from abortion and the morning-after pill to gender fluidity and transition. By indoctrinating youth, the abortion giant creates the demand it needs to profit from gender services.

Well-Being Centers

But creating demand does not stop with sex ed. Planned Parenthood wants to cement a permanent school-to-clinic pipeline. In 2019, the abortion giant announced it would open 50 “wellbeing centers” in Los Angeles high schools. These centers will offer “health and wellness education services, sexual health services,” and more.  Innocuous as these services appear, they exist to market Planned Parenthood’s services. Handpicked staff will provide transition support and chemical abortion.

Ultimately, Planned Parenthood’s rapid expansion of services should raise alarm. Planned Parenthood is no longer a danger just to the pregnant and the unborn, but to every teen as well.

Legislation Needed

Thankfully, state and federal policymakers can help protect minors from falling prey to these “services.” By enacting bills like Arkansas’ SAFE Act, states could stop Planned Parenthood and others’ efforts to mislead minors. Instead of passing bills that undermine parental rights (as California has done), states should work to ensure parental rights are upheld and respected.

In Congress, members must remain vigilant against the Equality Act, which would make the school-to-surgery pipeline a permanent fixture of American society. Lawmakers should also consider Hyde-like riders to ensure the Biden administration can’t redirect federal dollars to help Planned Parenthood sterilize our kids.

Elected officials who haven’t been bought out by woke corporations can learn from the far-left’s tone deafness. Policies that protect kids and empower parents are popular with voters, especially parents. By championing parents and children, legislators can stop bad actors like Planned Parenthood from preying on the vulnerable.

Jared Eckert is a research assistant in The Heritage Foundation’s DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family. Emma Sofia Mull is a graduate of the think tank’s Young Leaders Program.

Author Jared Eckert and Emma Sofia Mull profile



The Supreme Court’s Decision on Overturning Roe Will Be an Inflection Point for The Nation



Ronald Reagan and Clarence Thomas

If the Supreme Court does not overturn Roe v. Wade, its legitimacy is finished, and so is the nation the Founders created. The opposite is also true.

Author Joy Pullmann profile




Just as slavery and its lingering effects scarred America for centuries, the national sin of Roe v. Wade has weighed our nation down with the shame and devastation of legalized mass murder. Just as slavery deeply challenged the patriotism of those scarred by that evil regime in America, so has the unconstitutional and morally abhorrent abortion regime in America.

Also, just as slavery plainly contradicted the philosophy and law of the American founders — who wrote “all men are created equal, and… endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, [and] among these are Life” — so does Roe v. Wade, which even leftist “scholars” agree is a garbage decision. Just as slavery created a constitutional crisis that existentially threatened America, so did Roe v. Wade.

The attention on the protesters using violence and intimidation to retain a clearly unconstitutional and clearly immoral court diktat has obscured that if the Supreme Court does not overturn Roe, its legitimacy is finished. At that point, after decades of fruitlessly investing in keeping as many courts as possible closer to constitutionalism, the right will fully agree with the left that the Supreme Court is an illegitimate, utterly politicized institution, as I explained on EWTN last week. That will finish off what was left of the American republic and mark its complete conversion into something entirely different.

For it is highly politicized decisions like Roe, its companion Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and others such as those sanctioning the New Deal starting with West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, that have undermined the court’s legitimacy. The court maintains legitimacy precisely in doing its job of applying the law faithfully, instead of taking politics into consideration. Just as overturning Plessy v. Ferguson restored the Supreme Court’s legitimacy, so would the overturn of Roe v. Wade.

Besides keeping the Founders’ America alive for “one more season of restraint,” fixing warped Roe v. Wade jurisprudence would also enliven the country, not just literally but also figuratively. It would breathe new life into an America that all of us should be able to admit has been on life support for some time.

Those of us who have been willing to admit what abortion is — the taking of a human life — have for decades been weighed down with the knowledge our own country has been allowing this on a mass scale, and even demanding we participate in and celebrate it. Such a regime not only delegitimizes itself but drains its own lifeblood.

The potential overturn of Roe v. Wade is a massive opportunity to overturn a horrifying evil, and therefore to do great good. The opportunity to do great good is a strong and previously unavailable motivator. It would be a huge energizer for those who have resisted the usurping regime’s massive efforts to get us to stop seeing and talking about what we have seen that regime do to our nation. It would be the fall of a great spiritual Berlin Wall inside our nation.

It would allow us to finally stop talking about “norms” and start talking about whether those norms nourish or destroy life. We could stop talking about marginal tax rates and about whose duty it is, exactly, to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. In short, we can start making the necessary bold moves to re-seed and water a culture of life. Without Roe, we can start from the beginning and move holistically, from the bottom up instead of merely tinkering around the corners of an entirely corrupt edifice.

That’s the most needed action in this moment, as the political and immoral left has become very clear about its frightening degradation into a death cult. Overturning Roe would show that major, enduring cultural victories are still possible, and that all of the nation’s institutions don’t belong to the left. Perhaps that’s why this poll showed a move to the right after people heard about the leaked majority opinion to overturn Roe.

An outpouring of creative social entrepreneurship and policy could be in the offing as states finally have the opportunity to make good on their voters’ belief that the unborn are people deserving of the best care a civilization can offer. By returning this existential policy to the people again, it could allow them to get involved in more immediate, tangible, and fruitful ways than demonstrating in the streets or on Twitter. People who want to save lives could be more able to adopt a baby now that abortion isn’t killing nearly all of the potential adoptees or help sponsor local children living with their own needy families like many churches do for children in faraway nations. It would be even less tenable to ban Christians from helping with foster care and adoption when the need for connecting children with parents increases through refusing to kill inconvenient children.

We’re so used to losing, who knows what the biggest win in generations could do to energize the American majority that remains committed to families and the rule of the real Constitution, not the murderous “living” one. But I do know that nothing is so energizing and refreshing as a baby. There’s nothing more unifying, more animating, and more lively. A baby is a life, and a baby makes a life. This is true both for us as individuals and for us as a collective.

Children are a reason to get up in the morning, to make a morning at all. Discharging our responsibilities to children is the way to make it “Morning in America” again, both in our homes and in our civic life. Caring for them is the best way forward. It is the only way. Without children, a civilization dies, both spiritually and literally. We are on the cusp of continuing to lose our babies, but there’s a chance we can get them back. And we need to, for our nation’s life is inextricable from theirs.

As every good parent learns, having a child is the way to become human again. Being human means becoming the kind of person who will sacrifice himself to benefit another. A society without enough of such persons is soon not a society at all. The Supreme Court’s decision, therefore, can either mean life or death not only for the unborn, but also for their nation. We must all hope, pray, and prepare.

Joy Pullmann is executive editor of The Federalist, a happy wife, and the mother of six children. Sign up here to get early access to her next ebook, “101 Strategies For Living Well Amid Inflation.” Her bestselling ebook is “Classic Books for Young Children.” Mrs. Pullmann identifies as native American and gender natural. She is also the author of “The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of American Kids,” from Encounter Books. In 2013-14 she won a Robert Novak journalism fellowship for in-depth reporting on Common Core national education mandates. Joy is a grateful graduate of the Hillsdale College honors and journalism programs.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Reversal of Roe will make state courts great again

Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | May 06, 2022


Leftists do not like legislative bodies and believe they should wield the least power precisely for the very reason Madison said: “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” Legislators are elected by the people, constantly stand for re-election (most state legislators are in cycle every two years), all the proceedings are publicized, there are several layers of public votes, and the process in every state (except Nebraska) is bicameral. This is why leftists instead love the courts and bureaucracies, because they can achieve their goals without the disinfecting power of public scrutiny and without the deterrent of public reprisal.

Anyone who supports democratic values should embrace the opportunity to steer contentious issues away from the courts and toward legislative bodies. Obviously, state legislatures are the best suited to deal with contentious issues – not only because they are the closest to the people but also because there are 50 states. We have a divided country and can easily sort out our divisions through a degree of political and even physical self-separating. The reality is that not a single Democrat-controlled state will vote to curtail abortions, because the Supreme Court did nothing but reverse the judicial interference in the issue to ensure that legislatures are free to deal with it.

In light of the fallout from the impending reversal of Roe, there is an uncanny and somewhat perverse political dichotomy unfolding between the two parties. Republicans seem to be defending the “independence” of the court and exalting it to this supreme status above the other branches. Democrats, on the other hand, are trying to delegitimize judicial power because of the perception that they will face a long-term conservative majority on the court. However, if both sides really placed democratic values over politics, they would agree to a grand bargain to devolve power on every contentious issue to the states. This would mean that all cases adjudicating novel rights that only leftists believe in would be dealt with in the respective states. But it would also mean that cases dealing with gun rights would be up to the states.

Don’t get me wrong, I fully believe that there is a difference between bogus rights and foundational rights spelled out in the federal Constitution, such as self-defense, and that should be binding on the states. Ideally, we have the right to petition a federal court for redress if our gun rights are infringed upon. But if that is going to allow courts to perpetuate judicial supremacy and use it as a cudgel over red states, I’m more than glad to devolve all these issues to the states.

Such an arrangement would unfortunately cement the status of blue states as incorrigible Marxist dictatorships, but they are already there anyway. The courts – including the so-called conservative Supreme Court – have barely laid a glove on the COVID fascist regime in blue states. And many courts have prevented red states from blocking these tyrannical laws, such as federal courts requiring red states and counties to have mask mandates.

Conservatives would be naive not to push for a grand bargain ending judicial supremacy. We would benefit so much more than we lose. At present, we rarely benefit from judicial oversight when blue states violate foundational rights, yet we get crushed in red states by the courts vitiating every commonsense policy by creating phantom rights. As of now, we have a “conservative” Supreme Court that has prevented red states from cleaning up homeless encampments, from defining marriage, from keeping the sexes separate in private bathrooms and dressing rooms, from keeping sports sperate, from enforcing immigration law, and from many aspects of fighting crime.

However, let us not forget that for those who still like judicial oversight over broadly political issues, it’s not like the state legislatures won’t have competition. Overshadowed in the politics of the U.S. Supreme Court is the fact that all 50 states have their own constitutions and state judiciaries, including courts of last resort. Let’s not forget, it wasn’t until 1875, in the twilight of the Reconstruction era, that Congress transferred authority over most constitutional questions from state courts to lower federal courts, and it wasn’t until 1914 that Congress granted the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over all cases heard by state supreme courts.

Thus, all these decisions we see from the federal courts creating phantom rights can still be done on the state level with regard to the state constitutions – for better or worse. If Democrats so fervently want to enshrine their morals and political aspirations into constitutions, they can do so in the states they control.

Except there is one difference. State judiciaries, for the most part, are elected either initially or through retention ballot. There are only seven states where the voters never get a crack at judicial selection: Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Virginia. Most of them are solid blue states, and Rhode Island is the only state that mirrors the federal system, in which the judges are never subject to review by the voters and serve a lifetime tenure. In four of those states, the judges are subject to a specific term and must at least stand for re-nomination before the legislature, and New Hampshire and Massachusetts have an age tenure limit of 70.

Inevitably, given the polarization of our society, we disagree not only on policy but on the Constitution itself. This is why any case implicating a constitutional right will invariably be political. Thus, if we are going to place politics in the courts, it’s better to do it in the bodies that are elected and closer to the people.

Collectively, this will make state judicial elections great again and will make state legislatures more consequential and powerful. If we are going to have the courts decide every political and social issue, let’s at least have this debate at the local level. Yes, there will be times when the labyrinth of state laws and constitutionally protected rights might get confusing and even clash, but I’d rather a patchwork of law than uniformity of tyranny.

This is also a wake-up call to conservatives in red states. Many conservatives focus solely on congressional elections, but they need to pay attention to state judicial races. A lot of red states have non-partisan elections, which allows stealth leftists to glide into office. It might be a good idea to make these elections partisan. Let’s face it: There is nothing in politics that is not partisan, especially as it relates to the most consequential legal questions. Let’s be open about it and sort out our disagreements through the diversity of the 50 states. That is the only way to agree to disagree in an agreeable fashion.

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

A.F. Branco Cartoon – On the Hook

A.F. BRANCO | on May 6, 2022 |

Will SCOUTS push abortion rights back to the states based on the leaked opinion?

Roe vs Wade SCOTUS
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2022.

DONATE to A.F.Branco Cartoons – Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

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

Revealing the abortion industry loophole

Posted By Robert Netzly, Voices Contributor | Thursday, May 05, 2022


Pro-life and pro-choice demonstrators gather in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on May 3, 2022. | BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images

At 15 weeks, unborn babies have a heartbeat, can sense pain, respond to physical stimulation, taste, hiccup, move around, and open and close their hands. This is the basis of the Dobbs v. Jackson case that seeks to overturn Roe v. Wade and restrict abortions after 15 weeks.  

While many celebrate this provision for life, others are working diligently to implement policies to keep access to abortions readily available. Examples of Uber and Lyft covering legal fees or companies paying travel expenses for employees to get abortions have been discussed. But one rapidly expanding loophole still lurking in the shadows is the newfound access to abortifacient drugs via direct mail that was made possible in 2021 due to telehealth extensions during the Covid-19 lockdowns.  

Abortifacient drugs, mifepristone, misoprostol, and levonorgestrel, are currently authorized before a baby reaches ten weeks’ gestation. But the question that has not been answered is how a doctor can verify gestational age without seeing their patient in person or how they can provide care for health complications that may arise from the drugs. The adage, “where there is a will, there is a way,” rings true as this loophole protects the profits for drug companies and doctors from the SCOTUS ruling, enabling them to collect their dues without seeing or treating their patients. 

Sadly, we are seeing a significant shift in this direction. According to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, 2020 was the first year that more than half (54%) of all abortions performed in the U.S. were done with drugs instead of instruments.  This reality is alarming, but perhaps even more disturbing is that almost every pro-life investor is profiting from these abortifacient drugs through companies they hold in their portfolios. Meaning that those who are advocating for life are unknowingly profiting from death. Let that sink in… Grieve over this, but do not despair. There is grace and mercy for our unknowing involvement.

However, healthy conviction and accountability come with learning the truth, and action is needed for every Christian to remove their investments and profits from companies that are manufacturing, distributing, and financially supporting the products that are responsible for ending the lives of tens of millions of unborn children.  

So, who are these companies? Meet the Abortion Drug “Dirty Dozen” companies leading the charge in manufacturing and distributing the abortifacient drugs mifepristone, misoprostol, and levonorgestrel.  

  1. Johnson & Johnson
  2. Pfizer
  3. Organon
  4. Novartis
  5. Cooper Companies
  6. Teva Pharmaceutical
  7. Bayer
  8. Perrigo Company
  9. Corcept Therapeutics
  10. Endo International
  11. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals
  12. Antares Pharma 

We cannot allow our influential dollars to remain invested in these companies and profit from their products that end life.  

So what can we do?

1. Invest biblically. Screen your investments with Inspire Insight to find out if your 401k and other investments include any company engaging in the abortion industry. If you need help, Inspire Advisors can help give you a free impact report that will compare your current portfolio with a pro-life, biblically aligned equivalent.  

2.Make connections. The abortion industry is not only found in your portfolios. It’s also in non-profit endowments, church retirement plans, and seminary scholarship funds. Are you an alum, donor, or have a professional relationship with a Christian university or ministry endowment? Please help us connect with the right people to start the conversation in transitioning them out. 

3. Magnify the message. Spread the word to your friends, social media connections, church, and local communities. Too few know and understand the need for our investments to glorify God and align with our values. 

4. Pray! Without the Lord, we labor in vain. We need to invoke the King of Kings to go before us, grant us success, and keep us faithful to His cause for His glory! 

It is a tragedy and horror that pro-life Christians are invested in the abortion industry. But we do not have to be. If pro-lifers want to see an end to abortion in our time, we need to put our money where our mouth is. We need to hold ourselves and our institutions accountable to keep the dollars we invest and donate out of the abortion industry and close the doors to this loophole.  

Robert Netzly is the CEO of Inspire Investing and frequent contributor on The Christian Post, FOX, The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, The New York Times and other major media. Read more from Robert in his #1 bestselling book Biblically Responsible Investing, available at and other major retailers.  LinkedIn: @Robert_Netzly

Advisory Services are offered through CWM Advisors, LLC dba Inspire, a Registered Investment Adviser with the SEC.

Nicole Russell Op-ed: Protecting imprisoned women from men who say they’re women

Commentary By Nicole Russell, Op-ed contributor | Wednesday, May 04, 2022


Unsplash/Emiliano Bar

A male inmate housed in a women’s facility at New York’s Rikers Island jail has been sentenced to seven years for raping a female prisoner. In an apparent plea deal, Ramel Blount, 33, who goes by Diamond Blount, pleaded guilty to attempted rape. Blount was housed in the female section of Rikers Island in February 2021, when a 33-year-old female inmate said she was raped in a bathroom after taking a shower.

On top of the seven-year sentence announced Monday, Blount must register as a sex offender.

It’s true that Rikers Island is notorious for being unusually violent, and that violence escalated in 2021. But this particular sexual assault may not have happened if facilities that house criminals did so based on biological sex, not the gender with which they criminals presumably identify. A female inmate in Illinois says this exact scenario happened to her in 2020.

For the past few years, jail and prison facilities such as Rikers Island have been under tremendous pressure to bend to a vocal minority and house male prisoners who identify as female with women. In New York in 2020, Steuben County officials agreed to “sweeping changes to its jail and prison policies” after settling a discrimination lawsuit filed by a transgender inmate.

At the time, the ACLU in New York hailed the settlement as one that “establishes one of the strongest jail or prison policies in the country protecting the rights of transgender, gender-nonconforming, nonbinary, and intersex people in custody.”

“The policy addresses housing placement, safety, access to medical care, name and pronouns use, search procedures, and grooming standards,” the ACLU said.

This is happening in California, too. In 2020, Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, signed legislation known as SB 132, which allows male prisoners who identify as female to be transferred, by a simple request, to a facility for women. Now, women are pushing back to preserve their right to safety and privacy.

The Women’s Liberation Front, which seeks to protect the privacy and equality of women, filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that California’s SB 132 is unconstitutional and creates an unsafe environment for women, for whom these single-sex facilities exist. One plaintiff in the suit says she was sexually assaulted by an inmate who transferred from a men’s facility. Another plaintiff says she was inappropriately “grabbed.”

One of the biggest reasons that so many conservatives oppose the Equality Act before Congress is that it would open the door to this, and similar situations, nationwide. And few laws would be left to protect the most vulnerable. Under the Equality Act, any place that receives federal funds, from schools to prisons, would be forced to banish single-sex spaces or be liable to discrimination charges.

It’s important to make clear: Most trans-identifying individuals aren’t perverts or assailants-in-waiting. But under these policies, bad actors need only to identify as the opposite sex to gain access to private spaces.

In Alaska, a man claiming to be a woman tried to enter a shelter for battered women. When he was refused, he sued the organization for discrimination under a local law governing sexual orientation and gender identity.

Women serving time in prison or jail still deserve to be treated humanely and with respect. They still have a right to privacy and safety. But, intimidated by a vocal minority, local politicians and officials have buckled under new definitions of sex and gender, showing they are more worried about being sued for discrimination by criminals trying to take advantage of women, than being sued for an assault such as rape.

Discrimination policies should not trump safety and privacy, whether in school or prison.

Originally published at The Daily Signal. 

Nicole Russell is a contributor to The Daily Signal. Her work has appeared in The Atlantic, The New York Times, National Review, Politico, The Washington Times, The American Spectator, and Parents Magazine.

Brandon Straka Joins Tucker Carlson: Describes Horrific Treatment He Suffered for Attending J6 Protests and for Starting Hugely Successful Pro-Trump #WalkAway Movement (VIDEO)

Reported By Jim Hoft | Published May 4, 2022


Brandon Straka, the founder and director of popular, WalkAway Campaign, was arrested by federal agents following the January 6, 2021 protests and riot. Brandon did NOT go inside the US Capitol, did not participate in ANY violence, did not encourage violence, did not plan any violence, yet the corrupt and politicized federal government charged him with TWO felonies and a misdemeanor.  After a year of threats, harassment and abuse, Brandon Straka pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Brandon Straka was charged with crimes because Brandon Straka is EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE as a grassroots organizer!

Brandon’s story is amazing. After being a dedicated liberal for years and years he started to do a bit of investigating and decided he could no longer support the viciousness and lies of the left. Today over 600,000 Americans have joined Brandon and the #WalkAway movement and have not looked back! And THAT’S WHY Brandon Straka was targeted by the corrupt federal prosecutors for attending the rally on January 6. Brandon is effective. He leads leftists to the light. And once they Walk Away they DON’T walk back!

On Wednesday, October 6, 2021,  Walk Away founder Brandon Straka pled guilty to a Class B misdemeanor for the crime of disorderly conduct inside the US Capitol Grounds on January 6th. After Brandon’s hearing, the demonic media portrayed this as a victory for their cause by proclaiming – Brandon Straka pled guilty for his ROLE “in the Insurrection.”

Brandon was later sentenced to another three months of home arrest and three years of probation.  The government also demanded he give them access to his social media accounts during his probation.  This is wicked abuse.  The US government today is completely corrupt and broken.

On Tuesday night Brandon Straka sat down with Tucker Carlson for an exclusive one-on-one interview.  Brandon described the horrible abuse he received at the hands of his government.

Jim Hoft

Jim Hoft is the founder and editor of The Gateway Pundit, one of the top conservative news outlets in America. Jim was awarded the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award in 2013 and is the proud recipient of the Breitbart Award for Excellence in Online Journalism from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation in May 2016.

REPORT: Justice Roberts ‘Likely’ To Order FBI Investigation Into SCOTUS Leak

Reported by DIANA GLEBOVA | ASSOCIATE EDITOR | May 03, 2022


Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Speaks At University Of Miami
(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts will likely launch an investigation involving the FBI into the SCOTUS leak from the Dobbs abortion case, according to CBS News’ Elizabeth Campbell. The apparent Feb. 10 draft opinion obtained by Politico published Monday shows that the initial majority opinion of the court is poised to strike down the landmark Roe V. Wade decision granting women the right to an abortion. 

“This is an unprecedented leak from SCOTUS. It raises questions about how the institution will ever recover, and how Chief Justice Roberts will respond,” Campbell tweeted.

“Sources tonight tell  [CBS News’ Jan Crawford] he is likely to order a full-blown investigation, involving the FBI, to determine the source,” Campbell added.

This is an unprecedented leak from #SCOTUS. It raises questions about how the institution will ever recover, and how Chief Justice Roberts will respond. Sources tonight tell @JanCBS he is likely to order a full-blown investigation, involving the FBI, to determine the source.

The draft opinion showed that five justices — Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — voted to overturn, while three — Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — dissented, according to Politico. Roberts has reportedly not yet made his decision.

“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito wrote in the draft opinion, according to the outlet.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” the opinion reportedly continued. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

No draft opinion in modern history has ever been leaked while the case was still pending, according to Politico.

Mark Levin says Supreme Court Roe v. Wade leak is ‘grave assault’ and warns US ‘institutions are going to collapse’

Reported by SARAH TAYLOR | May 03, 2022


Political commentator Mark Levin said that Monday’s leak of a draft majority opinion is a “grave assault” on the Supreme Court. During Tuesday’s “Fox & Friends,” Levin addressed Monday’s leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion that could potentially overturn 1973’s Roe v. Wade.

The news on Monday evening sparked heavy conversation across social media.

“When you conduct yourself in an utterly lawless way, attacking the institutions of this country, attacking the founding documents of this country, attacking the history of this country, this is what you get: lawlessness,” he insisted during “Fox & Friends.”

He added, “”It’s just a matter of time. All these institutions are going to collapse. This is a grave assault on the Supreme Court.”

Levin recalled a time when he was an intern to late Chief Justice Warren Burger while attending law school and said that he can’t fathom how the leak occurred after having seen the lengths to which the institution went to preserve the integrity of confidentiality.

“I saw how it operated, and I can tell you this institution takes its confidentiality seriously. Why? That’s the coin of the realm,” he said. “They’ve got to be able to talk about ideas freely. They’ve got to be able to discuss this without political pressure. Why do people think these are lifetime appointments?”

The political commentator later added that the Democratic Party is complicit in “destroying this country” and said that they are fighting Republicans every step of the way.

“Of course, the Democrat Party is destroying this country,” he reasoned. “Look at the confirmation process. It started with Bork. The Democrats targeted him under [Sen. Ted] Kennedy and Biden, and it moves on to others, including Clarence Thomas, including Kavanaugh. Republicans don’t treat Democrat nominees this way. They may object to them. When you say the Supreme Court doesn’t look like America, you’re undermining the credibility of the court.”

Supreme Court rules in favor of group banned from flying Christian flag at Boston City Hall

Reported By Michael Gryboski, Mainline Church Editor | Monday, May 02, 2022


U.S. Supreme Court building | Nicole Alcindor/Christian Post

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that city officials in Boston, Massachusetts, were wrong to prohibit a group from flying a Christian flag at city hall. In an opinion released Monday morning in the case of Harold Shurtleff, et al. v. Boston, MA, et al., the high court unanimously ruled to reverse a lower court decision and remand the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Justice Stephen Breyer delivered the court’s opinion, in which he concluded that “the First Amendment prevents [the government] from discriminating against speakers based on their viewpoint.”

At issue, according to the court’s opinion, was whether Boston’s flag policy represented government speech; if it did, then it had the right to reject the Christian flag.

“We conclude that, on balance, Boston did not make the raising and flying of private groups’ flags a form of government speech,” wrote Breyer.

“That means, in turn, that Boston’s refusal to let Shurtleff and Camp Constitution raise their flag based on its religious viewpoint ‘abridg[ed]’ their ‘freedom of speech.’”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored a concurring opinion, in which he wrote that “a government does not violate the Establishment Clause merely because it treats religious persons, organizations, and speech equally with secular persons, organizations, and speech in public programs, benefits, facilities, and the like.”

“Under the Constitution, a government may not treat religious persons, religious organizations, or religious speech as second-class,” he added in his brief concurrence.

In 2017, Harold Shurtleff of Camp Constitution asked to fly the Christian flag (which features a cross) outside of city hall on Constitution Day 2017, but his request was rejected by the city. Shurtleff filed suit against the city in response, with him being represented by the Liberty Counsel, a prominent conservative law firm that has handled many religious liberty cases. In February 2020, U.S. District Judge Denise Casper, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, ruled in favor of Boston, and a three-judge panel of the First Circuit unanimously upheld the lower court ruling in January 2021.

Judge Bruce Selya, an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan, wrote the panel opinion, arguing that the “three flags flying in close proximity communicates the symbolic unity of the three flags,” and therefore, it “strains credulity to believe that an observer would partition such a coordinated three-flag display.”

Shurtleff appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, gaining the support of groups including the ACLU, which filed an amicus brief in his support.

“We have long expressed concern about government endorsement of religion, and have sued often to enforce the Establishment Clause,” stated ACLU National Legal Director David Cole last November. “But when the government opens a forum to private speakers generally, as Boston did here, it can’t turn away a speaker simply because it is religious.”  

Follow Michael Gryboski on Twitter or Facebook

Court observers believe Chief Justice Roberts just signaled that abortion rights could be overturned

Reported by CHRIS ENLOE | April 29, 2022


Court observers suggested Thursday that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has signaled the court will significantly slash abortion rights. In December, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The case is centered on a Mississippi abortion law that prohibits abortion beyond 15 weeks of gestation.

At issue is whether “all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.” The case ultimately challenges the precedent established by Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which both upheld the right to elective abortions under Roe v. Wade and affirmed the unfettered legality of abortion within the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, ruling that “emotional distress damages are not recoverable in a private action to enforce either the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Affordable Care Act.”

The case is completely unrelated to abortion. But what is interesting, however, is who wrote the majority opinion: Roberts. This matters because the court heard oral arguments for nine cases in December; thus each justice was most likely assigned to write the opinion of one case. Therefore, if Roberts wrote the opinion in this case, it suggests he is not writing the opinion for Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

“Roberts’ authorship of this opinion suggests (but does not guarantee) that he is NOT writing the abortion decision. Otherwise, he would have two majority opinions from the December sitting and some other justice would have none,” observed Bloomberg News Supreme Court reporter Greg Stohr.

Michigan Law School assistant professor Leah Litman pointed out the significance of this: Because Roberts supports narrowing abortion access but not overturning Roe v. Wade completely, the fact that he may not have been assigned the Dobbs opinion hints that a consequential ruling is forthcoming, probably a rolling back of abortion rights.

Stohr, however, cautioned against rushing to assumptions, because Justice Neil Gorsuch authored two opinions for cases the court heard in November. Still, the distribution of opinion-writing is normally balanced.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board theorized recently that Roberts may attempt to recruit at least one conservative justice to uphold the Mississippi law without a wholesale nullification of abortion rights. It has happened once, when Gorsuch joined Roberts and the court’s left-leaning justices to protect LGBT rights, but whether it will happen again remains to be seen.

For what it’s worth, the Journal predicted the outcome of Dobbs will be a 5-4 ruling with Roberts joining the court’s left-leaning justices and Justice Samuel Alito writing the majority opinion.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: TN legislature passes bill to finally lock up violent criminals

Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | April 26, 2022


In recent years, sentencing for violent criminals has been like common core math. You start out with a sum of 20 years, for example, but somehow even the worst career offenders wind up turning 20 years into 8 years’ time served. Tennessee has become the first state to finally implement truth in sentencing to make sure that a sentence is actually served.

Last week, after a decade of red states promoting the Koch/Soros jailbreak agenda, the Tennessee legislature put victims first and passed true criminal justice reform. HB2656 / SB2248, as amended, requires people convicted of one of nine criminal offense categories to serve 100% of their sentences – no exceptions. This means no good time credits or parole are available for those found guilty of homicide, vehicular homicide, attempted first-degree murder, robbery, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary, or carjacking.

Additionally, those found guilty of 20 slightly lower-level but still significant crimes, such as aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, aggravated robbery, burglary, and arson, would still be eligible for good time credits, but only after serving 85% of the sentence.

This bill has reversed the decade-long tide of weak-on-crime legislation percolating through red-state legislatures. For years, we’ve been told that there is somehow an over-incarceration problem with people serving draconian sentences for nothingburger crimes. The reality is that even the most violent career criminals often serve a few months here and there and constantly get out to reoffend. With the growing crime wave in cities like Nashville and Memphis, the role of the de-incarceration agenda is hard to deny.

To begin with, most of the sentencing these days is very lenient. For example, in 2019, out of 17,355 felony convictions in Minnesota, only 3,612 were fully sentenced in accordance with the sentencing guidelines. Once you add all the parole and good time credit programs to that, even the worst career criminals are only serving a fraction of the sentence. This doesn’t even account for all of the ways they plead down throughout their criminal career, thereby incurring a sentence well below the threat level of their criminal proclivities. At a minimum, this bill ensures that violent and dangerous criminals will at least serve the entire sentence they are given. This bill should serve as a model in every other state, as the crime wave continues to grow.

The American Conservative Union, which hosts the annual CPAC gathering for alleged conservatives, vigorously opposed this bill because it apparently still believes there are too many, rather than too few, criminals behind bars. However, no sane person can believe we need to let more people out of prison.

Those who think we don’t have an under-incarceration problem should consider the following statistics from the FBI in 2019. Just 61.4% of the 14,325 homicides, 32.9% of the 124,817 rapes, 30.5% of the 239,643 armed robberies, and 52.3% of the 726,778 aggravated assaults were “cleared” cases. That means that in 5,529 murder cases, 83,752 rape cases, 166,552 armed robbery cases, and 346,673 aggravated assault cases, there was no arrest. Hence, just in the four violent categories alone, there were over 758,000 violent crime cases that went without a resolution just in one year.

What about duration of incarceration? According to BJS, among the prisoners released from state prison in 2018 – before some of the recent “reform” – they only served, on average, 44% of their sentences. Even for murder, it was only 58% of their sentences. The median length of time served for murder was less than 10 years in 30% of the cases and was more than 20 years in only 42%. The median time served for rape was less than 10 years in 64% of prisoners. In total, 71% of those serving time for a violent crime category served less than five years, and nearly half served less than two years.

In reality, the bromide of “criminal justice reform” for “low-level, nonviolent offenders” was always a ruse. Now groups like the ACU openly admit they oppose even truth in sentencing, much less enhanced sentencing, for the most violent and career criminals.

The truth in sentencing bill passed the Senate 20-6 and the House 86-9 with bipartisan support and now heads to Governor Bill Lee’s desk. The bill was sponsored by House Speaker Cameron Sexton, who made a rare speech from the well of the House chamber to present his bill. This legislation piggybacks on last year’s truth in sentencing law, which closed the early release loopholes for crimes traditionally committed against women and children, such as rape and child abuse.

Reminiscent of some of the debates over COVID, proponents of weak sentencing are demanding to see “studies” showing more jail time leads to less crime. Speaker Sexton believes no such study is needed when common sense dictates fewer criminals on the street equals less crime. “This solution creates the toughest penalties in America for violent criminals; it also establishes a firm line for criminals not to cross,” said the speaker in a statement to TheBlaze. “If they do, punishment will be swift and severe under our new law. I do not need a fancy study to tell me more bad guys in jail with longer sentences reduces crime.”

It is shocking how red-state governors and legislatures have failed to pursue these ideas until now. Even blue-state governors are now vulnerable to defeat because of the growing crime wave. A recent Gallup poll showed that 53% of Americans worry a “great deal” about crime and it ranks as the third most important issue on the minds of voters. A Pew Research poll showed that crime is the number-one issue among black voters.

With surging crime in cities like Memphis and Nashville, Tennessee had the sixth highest murder rate in 2020. In both 2020 and 2021, Memphis set new homicide records and now boasts the ninth highest homicide rate in the country and is ranked the most violent metro area in the country. The homicide rate in Tennessee has gone from a low of 5.2 per 100,000 in 2013 to 9.6 in 2020. Motor vehicle thefts have spiked from 183 per 100,000 to over 300. Even smaller cities like Chattanooga have become increasingly dangerous.

Kudos to the Tennessee legislature for recognizing that weak-on-crime policies plague red states just as much as blue states and need to be rectified. Along with the passage of robust medical freedom bills and a new ivermectin over-the-counter bill, the Tennessee legislature is on its way to forging an agenda of freedom and public safety that should be emulated in every red state. If every GOP supermajority state would use its power to its fullest, we wouldn’t have to wait for ineffective GOP majorities in the irremediably broken federal system to make a difference.

Supreme Court debates if football coach’s on-field prayer is religious exercise or ‘coercion’

Reported By Michael Gryboski, Mainline Church Editor | Monday, April 25, 2022


Demonstrators gathered to pray outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. in support of football coach Joe Kennedy on April 25, 2022. | The Christian Post/Nicole Alcindor

A high school football coach fired for praying on the field after games had his case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, with justices debating whether his religious practices were coercive or constitutionally protected.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, with coach Joe Kennedy being represented by former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement.

Coach Joe Kennedy at the Bremerton High School football field. | Courtesy of First Liberty Institute

In 2015, Kennedy, an assistant coach at Bremerton High School in Washington state, was punished and eventually fired by the Bremerton School District for praying on the 50-yard line after games. In his opening argument, Clement said that the coach’s prayers were “doubly protected by the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses” of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

“When the school district fired him for that fleeting religious exercise out of endorsement concerns, it not only violated the First Amendment, but it ignored a veritable wall of this court’s precedents that make it clear that a school does not endorse private religious speech just because it fails to censor it,” said Clement, who served as the U.S. solicitor general and later acting attorney general during the George W. Bush administration.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor pressed Clement about when a school official’s religious practices can be considered private and when they are considered public, such as if a teacher is reading the Bible aloud before class begins. 

Clement answered that if a teacher read her Bible “before the bell” or “after the bell” and did so “either silently or barely audibly,” that would be protected as “private speech.”

Sotomayor argued that a teacher is “on duty” while remaining “in the classroom” and their actions could be curtailed by their employer. Sotomayor brought in the example of Kennedy, asking why he should not be considered “on duty” while remaining on the football field after games.

“The school has a fair amount of flexibility to determine what the duties of the coach are,” replied Clement. “Here, they did not say that his duties were an all-encompassing supervisory role.”

“It’s in the record, and I think undisputed, that the coach could do other things, other private things of a comparable amount of time because this is a fleeting religious exercise.”

Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern with Kennedy’s prayers putting “a kind of undue pressure, a kind of coercion on students to participate in religious activities when they may not wish to.” Clement countered that the school district did not cite “coercion concerns” when they punished Kennedy years ago but instead expressed concern over “endorsement” issues.

Justice Neil Gorsuch referenced the 2000 case of Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. The high court ruled that a Texas town’s practice of having students holding prayers over a loudspeaker before high school football games was unconstitutional. Clement said Kennedy’s practice was “radically different” from the situation in the Santa Fe case, noting that the loudspeaker and the process of determining who gave prayers involved a more blatant example of government speech.

Clement compared Kennedy’s actions to professional athletes who cross themselves before a play or kneel with thanks to God after scoring a touchdown, noting that these were recognized as individual actions.

Richard B. Katskee, legal director at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, presented oral arguments on behalf of the school district.

“No one doubts that public school employees can have quiet prayers by themselves at work, even if students can see,” said Katskee. “If that were the issue, there wouldn’t be a case here because the district allowed that. But that wasn’t good enough for Mr. Kennedy. He insisted on audible prayers at the 50-yard line with students.”

Katskee said that “some of these kids were just 14 years old.”

“Mr. Kennedy’s actions pressured them to pray and also divided the coaching staff, sparked vitriol against school officials, and led to the field being stormed and students getting knocked down.”

Justice Clarence Thomas asked Katskee whether a high school football coach taking a knee during the national anthem to protest racism was also an unacceptable form of government speech. Katskee answered that if, for example, “the coach goes to the center of the field in front of everyone during the national anthem,” then it is “absolutely” constitutes “government speech.”

Thomas asked for a clarification on how it was government speech, with Katskee responding that it was a “public act and public statement” and could not be considered a private action.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked Katskee if a coach was allowed to do the sign of the cross before a game, to which Katskee replied that “if the coach is doing it while not making himself the center of attention at the center of the field, it’s perfectly fine.”

“I don’t know how we could write an opinion that would draw a line based on not making yourself the center of attention as the head coach of a game,” Kavanaugh countered.

Demonstrators gathered with signs outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. in support of football coach Joe Kennedy, who lost his job after kneeling on the field pray. Kennedy’s case was heard by the high court on Monday, April 25, 2022. | Nicole Alcindor/ Christian Post

In 2015, Bremerton officials suspended and then fired Kennedy for his practice of praying on the football field after games, with the coach suing the school district in 2016. A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Kennedy in 2017, with the Supreme Court initially refusing to intervene in 2019. In 2020, Judge Ronald Leighton ruled in favor of the school district, concluding that it had a right to restrict religious expression to prevent government endorsement of religion. In March 2021, a 9th Circuit panel again ruled against Kennedy, with Judge Milan D. Smith Jr. authoring the unanimous court opinion in favor of Bremerton.

“BSD’s efforts to prevent the conduct did not violate Kennedy’s constitutional rights, nor his rights under Title VII,” wrote Smith.

“In sum, there is no doubt that an objective observer, familiar with the history of Kennedy’s practice, would view his demonstrations as BSD’s endorsement of a particular faith. For that reason, BSD had adequate justification for its treatment of Kennedy.”

Kennedy again appealed to the Supreme Court, which announced in January that it would hear arguments in the case.

Follow Michael Gryboski on Twitter or Facebook

Breaking: Court temporarily blocks Biden admin from dropping Title 42 restrictions at the border

Reported by CARLOS GARCIA | April 25, 2022


Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt said Monday that a court had issued a temporary restraining order against the Biden administration plan to end Title 42 restrictions at the border. The policy had been previously scheduled to end on May 23.

“In a lawsuit originally filed by Missouri, Louisiana, and Arizona, our Office just obtained a temporary restraining order to keep Title 42 in place,” tweeted Schmitt.

“This is a huge victory for border security, but the fight continues on,” he added.

Title 42 prevents those seeking asylum at the border from entering the country to await their documents being processed. The policy was originally implemented under the Trump administration because of the threat posed by migrants carrying coronavirus into the country. Critics of the policy claim it was motived by racism and xenophobia against migrants seeking refugee status.

The Centers for Disease Control announced that the drop in coronavirus cases and hospitalizations no longer necessitated the restrictions. The Biden administration has used the assessment by the CDC to justify ending Title 42 despite criticism that it will almost certainly lead to a massive spike in illegal immigration. In Oct. 2021, Biden administration officials estimated that as many as 400,000 new migrants could attempt to cross the border in a month if Title 42 had been rescinded at that time.

The temporary restraining order prevents the Biden administration from acting before a May 13 hearing about the policy.

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich also celebrated the order on Monday.“I am so proud of the lawyers from our office who just got a Temporary Restraining Order to keep Title 42 in place,” tweeted Brnovich. “We will continue to fight the Biden administration’s open border policies.”

Here’s more about the order against Biden:

Federal judge plans to block termination of Title

Letter: No, Hillary Clinton Can’t Try To Hide 2016 Oppo Research From The Special Counsel



Hillary Clinton

‘The Government should not permit HFA and the DNC to adopt conflicting positions in different proceedings, depending on the federal agency against which they are litigating.’

Author Margot Cleveland profile




The Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee’s claims of attorney-client privilege in the Michael Sussmann criminal case may constitute a breach of the settlement agreements they entered with the Federal Election Commission, according to a letter sent to Special Counsel John Durham’s office on Friday. That letter, obtained first by The Federalist, followed the flurry of motions to intervene filed in the special counsel’s pending false statement case against Sussmann. Hillary for America, the DNC, tech executive Rodney Joffe, Sussmann’s former law firm of Perkins and Coie, and the investigative firm Fusion GPS all filed motions last week asking the court for permission to argue against disclosing documents to the special counsel based on their claims of attorney-client privilege.

The special counsel’s office had previously filed a motion arguing that the court should review 38 documents withheld in response to grand jury subpoenas to assess whether the secreted material truly qualified as protected by attorney-client privilege. The day after Sussmann responded to that motion, opposing any such in camera review by the judge, his fellow Spygate hoaxers sought to join in Sussmann’s efforts to keep the documents concealed.

After the Hillary for America and the DNC’s motions to intervene hit the Sussmann docket, The Coolidge Reagan Foundation penned a three-page letter to Durham and Assistant Special Counsel Jonathan Algor. That letter alerted the special counsel’s office to key facts about the FEC’s recent decision to fine the political groups in relation to a complaint the foundation had filed with the FEC. That complaint charged Hillary for America and the DNC with using the “law firm, Perkins Coie, to hire and funnel over $1 million to ‘outside research firms’ such as Fusion GPS ‘to perform potentially sensitive, controversial, or politically embarrassing’ opposition research into Donald Trump.”

The FEC complaint, filed in 2018, alleged that “the research was not ‘for the purpose of assisting Perkins Coie in providing legal advice,’” but to further the “political and campaign-related goals” of the organizations. The foundation also claimed in its FEC complaint that because the work was not “for the purpose of providing legal advice or assisting with impending or potential litigation, it was not covered by attorney-client, work-product, or other privileges.”

Significantly, as the foundation noted in its April 22, 2022 letter to the special counsel’s office, the FEC had “found probable cause to believe” the political organizations had misreported the purpose of certain disbursements. The FEC reached that conclusion based on a memorandum prepared by the FEC’s Office of General Counsel, but under controlling regulations that memorandum “will not be made public for another week,” the letter explained.

Foundation counsel Dan Backer added that while the memorandum is not yet public, the special counsel’s office would likely be able to obtain it directly from the FEC. That memorandum also will provide Durham’s team further details on the FEC’s investigation and fact-finding that may be useful to the special counsel in the Sussmann litigation, noted the letter.

In Friday’s letter, Backer also highlighted Hillary for America and the DNC’s commitment in their settlement agreement with the FEC to “not further contest the Commission’s finding of probable cause to believe” that the political organizations had “falsely reported their payments through Perkins Coie to Fusion GPS as being for legal services.” In contrast, in the Sussmann case, Hillary for America and the DNC “are nevertheless asserting materials generated by Fusion GPS and provided to Perkins Coie are protected by attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine,” the letter stressed.

“The Government should not permit HFA and the DNC to adopt conflicting positions in different proceedings, depending on the federal agency against which they are litigating,” the foundation’s letter concluded, suggesting the trial court may find those breaches of the settlement agreement “material in ruling on any privilege claims.”

Whether the special counsel will follow the foundation’s suggestion and obtain the memorandum prepared by the FEC’s Office of General Counsel before the judge in the Sussmann case rules on the Clinton campaign and the DNC’s assertions of attorney-client privilege is yet to be seen. But what is clear is that the special counsel’s office intends to ensure the jury knows that both the Clinton campaign and the DNC believe communications relevant to Sussmann’s efforts to peddle the Alfa Bank hoax are protected by attorney-client privilege.

On Friday we also learned just how the special counsel hopes to do that—by having representatives of both the Clinton campaign and DNC testify at trial. That revelation appeared in a response brief Sussmann’s attorneys filed last week, wherein the defense team noted that they had just learned that the special counsel had issued trial subpoenas to both the Clinton campaign and the DNC. According to Sussmann’s legal team, the special counsel requested “the testimony of witnesses” from those political organizations “regarding the assertion of attorney-client privilege in front of the jury.” Sussmann is now also seeking to exclude that testimony and claims that both the Clinton campaign and the DNC will likewise seek to quash the subpoenas.

The irony in all of this, of course, is that the more Sussmann, the Clinton campaign, and the DNC hide behind the claims of attorney-client privilege, the more it appears that, yes, Sussmann pushed the Alfa Bank hoax, including during his meeting with FBI General Counsel James Baker, on behalf of the Clinton campaign. The FEC’s conclusion that probable cause existed to support the finding that the Clinton campaign and DNC had falsely reported fees paid to Fusion GPS as legal fees only further supports that conclusion.

The question Friday’s letter to the special counsel’s office raises, however, is whether the Clinton campaign and the DNC’s settlement agreement with the FEC, in fact, forecloses their claims of privilege in the Sussmann case. Backer believes it does, telling The Federalist, “The Clinton Campaign and the DNC want to have their cake and eat it too, but they cannot simultaneously say they won’t contest the reasoning behind the FEC fine and settlement agreement and also run to federal court and say, ‘No, no, no, everything we do is privileged.’”

That, however, is precisely what Hillary for America and DNC are doing, leading one to wonder if the real issue in play is not attorney-client privilege, but the privilege of being a Democrat.

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.

15-year-old boy in DC arrested for allegedly committing 3 armed robberies in 8 minutes

Reported by PHIL SHIVER | April 25, 2022


Police in Washington, D.C., have arrested a 15-year-old boy who they say is responsible for going on a violent and extremely rapid crime spree in the nation’s capital earlier this year. The juvenile male, who has not been identified by law enforcement on account of his age, is suspected of committing three armed robberies — including a carjacking — in roughly eight minutes in January. In a news release, the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department claimed the boy didn’t act alone and that detectives are still searching for additional suspects in the crime spree.

In each of the three incidents, the gang of suspected offenders approached victims brandishing handguns and threatening injury before making off with several personal items, which included four iPhones and a Hyundai Sonata sedan. After committing the first two robberies, the suspects fled the scene and quickly moved on to commit another armed robbery.

According to police, the crimes took place on Jan. 23. The first occurred at approximately 1:20 p.m. near 14th and T Street, Northwest; the second at 1:24 p.m. on the 1800 block of 10th Street, Northwest; and the third at 1:28 p.m. on the 1500 block of 8th Street, Northwest.

The juvenile male from southeast D.C. was reportedly arrested and taken into custody on Thursday, April 21. It was not immediately clear what charges he would face. The news comes as juvenile crimes continue to plague Washington, D.C., and many other communities around the country. In the nation’s capital, youth carjackings in particular have been on the rise over the last year.

Last March, a botched carjacking that resulted in the gruesome death of an elderly Uber Eats driver drew national headlines after it was discovered that the culprits were a 13-year-old girl and 15-year-old girl. The girls reportedly used at least one stun gun in attempt to seize the car. They struggled with the victim, 66-year-old Mohammad Anwar, swerving through the streets, but eventually struck a curb, sending Anwar flying from the vehicle. The man’s death was caught on video.

At least on this case, it appears that law enforcement is hoping to clamp down on juvenile perpetrators of violent crimes.

Police have requested the public’s help in identifying additional suspects in the January armed robbery incidents and are offering a reward of up to $10,000 to anyone who provides information that leads to the arrest and conviction of those responsible.

Dartmouth College charges Republican club $3,600 security fee for canceled Andy Ngo event

Reported by CHRIS PANDOLFO | April 20, 2022


Three months ago, Dartmouth College in New Hampshire canceled a College Republicans event featuring journalist Andy Ngo in response to violent threats made by Antifa activists and “concerning information” the school claimed it received from Hanover police. Now, the school is insisting that Dartmouth College Republicans pay $3,600 in security fees for the canceled event and warning that failure to pay the fees will result in the club being unable to request further funds from the school.

On Tuesday, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education sent a letter to Dartmouth College demanding that the school “immediately rescind the security fee charge” and permit the College Republicans chapter to request funding to host future events.

“Forcing the group to shoulder these security costs — based on detractors’ disruption at no fault of the College Republicans — and refusing to fund future College Republicans events until these exorbitant fees are paid, infringes the expressive and associational rights Dartmouth promises to its students,” FIRE’s Sabrina Conza wrote to Dartmouth President Philip J. Hanlon.

The planned event with Ngo in January was moved online after his physical visit to campus was canceled. At the time, Dartmouth College claimed that it had received unspecified “concerning information” from Hanover police “regarding safety issues” for the event. In response to requests from FIRE for clarification about why the in-person event was canceled, the school said it was “deeply concerned about the credible threats to participant safety shared by local law enforcement” before the event with Ngo was scheduled to begin.

However, FIRE also requested clarification from the Hanover police, which shared public records and a letter from the police chief stating that law enforcement “did not make a recommendation to Dartmouth College regarding the January 20th event.”

The letter from Chief of Police Charles B. Dennis said that “the information and concerns we had received from student organizers, event organizers, the speaker, open-source information available online referencing the event, and information through law enforcement channels was credible and caused us concern for the safety of those attending the event, protesting the event, as well as our community members.”

“With the information we had, we were operationally prepared as best we could to handle the event and protest,” Dennis said.

In a statement to Inside Higher Ed, a spokesperson for Dartmouth College affirmed the school’s support for “freedom of expression and dissent.”

The school said that student organizations are responsible for event-related security costs and said that “leaders of the college Republican club were aware of their responsibility for security fees for the event and received an estimate in advance, with enough time to submit a funding request for these costs. They did not request this funding. The club was also aware of the possibility that the event might need to be adjusted to address safety concerns expressed by the organizers themselves.”

Federal judge throws out CDC’s public transit mask mandate

Reported by CHRIS PANDOLFO | April 18, 2022


A federal judge in Florida on Monday declared the Biden administration’s mask mandate for public transportation unlawful.

U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, ruled that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention exceeded its statutory authority by imposing masking requirements on airplanes, airports, and other forms of public transportation and transportation hubs. Mizelle wrote in a 59-page opinion that the agency did not follow proper procedure in issuing the masking order and failed to adequately explain its decisions.

“Because ‘our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends,’ the Court declares unlawful and vacates the Mask Mandate,” the judge wrote.

The decision comes just days after the CDC extended the mask mandate for an additional two weeks, citing concerns over rising coronavirus cases cased by the BA.2 Omicron subvariant of the virus. The mandate is now set to expire May 3.

When the CDC extended the mask mandate for the fifth time last week, the agency said that the BA.2 subvariant is now the dominant coronavirus strain circulating in the U.S.

“Since early April, there have been increases in the 7-day moving average of cases in the U.S. The CDC Mask Order remains in effect while CDC assesses the potential impact of the rise of cases on severe disease, including hospitalizations and deaths, and healthcare system capacity,” the agency said in a news release.

The CDC and the Transportation Security Administration put masking requirements in place in January 2021, in response to an executive order from newly inaugurated President Joe Biden. Before Biden’s order, U.S. airlines and other forms of public transportation had voluntarily adopted masking rules in accordance with COVID-19 pandemic guidance from the CDC.

In recent months, the masking requirements for public transportation have become controversial as pandemic case numbers have fallen and many COVID-19 restrictions on other industries have been lifted. The CDC adjusted its masking guidance in February to permit about 70% of Americans to forgo face masks indoors because they lived in areas where the threat from the virus was low or moderate. As of March, all statewide mask mandates in the country have been lifted, with Hawaii being the last state to do so.

CDC officials have received widespread criticism for permitting indoor workplaces, restaurants, entertainment venues, and other places where large number of people gather to drop masking requirements while keeping restrictions in place for public transportation like airplanes.

The lawsuit to end the mask mandate was brought by the Health Freedom Defense Fund and two other individuals.

Democratic mega-donor Ed Buck sentenced to 30 years for injecting gay black men with meth that killed them

Reported by PAUL SACCA | April 15, 2022


Democratic mega-donor Ed Buck was sentenced to 30 years in federal prison for his role in the overdose deaths of two men at his apartment in West Hollywood, California. Last year, Buck was found guilty of plying men with drugs during sexual encounters, which led to the overdose deaths of two black men – Gemelle Moore and Timothy Dean.

Buck, 67, lured vulnerable black men – many suffering from homelessness, addiction, and/or poverty – to his home for sex sessions and to inject them with methamphetamine and drug them with sedatives such as gamma hydroxybutyric acid and clonazepam, federal prosecutors wrote in a sentencing memorandum. Buck reportedly used social media sites, dating websites, escort services, and referrals from prior victims to find new men. Buck allegedly would even pay a finder’s fee for referrals.

“Prosecutors allege that Buck caused the deaths as a result of his ‘fetish’ for injecting men with increasing doses of methamphetamine until they became comatose,” KABC-TV reported.

The Los Angeles Times reported, “For nearly a decade, the wealthy, white Buck lured young black men at the lowest points in their lives — homeless, addicted, resorting to subsistence-level sex work — into what he called ‘party and play’ sessions.”

“Buck used his money and privilege to exploit the wealth and power imbalances between himself and his victims, who were unhoused, destitute, and/or struggling with addiction,” assistant U.S. attorney Chelsea Norell stated in a court filing. “He spent thousands of dollars on drugs and party and play sessions that destroyed lives and bred insidious addictions.”

“Buck’s lack of remorse is aptly captured in one image: As he was hiding out in a hotel, evading arrest for Gemmel Moore’s death, he was injecting Dane Brown, another young black man, with back-to-back slams of methamphetamine,” Norell added. “Brown sat on the couch, resigned to the same fate as Moore and Dean, when he heard his deceased mother cry out to him, ‘Get up, Dane.'”

Gemelle Moore, 26, was found naked on a mattress in the living room with a “male pornography movie playing on the television” on June 27, 2017, according to the coroner’s report. Investigators also discovered sex toys, syringes, and “clear plastic bags with suspected methamphetamine in a tool box roll-cabinet in the living room,” the report stated.

Moore’s mother – LaTisha Nixon – wrote a letter to the court calling for Buck to receive the maximum sentence.

“All I can think about is how my son died naked on a mattress with no love around him,” Nixon said. “No one to hold his hand or tell him good things.”

On Jan. 7, 2019, another black man was found dead at Buck’s home. Timothy Dean, 55, died of a methamphetamine overdose.

“In text conversations with multiple friends in which they discussed Moore’s death, Dean described him as a ‘horrible, horrible man,’ ‘the f***ing devil,’ and mused ‘this might be it for Ed Buck,'” the Daily Mail reported.

“A search of the Internet Adult Film Database shows that Dean worked as a gay porn actor for about a decade between 2007 and 2016, appearing in 26 productions under the pseudonym ‘Hole Hunter,'” according to Pink News.

Buck was a big-dollar donor to the Democratic Party.

The New York Times reported, “Mr. Buck was a longtime activist who had donated at least $116,000 over his lifetime to Democratic candidates and groups.”

Ed Buck sentenced to 30 years in prison for overdose deathswww.youtub

Ann Coulter Op-ed: In Historic First, 5’5″, 130-lb Woman Confirmed to Supreme Court

Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Apr 13, 2022

Read more at—p–n2605868/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of, and

In Historic First, 5'5", 130-lb Woman Confirmed to Supreme Court

Source: AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

Weird that the media didn’t cite Ketanji Brown Jackson’s height and weight as her most important characteristics. When it came to THE FIRST BLACK WOMAN ON THE SUPREME COURT, it was all about her race. But after a guy shot up a New York City subway car this week, the last thing the media wanted to tell us was his race. For more than three hours after the attack, we got urgent alerts: Suspect at large! Police request public’s help! Be on the alert for a male, about 5’8″, 160 lbs.”

In this particular case, the media’s rule of never telling us the suspect’s race (unless he’s white) was more deranged than usual. This wasn’t a carjacking. It wasn’t a shooting at a block party. It wasn’t an attack on an Asian or Jew. This crime had all the earmarks of a terror attack — smoke bombs, fireworks, a gas mask, and about a dozen people shot while trapped in a subway car. The police desperately needed the public’s help, but most people were looking for a Middle Easterner.

At least we knew it wasn’t a white guy! If it had been, reporters would have worn out the “W” on their computer keyboards. There would have been rampant speculation that it was a Proud Boy, as top administration officials reminded us that “white supremacy is the most lethal threat to the homeland today. Not ISIS, not al-Qaida — white supremacists.” (President Joe Biden June 2, 2021)

We’re always told “wokeness” is just about being polite and that those who ridicule it are trying to “discredit the claims of traditionally marginalized groups for respect.” (Thomas Zimmer, history professor, Georgetown University) Or they are engaging in “white backlash.” (Seth Cotlar, history professor, Willamette University)

[SIDEBAR: Don’t go to college, kids!]

No, wokeness is real. And it can get us killed — when, for example, off the top of my head, a murderous psychopath is on the run and the media refuse to tell us what he looks like.

At the New York Police Department’s first press conference on the subway attack, Police Commissioner Keechant Sewell came up with an all-new circumlocution to convey the relevant information without saying “black male.” She said: “… we will describe him as an individual, he is being reported as a male black.”

“A male black”! That’s so much better than “black male” when identifying a criminal.

By the time of the evening press conference, Sewell had settled on an even dumber description, calling him “a dark-skinned male.” Great, so now we’re back to looking for a Middle Easterner. Or possibly Hispanic. Maybe South Asian or mixed race. Definitely NOT “black male” (or “male black”).

The NYPD must have spent all day crafting that new euphemism, because “dark-skinned male” was the exact phrase used minutes later by the chief of detectives, James Essig. “Black” is OUT. “Dark-skinned” is IN.

Biden Appoints First Dark-Skinned Woman (whatever the hell that is) to Supreme Court!

No, “black” is fine, provided we’re talking about THE FIRST BLACK FEMALE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, or THE FIRST BLACK FEMALE POLICE COMMISSIONER. Such as … Commissioner Sewell herself!

— “One of Mr. Adams’ first appointments was to name Keechant Sewell, chief of detectives in Nassau County, as the first Black woman to head the NYPD.” (The Christian Science Monitor)

— “New York’s incoming mayor just made history by appointing a Black woman to run the nation’s largest police department …” (New York Daily News)

— “This is truly historic. We heard that word a lot, but it’s 176 years of the NYPD. You’re the first woman, the first black woman to lead the force.” (CNN’s Jim Sciutto to Sewell)

A black person becoming a Supreme Court justice or police commissioner makes black people feel good about themselves! But a black man being identified as the perpetrator of a heinous crime makes black people feel bad about themselves. Therefore, you can’t say it.

As is well known, the sine qua non of a well-run society is factoring in people’s feelings when reporting important events. And if New York City is not running like a top, then I don’t know what your definition of “running like a top” is.

Instead of subway cameras capturing clear photos of the homicidal brute and being broadcast out within minutes of the attack, hours later, the police were climbing up ladders to physically inspect the cameras. They weren’t working.

New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority operates the cameras, but they’ve been VERY busy promoting diversity. Evidently, “Is our equipment working?” has not come up.

Julio Rosas

Here’s the MTA’s summary of the last meeting:

3rd Quarter 2021 Report:

“The Department of Diversity and Civil Rights will present 3rd quarter 2021 update on MTA Agency-wide EEO and M/W/DBE and SDVOB contract compliance activities.

“Status Report on MTA Inter-Agency M/W/DBE and SDVOB Task Force. The Department of Diversity and Civil Rights report will address progress made by the Task Force to improve M/W/DBE and SDVOB participation. Master Page # 6 of 108 — Diversity Committee Meeting 9/15/2021

“2022 Diversity Committee Work Plan. The Department of Diversity and Civil Rights will present an updated Diversity Committee Work Plan for 2022.”

Another confidence-inspiring development: The New York Times reports that immediately after the shooting, “Toward the front of the train, three victims were being attended to by bystanders. A uniformed police officer approached, asking passengers to call 911 because his radio was not working.” (Emphasis added.)

The officer’s radio didn’t work. But on the plus side, he’s been through six diversity training sessions.

To top things off, at the evening press conference, the top brass COULDN’T GET ZOOM TO WORK. Mayor Eric Adams was introduced, whereupon every TV in the land broadcast total silence for a solid 60 seconds, while city officials stood around waiting for the mayor to appear. They finally gave up and patched him in later.

At least the mayor is on top of things. Hours after even MSNBC had admitted the perp was a black male, Adams was on TV, vowing to catch the man — “or woman!” — who perpetrated this attack.

Gosh, that makes me feel validated.

‘Tired of it’: California dads fight rampant crime by retrieving stolen items, beating up robbers, tracking thefts — but now they’re moving to Texas

Reported by PHIL SHIVER | April 14, 2022


A pair of neighborhood dads in Los Angeles, California, have taken matters into their own hands to fight soaring crime in recent months. But now, they say they’re “tired of it” and have decided to pack their bags with their families and ditch the area. The two neighbors, identified only as Michael and Josh in recent report by local news outlet KTTV-TV, have retrieved a stolen car, fought off robbers, and tracked thieves with AirTags, all within the span of 18 months. Yet still, brazen criminals continue to stalk and harass their Playa Del Rey condo complex time and again.

“The number of instances that have happened in the year and a half that I’ve lived here has been in the half-dozen range, and I’m tired of it,” Michael told the outlet in an interview. “I’m tired of losing our property.”

The latest robbery served as the straw that broke the camel’s back for Michael, who said he plans to move to Texas. Thieves reportedly broke into a locked parking garage and stole his elderly neighbor’s car. Only 12 hours later, another neighbor spotted it about a mile down the road at a homeless RV camp. So, Michael and his neighbor Josh grabbed a spare key and hopped in a car and drove down Jefferson Avenue to retrieve the stolen vehicle. They soon spotted it, and once they figured out how to drive the Toyota Prius, they were off.

“It was nice to get the car back for the owner,” Josh said, smiling. “Win one for the good guys.”

Fed up with LA crime, neighbors take action into their own

But prior to their heroic and blissful win, the neighbors had taken several losses. KTTV reported that thieves had made off with several padlocked bikes stored in the same parking garage.

One time, Michael encountered a thief and decided to confront him. Surveillance video shows the dad tackling the criminal to the ground and ripping the bike from his hands — but even that didn’t stop him. The thief was back a couple days later to steal more property. Josh opted to start tracking the whereabouts of his e-bikes with Apple AirTags, small coin-sized devices that can attach to items and signal their location to a connected Apple phone or computer. Three were taken: one to Marina Del Rey and two others to the homeless RV camp.

“I tracked it to that encampment, called the cops, they came and helped me retrieve it,” Josh said. “It was being disassembled as [we] walked up at a bike chop shop.”

Per Los Angeles rules, authorities stopped towing illegally parked RVs during the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing encampments to rapidly clutter neighborhoods. The moratorium was finally lifted last week following a city council vote. But much damage had already been done. Members of the community claim the encampments quickly became epicenters for crime and debauchery.

“They’re ruining the environment,” said one Playa del Rey resident, Lucy Han, during the council meeting. “They’re defecating, they’re urinating in the area. … There’s human sex trafficking. We’ve had four shootings.”

KTTV said the Jefferson Avenue encampment is even home to a meth lab.

The pervasive crime has reportedly caused “good guys” like Michael and Josh to “hit the road for good,” the outlet noted.

Michael said: “We’re making that move partially because what’s going on but partially because it just feels like L.A. is going backwards, not forwards.”

16 missing children recovered in US Marshals’ operation that uncovers sex trafficking allegations

Reported By Leonardo Blair, Senior Features Reporter | Monday, April 11, 2022


Some 16 missing children have been recovered in an operation led by the U.S. Marshals Service Eastern District of Louisiana New Orleans Task Force which also uncovered allegations of sex trafficking in some of the cases, the agency announced. In a news release published Thursday, the agency revealed that through “Operation Fresh Start,” conducted from Jan. 1 to March 31, they made five arrests and are currently pursuing the arrest of four other adults.

“Based on the operation at least four (4) felony warrants exist for adults suspected of involvement with MCU minors and the USMS New Orleans Task Force is actively pursuing these fugitives,” the agency said.

In one of the cases, marshals recovered a 14-year-old female on March 25 from an address in Fayetteville, Georgia, living with several adults. She had run away from her family in New Orleans in January, authorities said.

“The teen had run away from New Orleans in January of 2022 and her family were concerned about her possible involvement in sex trafficking and believed that she was with an older male in Florida. USMS investigation shows the teen may have also traveled to the Jacksonville, Florida area as well before being located in Georgia,” the U.S. Marshals Service said.

A day later, on March 26, marshals also rescued another 14-year-old habitual runaway from a location in Addis, Louisiana. The teenager was described as a “previous victim of sexual assault.” She was returned to St. Tammany Parish after the rescue.

According to the release, New Orleans was one of the original U.S. cities to begin a USMS pilot program for the Missing Child Unit in 2016, and U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Scott Illing, said he was proud of the work they have done so far.

“I am very proud of the cooperative work done by all the agencies involved in safeguarding at risk children. Our Office is proud to be a part of a robust MCU program that took root in New Orleans starting in 2016,” Illing said in a statement. “This work is being done with our partners while our office still performs its critical USMS missions (judicial and witness security, managing federal prisoners, violent fugitives’ apprehension, sex offender investigations, and service of federal process).”

Several of the cases also involved custodial disputes between parents, which can sometimes turn deadly. Marshals successfully recovered a 5-year-old female and 7-year-old male who were taken by their mother, who was the non-custodial parent.

“The Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office issued a felony warrant for the mother of the children for kidnapping, and she made active attempts to avoid arrest along the way,” the release said. “The non-custodial parent/mother took the children to the Ft. Lauderdale, Florida area and the USMS Florida/Caribbean Regional Fugitive Task Force was able to recover the children and arrest the mother on her Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office warrant.”

On Jan. 31, marshals also recovered a 1-year-old male child abducted by his father after the father shot and killed the infant’s grandfather in New Orleans, Louisiana, the agency said. News reports show that the grandfather, the late beloved trumpeter Brian Murray, was babysitting the child at the time he was killed by Edmond Ramee Sr. Ramee is currently in custody on a second degree murder charge.

“New Orleans Police Department Violent Offenders Warrant Squad (VOWS) and USMS New Orleans Task Force immediately began to search for Edmond RAMEE Sr., and he surrendered to NOPD VOWS on the evening of 01/31/2022, with the child being safely located and recovered,” the U.S. Marshals Service said.

Not all custody disagreements end with children being recovered safely. In January, Tennessee Pastor Kenneth Cook died along with his 16-year-old step-daughter, Teagan Welch, and Teagan’s biological father, Christopher Ray Welch, 48, after a domestic-related shooting in White Pine at a Pilot gas station. The Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office told WVLT News that the Jan. 3 event stemmed from a custody drop-off between the pastor’s wife and Teagan’s father, who were meeting to change custody of their child.

Last month, three sisters were fatally shot by their father in another domestic dispute concerning custody. The father also killed himself and their chaperone inside the sanctuary of The Church in Sacramento during a supervised visit in California. All the individuals involved were members of the church. The Sacramento coroner’s office identified the father as David Mora Rojas, 39. His daughters were identified as Samarah Mora Gutierrez, 9; Samantha Mora Gutierrez, 10, and Samia Mora Gutierrez, 13. The late chaperone was identified as Nathaniel Kong, 59. Business records show that he was an executive of the church.

Contact: Follow Leonardo Blair on Twitter: @leoblair Follow Leonardo Blair on Facebook: LeoBlairChristianPost

Pennsylvania man faces possibility of 1,000 years in prison for list of child sex abuse charges, including rape of girls under 5 years old

Reported by PHIL SHIVER | April 06, 2022


A 22-year-old man from central Pennsylvania accused of sexually abusing children faces the possibility of a millennium behind bars for his egregious actions. In a press release issued last week, the Newberry Township Police Department reported that officers arrested Isaiah John Metz on March 30 and charged him with a whopping 115 counts related to child sexual abuse. A large majority of the charges filed against Metz are felonies — including three counts of rape of an underaged child, two counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a child, two counts of aggravated indecent assault, fifty counts of sexual abuse of children, and 50 counts of child pornography.

If convicted on just the 100 counts of sexual abuse of children and child pornography, Metz could face up to 1,000 years in prison, People reported. According to an affidavit of probable cause obtained by Penn Live, Metz stands accused of raping two girls under the age of 5 and posting dozens of photos and videos of the assaults online.

The outlet added that Metz was babysitting one of the victims on July 24, 2021, while her sister went to a doctor’s appointment, when he assaulted her. Court documents stated that the young girl was acting noticeably more emotional than normal when her family returned home from the doctor’s office. During bath time the next day, she reportedly told her parents that her vagina was hurting.

Police then launched an investigation into the incident, during which they collected DNA samples from a pair of underwear and from the chair that the girl and Metz were sitting on when she alleged that the assault occurred.

The outlet reported that representatives from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children later informed investigators that Metz had uploaded photos and videos of himself sexually assaulting the two girls to the internet. According to the arrest affidavit, 42 photos and eight videos of the girls were found on Metz’s Samsung Galaxy phone in February.

Penn Live did not offer details regarding other incidents of rape or child sexual abuse.

It was not immediately clear based on court records where Metz is being held or whether he had been granted bail. Police or other officials in York County, Pennsylvania, have yet to comment on the case publicly.

The Attacks on Clarence and Ginni Thomas Are Merely Latest in a Decades-Long Smear Campaign



Clarence Thomas

Not only are the attacks on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginni purely political, they’re deeply hypocritical.

Author Tristan Justice profile




While claiming its aggressive collection of confidential information on private citizens is narrowly tailored” and without a nefarious purpose, Democrats on the Jan. 6 Committee selectively leaked communications of a private citizen to smear political opponents.

Last week, CNN and the Washington Post published text messages between Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife, Virginia, who goes by “Ginni,” and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows exchanged in the days leading up to and on the day of the Capitol riot.

“Help This Great President stand firm, Mark!!!” Ginni reportedly urged Meadows days after the 2020 contest when news organizations began to call the race for former Vice President Joe Biden. “You are the leader, with him, who is standing for America’s constitutional governance at the precipice. The majority knows Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History.”

Out of the 29 of more than 2,300 text messages released from Meadows’ vast trove of data handed to the Select Committee, not one, the Washington Post conceded, included a direct reference to the sitting justice as the weaponized probe sought to dox a private citizen for petitioning her government.

“The messages, which do not directly reference Justice Thomas or the Supreme Court, show for the first time how Ginni Thomas used her access to Trump’s inner circle to promote and seek to guide the president’s strategy to overturn the election results,” the Post reported with the paper adopting Pelosi committee’s framing to indict private political views as a blockbuster scandal.

While the committee has made an open point to prosecute those who publicly sought to cast doubt on the fairness of the 2020 election results, the committee’s targeting of Ginni Thomas for privately petitioning government officials on her own marks further escalation of the probe’s assault on civil liberties, and makes Thomas case all the more unique.

CNN reported Monday the committee will now seek an interview with Ginni, who has become the latest to be dragged before lawmakers for exercising dissident views, even in private. But the probe’s latest request is just as much targeted at Ginni, a long-time conservative activist who has never concealed her activism, as it is her husband.

The left’s racist disdain for Justice Thomas has never been a well-kept secret by a virulent left frustrated by the mere existence of a black conservative, let alone one on the high bench. Attacks on Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s record on lenient sentencing for child sex crimes are cruel and racist. Baseless criticism of Justice Thomas is warranted, however, for his political heresy, starting with his own confirmation process three decades ago.

Publication of the text messages provoked immediate calls for Justice Thomas to recuse himself from any cases related to the Jan. 6 investigation for the crime of his wife’s public political views raising concerns over an election with record mail-in voting and last-minute rule changes. New York Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez even demanded Justice Thomas resign or face impeachment.

As outlined Tuesday in The Federalist by former Thomas Law Clerk Wendy Long, however, judges are never asked to recuse themselves over political views, whether their own or their spouse’s.

“Leftists in Congress and the media hyperventilate over every tidbit showing that Justice Thomas’s wife, Ginni, is involved in national conservative politics – most recently, that she pushed for integrity in the 2020 election,” Long wrote. “This isn’t news, and it has nothing to do with Justice Thomas’s ability to be a fair and impartial jurist.”

Instead, Long explained judicial recusal is about “mainly financial, legal, personal, or professional interests of the Justice or a family member.” Not personal politics. The strategy of the modern left, however, has been to intimidate the courts into submission to extremist and anti-Constitution politics. Consider the last three nomination battles: Justice Brett Kavanaugh was slandered as a serial gang rapist, Amy Coney Barrett was depicted as a character in The Handmaid’s Tale, and Stephen Breyer was pressured to retire while Democrats were in power to replace him.

Not only are the attacks on Thomas purely political, they’re hypocritical. Will Democrats calling on Justice Thomas to refrain from his official duties as a jurist similarly demand a probe into House Speaker Nancy Pelosi leveraging her position in Congress to rake in millions? Will journalists married to people in power recuse themselves from coverage on any issues their spouses conduct even minor work on? Probably not. It’s all theater.

Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. 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

Giving Violent Criminals A Free Pass Only Punishes Innocent Americans And Rewards The Left



crime rewarded by progressives

Gerald Brevard III, a 30-year-old known criminal who was released early from prison because of Democrat criminal justice policies, was arrested this week after he allegedly went on a multi-state shooting spree targeting homeless people.

Brevard faced felony charges in 2020 when he tried to abduct and defile one woman and burgle another in Herndon, Va. Despite the fact that Brevard had “88 prior criminal charges dating back to 2009,” leftist Fairfax County Commonwealth Attorney Steve Descano, a former Obama-era federal prosecutor, reduced the abduction charge to a misdemeanor. This allowed the criminal to return to the streets after serving possibly as few as five months of an 11-month prison sentence.

Because Descano was preoccupied with reducing sentences for violent criminals under his “progressive justice” initiative, Brevard walked free and used his freedom to allegedly attack multiple vulnerable people that social justice preeners such as Descano claim to prioritize.

Brevard was released because a Democrat attorney saw him as his next social justice cause. The criminal’s freedom, however, appears to have cost the lives of several innocent people.

A similar incident happened in Dallas last week when leftist Judge Chika Anyiam lowered violent criminal Julio Guerrero’s bond from $2 million to $500,000, which only requires a $50,000 down payment for release from jail.

Guerrero was arrested last year after allegedly shooting at police officers during an hours-long standoff. He was accused of killing a father of five children after they rubbed elbows at a club, and of shooting a 3-year-old girl in the head in a fit of road rage days later.

Guerro’s attorney Tom Cox, who has donated at least $5,000 to Anyiam since 2015, quickly posted the bail. After backlash from law enforcement and other members of her Texas community, Anyiam, who brags on her website about going soft on crimeraised the bond for the murder chargem but only to $600,000.

“These irresponsible decisions, do not make our cities safer,” Dallas Police Chief Eddie Garcia tweeted.

Unfortunately for innocent, law-abiding, and vulnerable Americans who count on the justice system to keep them safe, anecdotes like these are increasing and will only get worse. Pro-criminal attorneys and judges repeatedly lower penalties for offenders in the name of achieving “equity.”

Why do leftist lawyers and judges repeatedly release criminals who end up harming people? Because they profit from it.

In exchange for their reckless policies, many of these radical legal officials are showered with donations by leftist megadonors such as George Soros, who has poured millions through “pro-criminal justice” PACs into district attorney races across the country. Letting criminals onto the streets is now a lucrative business for leftist politicians, which makes them less likely to change their ways and risk losing funding.

These “criminal bail reform” activists plaguing the American justice system may claim it is humane and just to lower the bar for criminals, but true justice does not include the harm and slaughter of innocent men, women, and children.

Remember when Darrell Brooks Jr. allegedly used his SUV to plow over a crowd in Waukesha, Wis., killing six people and injuring 62 others just days after being let out on bail? That decision wasn’t humane, just, or equitable. Even the Democrat district attorney in Wisconsin admitted that his progressive policies were “guaranteed” to kill someone someday.

Giving violent criminals a free pass only punishes innocent Americans. It’s neither humane nor just to sacrifice law-abiding lives on the premise that releasing creeps from jail is more humane than keeping them locked up. If they truly cared about people, Democrats wouldn’t allow their failed criminal justice experiment which has already cost too many lives to continue.

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 @jordangdavidson.

More than 100 arrested during multi-day undercover operation in Florida related to prostitution, child predators

Reported by ALEX NITZBERG | March 16, 2022


More than 100 people were recently arrested during “Operation March Sadness 2,” a six-day undercover operation that led to the arrest of child predators and people seeking to engage prostitution, according to the Polk County Sheriff’s Office in Florida.

According to a press release, a 27-year-old man named Xavier Jackson was arrested after communicating with an undercover detective who had been pretending to be a 14-year-old girl — he “sent [the detective] sexual images and graphic descriptions of what he wanted to do,” according to the sheriff’s office.

Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd noted during a news conference that Jackson worked as a lifeguard at Disney’s Polynesian Village Resort.

Operation March Sadness II news conference

Shannon Johnson, a 41-year-old man who thought he was communicating with a 13-year-old girl, sent a naked picture of himself and went to a home with the plan to engage in sexual activity, according to the press release, which noted that Johnson was arrested.

Also among the 108 people arrested was Daniel Peters, a retired Cook County Illinois judge who was charged with soliciting a prostitute. “He requested an attorney,” Judd said during the news conference. “Well judge, you need an attorney, you got problems.”

“The arrests of a human trafficker and four child predators alone makes this whole operation worthwhile,” Judd said, according to a statement included in the press release. “The on-line prostitution industry enables traffickers and victimizes those who are being trafficked. Our goal is to identify victims, offer them help, and find and arrest those who are profiting from the exploitation of human beings. Johns fuel the trafficking and victimization. Where there is prostitution, there is exploitation, disease, dysfunction, and broken families.”

‘Dangerous by design’ metaverse apps allow children to access immersive digital sex clubs

Reported by SAMUEL MANGOLD-LENETT | February 23, 2022


A researcher who went undercover in the metaverse as a 13-year-old girl witnessed grooming, graphic sexual material, and threats of rape. The researcher, the BBC reported, used an app with a minimum age rating of 13 and visited virtual reality rooms where other users’ avatars were simulating explicit acts. The researcher, whose online presence depicted that of a 13-year-old girl, was shown sex toys and condoms and approached by several adult men. One man told the researcher that in the metaverse, users’ avatars can “get naked and do unspeakable things.” Other users approached the researcher while in the metaverse and discussed “erotic role-play.”

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, a British charity dedicated to the welfare of Great Britain’s children, warned that some of the apps in the metaverse are “dangerous by design” as there is very little content moderation in the metaverse.

For instance, the app used by the researcher to access the metaverse, VRChat, allows its users to access any number of immersive chatrooms. Some of these rooms are as innocuous as digital McDonald’s, while others allow users to watch and participate in pole dancing or even attend digitally immersive strip clubs.

Mr. Burrows of the NSPCC said, “It’s children being exposed to entirely inappropriate, really incredibly harmful experiences. This is a product that is dangerous by design, because of oversight and neglect. We are seeing products rolled out without any suggestion that safety has been considered.”

Jess Sherwood, the researcher who went under cover, said, “I was surprised how totally immersed in the spaces you are. I started to feel like a child again. So, when grown men were asking why I wasn’t in school and encouraging me to engage in VR sex acts, it felt all the more disturbing.”

She said, “VRChat definitely felt more like an adult’s playground than a child’s. A lot of the rooms were overtly sexualized in pink neon, similar to what you might see in the red-light district in Amsterdam or in the seedier parts of London’s Soho at night. Inside, sex toys were on display.”

Catherine Allen, founder of a UK-based augmented and digital reality consulting firm, said that while VR can be “fun and surreal,” it also tends to be “quite traumatic and disturbing.” She described an incident in a Meta-owned app where she and a 7-year-old girl were surrounded by a group of men who joked about raping them.

VRChat said that it was “working hard to make itself a safe and welcoming place for everyone” and that “predatory and toxic behavior has no place on the platform.”

Republican pursuing election in AOC’s congressional district wants to ‘federally mandate the death penalty for cop killers’

Reported by ALEX NITZBERG | January 27, 2022


Desi Cuellar, a Republican running to represent New York’s 14th Congressional District, says that as a member of Congress he would put forward legislation to require capital punishment for those who kill police officers.

Progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez currently represents the Empire State’s 14th Congressional District.

“So-called progressives like @AOC have created a culture where it’s okay for criminals to run the streets and even kill cops. When I’m elected to Congress, I will introduce a bill to federally mandate the death penalty for cop killers,” Cuellar tweeted.

The tweet is accompanied by a video in which Cuellar declares that “Crime is rampant in this country because our spineless politicians don’t have the guts to stand up to the criminal underworld.”

Two NYPD police officers who were fired upon last Friday have died — one of the officers was killed on Friday and the other officer passed away days later.

“Nobody in politics on the left cares about holding back the criminals, all they care about is holding back the police,” Cuellar said, according to Fox News.

“The problem we face today is that the mindset of the modern criminal is one that understands that they will not face severe consequences for their violent actions,” he said, according to the outlet “And honestly, it feels like we are getting a lack of action on this crisis from both sides of the aisle. Everyone needs to wake up.”

New Video: Ashli Babbitt Tries to Stop Violent Capitol Agitator Seconds Before Being Fatally Shot

Reported By Jared Harris | January 26, 2022


A newly released video appears to show Ashli Babbitt attempting to stop a violent rioter inside the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, incursion. Moments after the scene was filmed, Babbitt would be fatally shot by Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd.

Despite several instances of violence, including the one where Babbitt intervened, the young Air Force veteran was the only person shot during the riot. But newly released footage puts an even bigger question mark on the shooting, the investigation of which appears to have lost many of the facts while being fast-tracked.

Independent journalist Tayler Hanson released the 25-second video clip on Tuesday. In the footage, a man identified as Zachary Alam punched through a window in the Capitol as nearby police did nothing to stop him. Babbitt appeared to grab Alam’s backpack, causing him to turn and look at the 35-year-old veteran right before she delivered a punch to the middle of his face. As the impact sent his glasses falling, the camera shifted away from the encounter. According to Hansen, this was only seven seconds before Babbitt was fatally shot by Byrd while seemingly attempting to scale a hastily assembled police barricade. Footage of the encounter that preceded the shooting can be seen below.

WARNING: The following video contains graphic language that some viewers will find offensive.

The Department of Justice arrested Alam on Jan. 30, 2021. A case document from the DOJ shows a mountain of charges against him, including several related to alleged assaults on police. While Alam is presumed innocent until proved guilty, video of the encounter likely will not do him any favors in court.

While Babbitt has been vilified by liberals and mainstream media hit pieces, this bombshell video appears to prove that the young veteran was not there to cause violence and chaos and instead actively attempted to stop the destruction. She did not back down when the crowd grew more amped but instead appeared to be in disbelief that police were failing to intervene.

“I believe she saw their inaction as odd or off, and was ultimately confused as to what was happening,” husband Aaron Babbitt told The Epoch Times.

“She was a take-charge kind of person,” Babbitt continued. “Her frustrations show that the cops who should’ve been taking charge — weren’t.”

Although Democrats and the Capitol Police appear to consider this case closed, emerging evidence shows the public has not been given a clear and complete picture of this year-old killing.

Jared Harris, Assignment Editor

Jared has written more than 200 articles and assigned hundreds more since he joined The Western Journal in February 2017. He was an infantryman in the Arkansas and Georgia National Guard and is a husband, dad and aspiring farmer.

Obama Official Pleads Guilty to Theft of Government Property, Wire Fraud and Scheme to Defraud US Govt

Reported By Cristina Laila | Published January 17, 2022


Obama’s Acting Homeland Security Inspector General Charles Edwards pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the US government. Charles Edwards and his subordinate were indicted on 16 counts of theft and fraud, the Justice Department announced in March 2020.

“The indictment charges Charles K. Edwards, 59, of Sandy Spring, Maryland, and Murali Yamazula Venkata, 54, of Aldie, Virginia, with conspiracy to commit theft of government property and to defraud the United States, theft of government property, wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft. The indictment also charges Venkata with destruction of records.”

The charges alleged that in addition to stealing government software and databases, Venkata helped Edwards by reconfiguring his laptop so that he could upload the stolen software.

“The indictment further alleges that, in addition to stealing DHS-OIG’s software and the sensitive government databases, Venkata and others also assisted Edwards by reconfiguring his laptop so that he could properly upload the stolen software and databases, provided troubleshooting support whenever Edwards required it, and helped him build a testing server at his residence with the stolen software and databases,” the Department of Justice said in a press release announcing the indictments. “As further part of the alleged scheme, Edwards retained software developers in India for the purpose of developing his commercial alternative of DHS-OIG’s software.”

Although Edwards left the DHS in 2013, according to the indictment he leveraged his relationship with Venkata to carry out the scheme which began in October of 2014 and continued to April of 2017.

Law & Crime reported:

The ex-watchdog who oversaw the Department of Homeland Security pleaded guilty on Friday to stealing propriety software and sensitive databases from his old job for his private business.

Charles K. Edwards, 61, served in the Obama administration as the Acting Inspector General for the Department of Homeland Security between February 2008 until December 2013. He served before that time as the inspector general for the U.S. Postal Service.

During a federal court hearing on Friday morning, Edwards pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss to conspiracy to defraud the United States and theft of government property. Edwards’s sentencing date has not yet been set.

His attorney Courtney Roberts Forrest, from the firm Kaiser Dillon, did not immediately respond to an email requesting comment.

Cristina Laila

Cristina began writing for The Gateway Pundit in 2016 and she is currently the Associate Editor.

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules on Biden’s Vaccine Mandates

Reported by Katie Pavlich@KatiePavlich | Posted: Jan 13, 2022


BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules on Biden's Vaccine Mandates

Source: (AP Photo/LM Otero)

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday to strike down President Joe Biden’s Wuhan coronavirus vaccine mandate for private businesses. Justices upheld his executive order requiring vaccination for healthcare workers at facilities receiving federal funding. 

The ruling on vaccine requirements for private businesses with more than 100 employees was decided 6-3. Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer dissented. 

“The Secretary of Labor, acting through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, recently enacted a vaccine mandate for much of the Nation’s work force. The mandate, which employers must enforce, applies to roughly 84 million workers, covering virtually all employers with at least 100 employees. It requires that covered workers receive a COVID–19 vaccine, and it pre-empts contrary state laws. The only exception is for workers who obtain a medical test each week at their own expense and on their own time, and also wear a mask each workday,” the opinion states. “OSHA has never before imposed such a mandate. Nor has Congress. Indeed, although Congress has enacted significant legislation addressing the COVID–19 pandemic, it has declined to enact any measure similar to what OSHA has promulgated here. Many States, businesses, and nonprofit organizations challenged OSHA’s rule in Courts of Appeals across the country.”

“The Fifth Circuit initially entered a stay. But when the cases were consolidated before the Sixth Circuit, that court lifted the stay and allowed OSHA’s rule to take effect. Applicants now seek emergency relief from this Court, arguing that OSHA’s mandate exceeds its statutory authority and is otherwise unlawful. Agreeing that applicants are likely to prevail, we grant their applications and stay the rule,” the opinion continues. 

Further, the Justices pointed out the risk from Wuhan coronavirus exists outside of the work place and therefore, limits OSHA’s regulatory power. 

“COVID–19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases. Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life—simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock—would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization,” the ruling states.

The separate ruling on vaccine requirements for healthcare workers at facilities receiving federal funding through Medicare and Medicaid was decided 5-4. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett and Samuel Alito dissented. 

“The Government has not made a strong showing that this agglomeration of statutes authorizes any such rule,” Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent. “The Government proposes to find virtually unlimited vaccination power, over millions of healthcare workers, in definitional provisions, a saving clause, and a provision regarding long-term care facilities’ sanitation procedures. The Government has not explained why Congress would have used these ancillary provisions to house what can only be characterized as a ‘fundamental detail’ of the statutory scheme. Had Congress wanted to grant CMS power to impose a vaccine man- date across all facility types, it would have done what it has done elsewhere—specifically authorize one. “

This post has been updated with additional information. 

Biden’s Vaccine Mandate Is Outrageously Unconstitutional. Why Couldn’t Lawyers Make That Argument To The Supreme Court?



U.S. supreme court at twilight

All the petitioners needed was for the Supreme Court to enter a stay to prevent the Occupational Safety and Health Administration vaccination rule from taking effect, but, truly, was it too much to ask for a defense of limited government, separation of powers, and federalism?

Apparently so, because on Friday, over more than two hours of argument in National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, lawyers pushing the Supreme Court to delay the regulation circled and sidled rather than state clearly that the rule, OSHA, the Biden administration, and the entire federal government represented a mockery of our constitutional order.

On November 5, 2021, OSHA issued the rule under review, framing it as an “Emergency Temporary Standard” or ETS. The ETS required all employers of 100 or more employees to “develop, implement, and enforce a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy,” which required employees to either be fully vaccinated or submit to weekly COVID-19 testing and to wear face coverings at work.

Congress authorized OSHA to issue “an emergency temporary standard to take immediate effect,” and without the traditional notice-and-comment process, if it “determines (A) that employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful or from new hazards, and (B) that such emergency standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger.”

Massive Overreach Immediately Challenged in Court

The ETS was immediately challenged by individual Americans, religious groups, covered employers, states, and trade organizations, with the cases filed directly in federal courts of appeals throughout the country, bypassing the federal trial courts pursuant to the statute that authorized emergency rules.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals acted first, issuing a stay on November 6, 2021, preventing enforcement of the rule pending briefing. Less than a week later, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit—consisting of Ronald Reagan appointee Judge Edith Jones and two Donald Trump appointees, Judges Kyle Duncan and Kurt Engelhardt—issued an opinion holding that the ETS remain stayed “pending adequate judicial review” of the lawsuit challenging the OSHA rule.

The 21-page opinion, authored by Judge Engelhardt, analyzed the request for a stay and concluded that, for numerous reasons, the petitioners had a strong likelihood to succeed on the merits of their challenge and that without a stay the businesses and other petitioners would suffer irreparable injury.

Shortly after the Fifth Circuit issued its decision, pursuant to the procedures controlling when multiple lawsuits are filed challenging an ETS, all of the cases throughout the various federal circuits were consolidated and assigned by lottery to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Then, on December 17, 2021, the Sixth Circuit vacated the stay entered by the Fifth Circuit.

Sixth Circuit Deadlocks

Judge Jane Stranch, a Barack Obama appointee, authored the decision for the three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit, which Judge Julia Gibbons, a G.W. Bush appointee, joined. Trump-appointee Judge Joan Larsen dissented from the decision, concisely capturing her concern with this opening line: “As the Supreme Court has very recently reminded us, ‘our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends.’”

Two days before the Sixth Circuit removed the stay, thereby setting the ETS to go into effect this month, the federal appellate court denied a request by the challengers of the OSHA rule for the court to hear the case initially en banc, or as a full court. To obtain en banc review, a majority of the active judges on the Sixth Circuit needed to vote for the full court to decide the case together, but the 16-member court deadlocked 8-8, leaving the three-judge panel in charge.

In voting to hear the request for a stay of the ETS en banc in the Sixth Circuit, Judge John Bush, a Trump appointee, opened with the closer: “Whether it uses a clear statement or not, Congress likely has no authority under the Commerce Clause to impose, much less to delegate the imposition of, a de facto national vaccine mandate upon the American public. Such claimed authority runs contrary to the text and structure of the Constitution and historical practice. The regulation of health and safety through compulsory vaccination is a traditional prerogative of the states—not the domain of Congress and certainly not fodder for the diktat of a federal administrative agency.”

Sidelining the Constitution

With all of the ammunition provided by the dissenting judges in the Sixth Circuit, as well as the Fifth Circuit’s original opinion entering the stay, one would think that when the Supreme Court fast-tracked the case for oral argument, the attorneys seeking the stay would stress the grave attack the ETS represents to our constitutional republic. But they didn’t.

Instead, Scott Keller, counsel for the National Federation of Independent Business, argued “OSHA’s economy-wide one-size-fits-all mandate covering 84 million Americans is not a necessary, indispensable use of OSHA’s extraordinary emergency power which this Court has recognized is narrowly circumscribed.”

Likewise, Benjamin Flowers, the solicitor general of Ohio, arguing on behalf of the slew of states that joined in challenging the ETS, stressed “so sweeping a rule [as the vaccine mandate] is not necessary to protect employees from a grave danger as the emergency provision requires.”

Throughout the argument, Keller and Flowers also focused on the so-called “major questions” doctrine, which stems from a series of Supreme Court cases that stressed that if an agency’s regulatory action “brings about an enormous and transformative expansion in regulatory authority,” Congress must speak clearly that “it wishes to assign to an agency decisions [such issues] of vast ‘economic and political significance.”

The petitioners weren’t wrong. The OSHA rule, which is, in essence, a vaccine mandate given the shortage of tests and the federal government’s decision to force employees to pay for the cost of testing, is not “necessary” to protect employees from a “grave danger” for many reasons.

This Is Obviously Unconstitutional

First, COVID is only a grave danger to a small segment of society, while the ETS adopts the de facto vaccine mandate for all employers of 100 or more employees. The ETS also makes no distinction between employers where working conditions create a higher risk of COVID infection from those facilities where employees have limited risk. Nor, after two years of COVID, with OSHA waiting that time period to issue the ETS and the latest mutation less severe than the former ones, does the ETS fit within the concept of an “emergency” standard.

Also, far from providing the OSHA clear authority to mandate vaccinations (or a weekly medical test) in response to a virus such as COVID, the statute authorizing OSHA to issue an ETS speaks of grave dangers “from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful or from new hazards.” Thus, the major question doctrine supports the petitioners’ challenge to the ETS and their request for a stay.

Yes, advocates must be pragmatists, and the petitioners’ attorneys didn’t need a home run; they just needed a rain delay. But so much more could have been said, and indeed needed to be said—and forcefully so—about limited powers, federalism, and separation of powers. Yet in their desire to win the stay, there was barely any mention of these important constitutional principles.

Major Opportunity Lost

Consider this notable exchange between Ohio’s top attorney and Justice Sotomayor.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: “So, if it’s within the police power to protect the health and welfare of workers, you seem to be saying the states can do it, but you’re saying the federal government can’t even though it’s facing the same crisis in interstate commerce that states are facing within their own borders. I — I’m not sure I understand the distinction why the states would have the power but the federal government wouldn’t.”

MR. FLOWERS: “The federal government has no police power, if we’re asking about that.”

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: “Oh, it does have power with respect to protecting the health and safety of workers. We have — we have — accept the constitutionality of OSHA.”

MR. FLOWERS: “Yes. I took you to be asking if they had a police power to protect public health. They — they absolutely have the –”

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: “No, they have a police power to protect workers.”

MR. FLOWERS: “I would not call it a police power. I think the Commerce Clause power allows them to address health.”

“I would not call it a police power” is as much as the Ohio solicitor general could muster for a pushback. But Congress has no “police power” no matter what it is called, and the federal government cannot “pretextually relabel” a federal de facto vaccination mandate “commerce” to gain what is, in effect, a novel police power of the national government.

The breadth of the OSHA rule and its effects on two-thirds of private businesses also threatens the “system of government ordered by the Constitution,” that gave all legislative powers to Congress. The resulting “nondelegation doctrine constrains Congress’s ability to delegate its legislative authority to executive agencies.”

Yet when provided an opportunity to hammer these points, Flowers served up the vanilla point “that although our non-delegation doctrine is not especially robust today, there are limits on the amount of authority that Congress can give away.”

The justices—and Americans—needed to hear these points because COVID has become both the excuse and the case study for authoritarianism. And from OSHA’s most recent rule, we might divine the civil corollary to the “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime,” motto, and it seems to be, “Provide me a public interest, and I’ll find the power.” 

Or, elsewise said, “Cut me a mouse hole, and I’ll squeeze in an elephant.”

After FDA says it can release COVID-19 vaccine data by 2097, federal judge orders all info to be shared this year

Reported by PAUL SACCA | January 07, 2022


The Food and Drug Administration was told that it can’t take 75 years to release COVID-19 vaccine data. On Thursday, a federal judge in Texas ordered the FDA to greatly increase the number of documents it releases each month that pertain to the agency’s approval process for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency launched a Freedom of Information Act suit against the FDA in August. The international group consists of “public health professionals, medical professionals, scientists, and journalists,” including academics and medical experts from Yale, Harvard Medical School, and UCLA.

The nonprofit organization “exists solely to obtain and disseminate the data relied upon by the FDA to license COVID-19 vaccines” and “takes no position on the data other than that it should be made publicly available to allow independent experts to conduct their own review and analyses.”

The FOIA request asked the FDA to expedite the release of roughly 450,000 pages of material regarding the COVID-19 vaccine that was used by the health agency during the process of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine licensing approval. The FDA said it could only release 12,000 pages by the end of January and a “minimum” of 500 pages a month thereafter – which means it could be the year 2097 before all of the documents are made public. The FDA blamed staffing issues as the reason for the slow pace of the release of the documents, claiming that it only has 10 employees to review FOIA requests.

“It is important for the FDA to perform a careful line-by-line, word-by-word review of all responsive records before producing them in response to a FOIA request,” Suzann Burk – who heads the FDA’s Division of Disclosure and Oversight Management – said in a declaration filed with the court.

Burk noted that it takes a worker eight minutes per page to perform a close review of the documents.

U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman in Fort Worth ordered the FDA to significantly increase the output of the data release.

“The Court concludes that this FOIA request is of paramount public importance,” Pittman – who was appointed to the bench by former President Donald Trump in 2019 — declared.

In his four-page order, Pittman quoted a statement that James Madison wrote in a letter to W.T. Barry in 1822, “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps, both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”

Pittman also cited a 1962 quote from former President John F. Kennedy, “A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”

Pittman ordered the FDA to produce 55,000 pages every 30 days, “with the first production being due on or before March 1, 2022, until production is complete.” This forces the FDA to release all of the Pfizer vaccine data by the end of the summer instead of by 2097.

Attorney Aaron Siri – who represents Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency – reacted to the federal judge’s decision.

“This is a great win for transparency and removes one of the strangleholds federal ‘health’ authorities have had on the data needed for independent scientists to offer solutions and address serious issues with the current vaccine program – issues which include waning immunity, variants evading vaccine immunity, and, as the CDC has confirmed, that the vaccines do not prevent transmission,” Siri wrote on his Substack account.

“No person should ever be coerced to engage in an unwanted medical procedure,” he added. “And while it is bad enough the government violated this basic liberty right by mandating the Covid-19 vaccine, the government also wanted to hide the data by waiting to fully produce what it relied upon to license this product until almost every American alive today is dead. That form of governance is destructive to liberty and antithetical to the openness required in a democratic society.”

Reuters reported, “The Justice Department, which represented the FDA in the litigation, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday evening. Pfizer, not a party to the suit, also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.”

Murderers Of Ahmaud Arbery Sentenced To Life In Prison

Reported by DYLAN HOUSMAN | HEALTHCARE REPORTER | January 07, 2022


Murderers Of Ahmaud Arbery Sentenced To Life In Prison Without Parole
(Photo by Megan Varner/Getty Images)

Two of the three men convicted of murdering Ahmaud Arbery have been sentenced to life in prison without parole.

Travis and Gregory McMichael were sentenced to life without parole, while accomplice William “Roddie” Bryan was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. The McMichaels were both convicted of four counts of felony murder, while Bryan was convicted of three counts.

The murder took place in Brunswick, Georgia, in February 2020. The defense argued the three killers had been trying to carry out a citizens arrest after they saw Arbery walking around a construction site in their neighborhood. They claimed to believe Arbery was committing a robbery and cornered him with their pickup trucks before a physical altercation ensued. Travis McMichael, the son of Gregory, fatally shot Arbery during a struggle.

Prosecutors said Arbery was simply going for a jog and posed no threat to the men, who hunted him down in an act of attempted vigilantism.

Attorneys for the three men said the verdicts will be appealed. In addition to the felony murder charges, they were convicted of aggravated assault, false imprisonment and criminal attempt to commit a felony.

Leaked Biden Plan Would House Violent Men In Women’s Prison Cells



photo id of transgender man

President Joe Biden is preparing to give every rapist and molester in federal prison a get-out-of-jail-free card. Specifically, Biden is offering to transfer any and all male criminals to women’s prisons. All the men will have to do is say that they feel like a woman, and the Biden administration will take them at their word.

This policy may be the worst part of a proposed executive order on law enforcement, a draft of which was obtained by The Federalist. Most of the proposal is devoted to, if not defunding the police, at least disarming and disabling them. But buried toward the end of the extensive planned action to get soft on crime is a small paragraph of anodyne bureaucratic language that orders the U.S. attorney general to “within 30 days of the date of this order, begin the process of identifying any necessary changes to the [Bureau of Prisons] Transgender Offender Manual … to enable BOP to designate individuals to facilities in accordance with their gender identity.” In short, under this executive order, the federal government will house criminals based on subjective, self-declared “gender identity” rather than biological sex. Male rapists, child molesters, and other sexual criminals will be allowed to live in women’s prisons, and because the transgender ideology embraced by the Biden administration claims gender identity is purely internal, they will be allowed in regardless of whether they still possess fully functional male genitalia.

This move toward co-ed prisons will result in male sexual predators exploiting the system in order to abuse and rape female prisoners. We know this because it has already happened in places these proposals have been enacted. For example, Caroline Downey of National Review Online recently published a piece detailing alleged rapes and sexual assaults within the Washington state prison system, which has begun housing men in female prisons. The story suggests that such incidents are being covered up, presumably due to prison officials eager to placate their political overlords.

The same problems have arisen in California, which houses male prisoners who claim a female “gender identity” in women’s prisons. In response to reports of rape and abuse, the feminist Women’s Liberation Front, which rejects transgender ideology, has filed a federal lawsuit against the state.

As Brittany Bernstein reports: “Plaintiff Krystal Gonzalez says she was sexually assaulted by a biological male who was transferred to Central California Women’s Facility under the law. According to the suit, when Gonzalez filed a complaint and requested to be housed away from men the prison’s response called her alleged attacker a ‘transgender woman with a penis.’” Perhaps no phrase sums up the current state of liberal ideology as “woman with a penis.”

In the United Kingdom, placing the phallically-endowed in women’s prisons has produced such horrific results that even the leftists at The Guardian admit that some “mistakes were made.” But that has not been enough to stop the trend, and now female prisoners are being threatened with extra time for calling “transgender inmates ‘he’ or ‘him.’”

Now, Joe Biden and his officials are eager to follow these examples. The Democratic Party, along with most of our nation’s ruling class, has embraced transgender ideology and is eager to enforce it. The public, meanwhile, is realizing that what was sold as just being nice as Bruce became Caitlyn extends to transitioning children, allowing men to dominate women’s sports, and now allowing male rapists and murderers to write their own ticket into women’s prisons.

As these examples show, transgender ideology is misogynistic. The heart of this misogyny is transgenderism’s hatred for the biological reality of human sexual dimorphism. Thus, transgenderism disdains and tries to erase recognition of the special vulnerability that women bear in consequence of human physical embodiment.

Women are, on average, physically weaker than men. Furthermore, human reproduction imposes much heavier burdens and risks on women than it does on men. Consequently, civilization consists, to a very great extent, of training men to treat women as people, not prey. It is a mark of civilization that even women who have forfeited their freedom are still protected from male sexual predation. Such efforts are always imperfect, but it is a definitive sign of a relapse into savagery to deliberately allow male criminals access to female prisoners. This indifference to female vulnerability demonstrates the casual cruelty of transgender ideologues, who are too enraptured with intellectual fantasies to be bothered by the real suffering they inflict. Also, contrary to his campaign promises to be a moderate, return-to-normalcy president, Biden is governing as a hard-left ideologue.

There was a time when putting men into women’s prisons would have been the punchline to a bad Biden campaign trail joke. Now, it’s his policy, and if it is enacted, some of the most vulnerable women in our nation will suffer for it.

Nathanael Blake is a senior contributor to The Federalist and a postdoctoral fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

Ann Coulter Op-ed: The Daunte Wright NYT Readers Don’t Know

Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Dec 22, 2021

Read more at—p–n2600991/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of, and

The Daunte Wright NYT Readers Don't Know

Source: AP Photo/Mary Altaffer

They’re doing it again. The New York Times is aggressively hiding relevant facts on a matter of public interest simply in order to promote the narrative of black victimhood.

OK, we didn’t get away with it last time, but we probably will this time. Let’s try!

Daunte Wright is the half-black man fatally shot by a police officer in Minnesota earlier this year. According to Nexis, he has appeared in well over 100 articles in the Times. But one thing Times readers will never be told is that Wright was facing criminal charges for trying to choke a woman to death while robbing her at gunpoint. They will also never hear about the lawsuit accusing Wright and an accomplice of shooting a guy during a carjacking.

In a bold departure from customary practice, the Times did make two passing references to another lawsuit claiming Wright shot a guy in the head, permanently disabling him, but in both cases, quickly added: “The lawsuit offers no direct evidence tying Mr. Wright to the shooting.”

And those are just the crimes he’s accused of committing lately, during the brief year and a half since he turned 18 and was no longer treated as a juvenile.

When it comes to Wright’s legal problems, the Times didn’t even pull its usual trick of putting all the interesting information in paragraph 20. These grisly allegations, as set forth in police reports and lawsuits, have been completely, 100% censored from the Newspaper of Record.

This isn’t a genteel refusal to “put the victim on trial.” Wright’s short but exciting criminal record is highly relevant to the convulsions this country has been going through since George Floyd’s death at the hands of the police in 2020 — convulsions painstakingly fostered by the Times.

Contrary to the media’s black victimhood narrative, there’s a very good reason Wright was in a position to be confronted by the police and in a way that most people are not.

In addition to allegedly committing a slew of gun crimes before the age of 20 (based on only one year and six months of public records), Wright was stopped for driving with expired license plate tags. He didn’t have car insurance. He also didn’t have a driver’s license. (And yes, white people are busted for these infractions all the time.)

When the officers ran his name, they discovered that Wright was driving on a suspended license, there was a restraining order against him, and a bench warrant for his arrest on a weapons charge. They had no choice: They had to arrest him. But as one officer began to handcuff him, Wright resisted, jumped back in his car and was about to flee — along with an officer trapped in the passenger window, trying to get control of the gears.

That’s when Wright got shot.

In other words, this case isn’t exactly a primo example of “Driving While Black.” That’s why The New York Times hides all the pertinent facts.

For example, last week, the Times finally — glancingly — mentioned Wright’s lack of a driver’s license and insurance. (That’s if you don’t count a recent article about how Minnesota laws adversely affect minorities — “even regulations about driver’s licenses and renewal of tags.”)

On the other hand, the Times has run 16 articles about Wright’s … air freshener! (E.g.: “How a Common Air Freshener Can Result in a High-Stakes Traffic Stop”). That 16 more than all its articles on Hunter Biden’s laptop!

What is the Times talking about? It seems that, immediately after the shooting, Wright’s mother told the media that he’d been stopped merely for having an air freshener hanging from his rearview mirror — AND NOW HE WAS DEAD!

That’s completely untrue, but it’s the story the Times is going with. No new information will be allowed to penetrate the paper’s BLM cocoon.

Times reporters must have heard about the armed robbery/choking incident, because they’ve repeatedly quoted Wright’s accomplice in the crime, Emajay Driver. On April 13Nov. 30Dec. 8 and Dec. 17 the Times ran some version of this quote:

“‘He loved to make people laugh,’ said Emajay Driver, a friend of Mr. Wright. ‘He was just great to be around. There was never a dull moment.'”

And that’s all we get from Mr. Driver.

New York Times: Say, we saw that police report about you and Daunte nearly choking a woman to death while committing an armed robbery. So naturally, we have to ask: Do you by any chance have any heartwarming stories about him?

Somewhat more important than Daunte’s love of laughter are the details of that incident, given at length in America’s Greatest Newspaper, the U.K.’s Daily Mail.

On Dec. 1, 2019, Wright and Driver crashed at the apartment of a 20-year-old woman they’d been partying with. The next morning, the woman’s roommate went out to get $820 in rent money, handed it to her, then left for work.

Just before the attack, Wright locked himself in the victim’s bathroom for a noticeably long time in order to make videos of himself with a gun, and to empty a bottle of hand sanitizer onto his gun. (Daunte, with his simple, trusting nature, apparently believed an urban legend that sanitizer “blocks” fingerprints.)

Minutes later, as the three of them were exiting the apartment, Wright suddenly blocked the door, pointed the gun at the woman’s head, saying, “Give me the f-ing money. I know you have it.” (Me to The New York Times: Give us the f-ing facts. We know you have them.)

She refused, asking “Are you serious?” Wright barked, “We’re not playing around,” and grabbed her by the neck, choking her, as she dropped to her knees, with the gun in his other hand still pointed at her head. “You look into his eyes,” the victim later said, “and it’s so evil.”

Next, he tried ripping her shirt open to get the money, perhaps having seen her hiding it in her bra earlier. She screamed, and Wright began choking her again. (As Wright’s accomplice so poignantly said, there was never a dull moment with this guy.)

Finally, Wright and Driver ran off, hopping into a white Cadillac that was waiting for them.

They were arrested five days later. Driver pleaded guilty to first-degree aggravated robbery, his second felony conviction. He was facing 20 years in prison, but only got probation, leading some to speculate that he’d made a deal to testify against Wright.

Again: The Times hasn’t printed a single detail of Wright’s give-me-the-f-ing-money robbery attempt. Or the lawsuit about the carjacking. In one of more than 100 articles, there were two brief mentions of his shooting a guy in the head.

As for the trial of Kim Potter, the officer who shot Wright, neither the prosecution nor defense disputes that it was a mistake, that she thought she was holding her Taser. Several officers, and the defense’s use-of-force expert, testified that Potter would have been fully justified in shooting Wright in order to protect the other officer from being dragged by the car.

But Wright “loved to make people laugh.” That’s all the Times wants you to know.

New York judge orders girl, 11, to get COVID vaccine, siding against child’s scientist father in legal dispute with her mother

Reported by PAUL SACCA | December 09, 2021


An 11-year-old girl has been ordered to get vaccinated against COVID-19 by a judge in upstate New York. The ruling sides with the child’s mother and against the girl’s father — who is a scientist and a professor, according to the New York Post.New York

The daughter is in the middle of a messy battle between the divorced couple. The mother — Jeannie Figer — wants to get her 11-year-old daughter vaccinated against COVID-19. She notes that the estranged pair’s other two daughters — ages 17 and 19 — have already been vaccinated against COVID-19. However, the father — Donald Figer — was hesitant about allowing his youngest daughter to be vaccinated. The father — who is reportedly vaccinated against COVID-19 — said he wants to wait for his young daughter to be vaccinated until more information becomes available on the long-term side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine on children.

He is reportedly a professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology. The Rochester Institute of Technology lists Figer as the director of the Center for Detectors, and a professor in the College of Science with appointments in the Astrophysical Science and the Technology Ph.D. program and the Microsystems Engineering Ph.D. program. “He is a leader in developing and deploying new photon detection technologies,” the school states.

Monroe County Supreme Court Justice Richard Dollinger said he was “somewhat perplexed that an accomplished scientist and professor would oppose a child vaccine authorized by the CDC and universally encouraged by state and local physicians and other health officials.”

The judge said it “could be years before any researchers have exacting accounts of either the short or, long term consequences of the administration of this vaccine on 11-year-old girls.”

“Waiting — to be ‘sure,’ as the father asks — is simply untenable, when the specter of a killing or incapacitating disease is swirling in the environment surrounding this young girl,” Judge Dollinger said. “The wait, requested by the father, could extend beyond the term of the virus, as scientists may never catch up to this ever evolving and elusive virus and variants.”

“This Court, weighing the child’s best interests, cannot wait for the vaccine’s side effects or efficacy to be scientifically established beyond a reasonable doubt or even to the father’s satisfaction,” the judged ruled. “The imminent risk of contracting the disease is too high and the consequences of acquiring it potentially too dire.”

The judge noted that Monroe County recently declared a state of emergency because of rising hospitalization rates related to COVID-19. The judge sided with the mother, who is reportedly an attorney. He ordered the mother to schedule an “immediate appointment” for the child to be administered a COVID-19 vaccination “as soon as possible.”

On Oct. 29, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized emergency use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for kids ages 5 through 11 years old. This isn’t the first time that COVID-19 vaccines have been front-and-center in legal disputes between divorces.

In August, a Chicago mother was temporarily stripped of her parental rights over her 11-year-old son by a judge because she was unvaccinated. The judge asked the woman what her vaccination status was during a child support hearing with her ex-husband. A judge rescinded the ruling weeks later.

Jason Whitlock Op-ed: Jussie Smollett is a victim of the systemic racism maintained by white liberals

Commentary by JASON WHITLOCK | December 08, 2021


Jussie Smollett destroyed his career and reputation trying to live up to a racist expectation of “blackness.” It’s the same mistake former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick made. Popular culture’s puppet masters — academia, Big Tech’s social media apps, the executives running the TV, movie, music, and sports industries, and the political left — have established victimhood as the highest form of blackness. Attaining victim status is the primary expectation placed on American black men. Meeting this expectation is especially important for mixed-race, wealthy celebrities. In the culture created by the left, victimhood is their rite of passage into the fraternity of blackness.

As much as I despise Smollett for the 2019 racial hoax he staged in Chicago, the alleged crime that currently has him on trial, my disdain for the culture that baited him into the act far exceeds my disgust for Smollett.

Smollett, the child of a black woman and a white Jewish man, did what the culture told him to do and what the culture puts enormous pressure on half-black, half-white kids to do: prove their blackness. In modern American culture, there’s nothing blacker than being worthy of a white man’s aggression. Smollett isn’t worthy. So, he allegedly paid two black men to pose as white and attack him.

The whole scenario is funny until you consider the sadness of the mental state that would devise such a scheme and a culture that would entice it.

Smollett and Kaepernick, the self-made national anthem martyr, are victims. They’re victims of the racist expectations imposed on them by a sick, secular culture. At different levels, all American black people are victims of this culture. Human beings respond to expectations. Expectations can be and should be the greatest gift imposed on human beings. Expectations inspire behavior and shape mindsets.

Tuesday night, I had dinner with two friends. We engaged in a debate about white privilege. What is it? Does it exist? Can it be fixed? I argued that white privilege certainly exists in America and that the greatest white privilege is expectations that align with success. White people are expected to achieve academically. They’re expected to master the English language. They’re expected to have good credit. They’re expected to show up on time. They’re expected not to use the N-word. They’re expected to make an effort to avoid racist thoughts and actions. They’re expected to wed the mothers or fathers of their children. Do all white people meet these expectations? Absolutely not. But being born into a world that expects you to adopt principles and behaviors that lead to success is a privilege that puts you far ahead of people who don’t have those expectations on them.

Black people, as a collective, don’t have those expectations on them. Popular culture, as controlled by liberals, removes virtually all expectations from black people, particularly black men. We’re expected to excel at football and basketball. And we’re expected to meet the liberal standard of blackness. Anything we do or achieve beyond that is considered a bonus.

The lack of expectations imposed on black people is the most racist act in America. It’s far more racist than Derek Chauvin kneeling on George Floyd’s neck and back. Had George Floyd entered a world that expected him to achieve beyond the athletic field, he would have been much less likely to find himself needing to be restrained by police.

The lack of expectations placed on black people is systemic racism. Victimhood being the highest level of blackness is systemic racism. Jussie Smollett is a victim of the systemic racism maintained by white liberals.

On Tuesday, while being cross-examined by the prosecution, Smollett complained that the white prosecutor was offending the black people in the courtroom by reading aloud Smollett’s direct messages to one of his black attackers. Smollett repeatedly used the N-word in the direct messages. The prosecutor apologized and asked Smollett to read the direct messages. Smollett obliged. We expect black people to call each other derogatory names. It’s acceptable and appropriate. We’ve been programmed to hate ourselves and express our self-hatred in writing, music, and acts of violence. We expect it.

Our expectations for white people are much different. We’re shocked and outraged when they mimic our anti-black behavior. We don’t expect that from them. We’re determined to rid them of the negative behavior. Our expectations for ourselves are much lower and/or nonexistent. That’s why it’s easy for us to ignore thousands of gang murders in black neighborhoods and hold summer-long protests over a tiny handful of police-involved shootings. That’s why Jussie Smollett has no problem saying the N-word repeatedly, but is mortified when a white man reads his words inside a courtroom. We’re victims of the racist expectations we’ve adopted.

‘Kill God’: Pennsylvania church vandalized with satanic messages

Reported By Michael Gryboski, Christian Post Reporter | Tuesday, December 07, 2021


pews, church
Getty Images

A Pennsylvania church was vandalized by unknown assailants who desecrated the property with graffiti depicting satanic symbols and the words “kill God.” The Lititz Church of the Brethren in Lancaster County was vandalized sometime between Thursday evening and Friday morning, police said, according to The Morning Call. The chalk graffiti displayed the phrases “kill God” and “hail Satan,” as well as the satanic symbol of a star inside a circle. The vandalism also featured the number 666, the biblical number for the Antichrist.

Eric Landram, the lead pastor of Lititz Church of the Brethren, told The Christian Post on Monday that the “chalk which was used left no permanent damage and clean up was minimal.”

Landram explained that such vandalism has not occurred on his church’s property in the past, so they are “are treating it as a one-time prank and are not concerned by the antics.” He added that apart from “what has already been reported, we have no additional comments to make at this time.”

News of the church vandalism grabbed the attention of the editorial board for Lancaster Online, which denounced the actions as “egregiously wrong” and “especially disturbing.”

“There is something especially disturbing about vandalism directed at a place of worship or a religious symbol. It seems designed to rattle people of faith who regard their sacred spaces as sanctuaries to which they go in times of both grief and joy,” wrote the editors.

“There was no lasting damage to the church. But memories of the desecration likely will linger. Even if it turns out to be the work of clueless young people. Or the product of a disturbed mind.”

The editorial board also cited a report by Axios published in October, which concluded that houses of worship of various faiths were “experiencing high amounts of vandalism, arson and other property damage.”

“2021 is on track to exceed last year’s spike in hate crimes in the U.S., many of them linked to religious bigotry,” Axios reported.

“The number of hate crimes reported in FY 2020 was the highest since 2001, when a wave of Islamophobia followed the 9/11 attacks, according to updated FBI data.”

Follow Michael Gryboski on Twitter or Facebook

15-year-old Oxford High School student charged as adult in shooting that left 4 dead, 7 injured

Reported By Leonardo Blair, Christian Post Reporter | Wednesday, December 01, 2021


Oxford Prosecutor
Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald speaks at a news conference about the fatal shooting at Oxford High School in Michigan on Dec. 1, 2021. | YouTube/Click On Detroit WDIV

A 15-year-old suspect in the Oxford High School shooting in Michigan that left four students dead and seven others injured was charged as an adult with four counts of first-degree murder and other charges, Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald said Wednesday.

At a press conference where she expressed condolences to friends and family of the victims, McDonald named the suspect, Ethan Crumbley, just once.

In addition to charging him with four counts of murder for the deaths of students, Tate Myre, 16; Hana St. Julian, 14; Madisyn Baldwin, 17; and Justin Shilling, 15; Crumbley was also charged with one count of terrorism causing death, seven counts of assault with intent to murder, and 12 counts of possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony.

McDonald said there remains a lot of evidence to review and more charges could be forthcoming before explaining why they made the decision to charge Crumbley as an adult.

“First the seriousness of the crime this person committed under Michigan law. There are crimes that the Legislature says is so serious that a person who commits them can automatically be charged as an adult. First-degree murder is the most serious of all those crimes,” she said.

McDonald added that “there are facts leading up to this shooting that suggest this was not just an impulsive act.”

“Those facts are not appropriate for discussion right now because it could affect the prosecution of this case,” she said.

Some of those facts might be related to concerns being raised by the school community as early as Nov. 4 when someone threw the head of a deer into a locked courtyard at the school while on the roof, as noted in a letter from Oxford High School Principal Steve Wolf, stating there was “no threat on campus.”

“Before school began this morning, we identified graffiti on the cement outside our pool entrance doors. We immediately notified security, the Oakland County Sheriff’s Office and our custodial staff. This vandalism was created by an individual with red acrylic paint very early this morning and did not contain any threats or any concerning messages,” Wolf wrote.

“Security personnel reviewed camera footage and confirmed this person did not gain access into the building, as OHS is locked and secure. Unfortunately, this person did throw the head of a deer into a locked/inaccessible courtyard while on the roof. The deer was from a nearby location off-campus, likely struck from a vehicle prior to today … With the help from the Oakland County Sheriff’s Office, we did identify and locate the suspect. At this time, this is a police investigation, and we can assure our students, staff and parents the suspect is not a threat to our building,” the letter added.

Concerns were also raised in a Nov. 12 letter about troubling social media posts about Oxford High School. An alleged screenshot of Crumbley’s now deactivated page on Instagram appears to threaten Oxford with death.

In an interview with ABC 7, Oxford High School student Treshan Bryant said while he didn’t know Crumbley personally, he knew he was being bullied.

“I’ve seen him around the school. He’s a kid, he’s been picked on and stuff like this. And when a kid has been picked on, people bullying him, you’re going to get this,” he said. “You’re going to get this reaction.”

In capping off her reasons for charging Crumbley as an adult, McDonald said it was about public safety.

“Charging this person as an adult is necessary to achieve justice and protect the public,” she said. “Any other option would put all of us at risk of this person because they could be released and still a threat.”

The video below shows the suspect when he was a child.  

Contact: Follow Leonardo Blair on Twitter: @leoblair Follow Leonardo Blair on Facebook: LeoBlairChristianPost

John Wesley Reid Op-ed: Roe v. Wade in the balance: What you need to know about Dobbs v. Jackson

Commentary By John Wesley Reid, Op-ed Contributor| Tuesday, November 30, 2021


Supreme Court
Participants in the March for Life 2019 assemble at United States Supreme Court on January 18, 2019. | Photo: The Christian Post

On December 1, Roe v. Wade will face a significant threat: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health.

Capitol Hill police expect up to 20,000 protestors on the morning of December 1, a historic turnout of pro-life and pro-choice advocacy that will likely result in a larger crowd than any Supreme Court demonstration ever.

How is Dobbs different than other abortion cases?

The Supreme Court has reviewed several cases related to abortion since 1973’s Roe decision. But of these cases, only Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 addressed the Roe precedent. Other cases involving abortion were related to late-term abortions, free speech rights of pro-life advocates, and restrictions on abortion providers based on ambulatory care or proximities to particular medical services, among other issues.


A major component to Roe was the issue of viability. In Dobbs, the Supreme Court has agreed to address the question:

“Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.”

Why is this question significant?

This question is significant because Roe forbids states from prohibiting abortion pre-viability. This prohibition is the very reason why lower courts have kept Roe in place. Indeed one of the judges that struck down Mississippi’s law in the lower federal courts said,

“In an unbroken line dating to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s abortion cases have established (and affirmed, and re-affirmed) a woman’s right to choose an abortion before viability. States may regulate abortion procedures prior to viability so long as they do not impose an undue burden on the woman’s right, but they may not ban abortions.”

The fact that the U.S. Supreme Court is revisiting viability is entirely implicative that their decision will, in some fashion, directly impact the Roe precedent.

What are the potential outcomes to Dobbs?

There are essentially three possible outcomes of Dobbs: The Court can strike down the Mississippi abortion law, the Court can uphold the Mississippi abortion law while still maintaining Roe, or the Court can uphold the Mississippi abortion law and overturn Roe altogether. John Bursch, who serves as senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, spoke with the Freedom Center’s managing editor John Wesley Reid to expound on the potential outcomes of Dobbs.

Bursch has argued 12 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and over 30 state Supreme Courts. According to the Federalist Society, Bursch has the “third-highest success rate for persuading justices to adopt his legal position,” compared to other lawyers not working for the federal government.

Option 1: A strike down of Mississippi’s 15-week ban

If the Supreme Court affirms the lower court rulings, Mississippi’s 15-week ban on abortion will have reached its terminal demise. While Mississippi does have the option to request a reconsideration from the Court, such petitions are rare, their approval is rarer and a reversed decision is even rarer.

Ultimately, if the Supreme Court affirms the lower court rulings, the fight against abortion will remain in place as it was before Dobbs. For some pro-life advocates, this would be a debilitating setback. For others, it would inspire them to fight harder.

Option 2: A middle ground option

If the Court rejects the lower courts’ rulings and upholds Mississippi’s law, they could also uphold Roe. This would look like the Court rejecting the viability clause in Casey since viability is not objectively known. In 1973, the gestational age at which a child could generally survive outside of the womb was seen as later in the development stage.

But there have been great medical advancements in neonatology since even 1992 when Casey was heard, and so a child’s viability could be recognized by the Court as being much sooner in the development stage. In fact, with medical technological advancements, we now know that viability is sooner than the 24 weeks gestation that the courts have unofficially held to in the past. In fact, over the past few years, the world has seen multiple examples of babies surviving as young as 21 weeks, debunking the generalized 24 week idea. So, the middle ground option could appear as a new standard for statewide abortion regulation.

From a pro-life perspective, this option is an incremental victory, not a pragmatic victory. The vast majority of abortions happen before 15 weeks gestation. Thus, the middle ground option would bring pro-life efforts closer to their goal but would still only be a chip of their larger agenda.

Option 3: An Overturn of Roe v. Wade

If the Court sees reason to, a complete overturn of Roe v. Wade could result from the Dobbs decision. In the event of a Roe overturn, it is widely agreed that regulatory power will return to the states, enabling them to outlaw abortion if they so choose — and many of them are trying to do so already.

How will each justice likely rule in Dobbs?

It is naive to assume that a justice’s ideology will follow their decisions in every ruling and, by extension, an ideological majority should be seen with the same scrutiny.  While it’s easy to assume that the right bloc will rule conservative and the left bloc liberal, that isn’t always the case on the ideological spectrum, even with specific issues. How the justices will decide the Dobbs case can subjectively be analyzed based on their prior rulings and personal positions towards abortion.

To be fair, not all of the cases below relate to the viability aspect of Roe and Casey. This arguably renders them irrelevant to the following analysis, except that some of the justices still refer to Roe and Casey in their opinions despite the case’s irrelevancy towards viability. So, even “irrelevant” cases are worth considering.

Listed by seniority, here are the current justice’s voting records and statements related to abortion:

Chief Justice Roberts

Conservatives have largely coined the Chief Justice as a wild card, given some of his decisions, which, technicalities aside, have not landed on the right, i.e. upholding “Obamacare” in National Federation of Independent Business et al. v. Sebelius, effectively redefining “sex” in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in Bostock v. Clayton County, among others. Some have gone so far as to call him a liberal. But that logic is self-defeating. That is, to ideologically categorize someone based on the minority of their opinions, what does that say to the majority of their opinions? If a reputably conservative justice rules in 10 cases, in which three they take liberal leanings, what is one to say of the liberal justice who votes conservative in three of ten decisions? The conservative court of public opinion would certainly not hail the liberal justice as a conservative.

To be fair, Roberts does push the envelope in general. But on abortion, Roberts has ruled ideologically right in most abortion-related cases before him.

In Carhart v. Gonzales, Roberts ruled in the majority to uphold the Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003. He was joined by current Justices Thomas and Alito.

In Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt Roberts ruled in the minority to uphold a Texas law that would require certain restrictions on abortion clinics, such as shorter proximities to admitting hospital care. He was joined by current Justices Thomas and Alito.

In June Medical Services v. Russo, Roberts ruled in the majority against a law that mirrored the law in Hellerstedt. The curious move from the chief justice after he ruled to uphold the similar law in Texas was, in his words, because “the Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.” Even though Roberts voted to uphold the Texas law in Hellerstedt, since the majority opinion struck it down, Roberts felt that precedent takes priority over reconsideration. This is important to note since the upcoming Dobbs case directly counters the precedent set in Roe and Casey. Roberts may have jurisprudential reason to think that Roe was a bad call, but he also thought that about the Hellerstedt decision, and based his June Medical decision off of the precedent of a decision he dissented with.

In NIFLA vs. Becerra, Roberts ruled to strike down a California law that required non-abortive pregnancy centers to provide abortion referrals. While this case was more about free speech than it was about abortion, the Court ruled on ideological lines. Roberts was joined by current Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch.

In addition to his rulings, Roberts was the signatory of a 1990 Bush Sr. White House brief that stated Roe was “wrongly decided” and “should be overruled.” Whether this brief may have been more in step with the administration as a whole and not just Roberts is debated. At the time, Roberts was the Deputy Solicitor General. During Roberts’ confirmation hearings both to the D.C. Circuit Court and U.S. Supreme Court, he was aggressively pressed for his position on abortion and Roe, to which he provided diplomatic non-answers, as is routine for federal judge appointees.

Verdict: Still a wild card, but evidence hints that he might uphold Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban with the middle-ground option.

Justice Thomas

Thomas has ruled ideologically rightin every abortion-related case before him.

The longest seated jurist on the current Court, Justice Thomas’ record is perhaps the most absolute when considering whether he’d overturn Roe, since he in fact did rule to overturn Roe when given the chance. Thomas is the only justice on the current Court who was also seated during the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, for which he ruled in the minority.

Thomas opposes the Roe and Casey precedents — and enthusiastically so. In June Medical v. Russo, a win for abortion advocates, Thomas dissented and said of abortion precedents:

“But those decisions created the right to abortion out of whole cloth, without a shred of support from the Constitution’s text. Our abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled. Because we have neither jurisdiction nor constitutional authority to declare Louisiana’s duly enacted law unconstitutional, I respectfully dissent.“

Verdict: No wild card here. Justice Thomas looks like a sure win to uphold Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban and overturn Roe.

Justice Breyer

Considered moderately liberal, Justice Breyer, the eldest of the justices, has ruled ideologically left in every abortion-related case before him.

Verdict: Justice Breyer is very likely to rule against Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban.

Justice Alito

Like Thomas, Justice Alito has ruled ideologically right in every abortion-related case before him.

While a federal judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Alito was one of three judges to rule on Planned Parenthood v. Casey (before the case was heard by the Supreme Court). Alito was the lone dissenter in an overturn of the spousal notification portion of the law being challenged.

Alito also expressed personal opinions about abortion, particularly about Roe, before his career as a federal judge. In a 1985 memo, he said,

“We should make clear that we disagree with Roe v. Wade and would welcome the opportunity to brief the issue of whether, and if so to what extent, that decision should be overruled.”

While this quote does not provide an absolute current position taken by Alito, it does reinforce the rest of his reputation towards abortion and Roe. To be fair, Alito is also on the record as having acknowledged that Roe is precedent. But in the same fairness, these remarks were made during his confirmation hearing to the Appeals and Supreme Court where any appointee will refuse to give their position on a judicial matter.

Verdict: Alito is very likely to uphold Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban and overturn Roe.

Justice Sotomayor

The anchor of the Court’s left bloc, Justice Sotomayor has ruled ideologically left in every abortion-related case before her.

A constant supporter of abortion, Sotomayor has been less than shy in her dissents. In a 5-4 decision last September, the Court refused to interfere with the Texas heartbeat law, effectively upholding it. In her dissent, Sotomayor said,

“For the second time, the Court is presented with an application to enjoin a statute enacted in open disregard of the constitutional rights of women seeking abortion care in Texas. For the second time, the Court declines to act immediately to protect these women from grave and irreparable harm.”

Though the Court later decided to hear the case, Sotomayor gave a strong statement of opposition towards her juristic colleagues in reference to the Court’s original denial of injunctive relief. While addressing law students via virtual appearance, Sotomayor said,

“You know, I can’t change Texas’s law. But you can, and everyone else who may or may not like it can go out there and be lobbying forces in changing laws that you don’t like.”

Verdict: Given her opinions, and the reasons for them, Justice Sotomayor is very likely to rule against Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban.

Justice Kagan

Similar to Justice Breyer, Justice Kagan is a moderate on the Court’s left bloc but has ruledideologically left in every abortion-related case before her.

The only hint she has ever shown towards abortion restrictions came while working in the Clinton White House, when she urged the president to support a partial-birth abortion ban, though it is generally agreed that her motive was for political purposes and not ideological. Regardless, partial-birth abortions are outside the parameters of Roe’s application. One can consistently support Roe while opposing partial-birth abortions, thus even if she is opposed to partial-birth abortion, her record shows unfettering support for Roe.

During the oral arguments for the Texas heartbeat law challenge, Kagan expressed her opposition to the law but also affirmed the Court’s precedent:

“The actual provisions in this law have prevented every woman in Texas from exercising a constitutional right as declared by this court … That’s not a hypothetical. That’s an actual.”

Verdict: Justice Kagan is very likely to rule against Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban.

Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh

Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have much shorter records to analyze on abortion, though both have ruled ideologically right in every abortion-related case before them.

Gorsuch, while on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled on a unique string of abortion-related cases, though none that address the Roe precedent.

Off the bench, their personal opinions on abortion are also limited and not directly related to Roe.

For a clarifying point about Kavanaugh, many who opposed his appointment to the Supreme Court alluded to a 2003 email between Kavanaugh and James C. Ho, then-Chief Counsel for the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights. An excerpt from the email reads,

“I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so.”

The email does not provide any substantial reason to suggest that Kavanaugh, who was working in the Bush Administration at the time, would overturn Roe, despite what his critics said of the email during his 2018 confirmation. Still, Kavanaugh was clear that precedent is not as concrete as perhaps Chief Justice Roberts would hold. So, if Kavanaugh did have reservations about overturning Roe, we can likely eliminate precedent as his hesitancy.

The three justices Kavanaugh was likely referring to were Thomas, Scalia and Rehnquist considering they were the only three justices on the Court in 2003 who ruled to overturn Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.

Verdict: It is likely that both Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will rule to uphold Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban. Whether they’d take the middle ground option or overturn Roe is not clear.

Justice Barrett

The newest of the justices, and the youngest woman ever appointed to the High Court, Justice Barrett has ruled ideologically right in every abortion-related case before her — but it’s worth noting the secondary nature of abortion in these cases.

While on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett ruled on cases where abortion was secondary, including the disposal of fetal remains and whether abortion on the basis of race, sex, or gender is lawful. Barrett also favored a ruling that would require doctors to inform parents of a minor seeking an abortion.

While on the Supreme Court, Barrett has only had the opportunity to grant or deny injunctive relief when opposition tried to halt the Texas heartbeat law, which she refused along with Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

Despite her minimal ruling history on abortion, there is reason to believe Barrett is pro-life. In 2006, Barrett and her husband Jesse endorsed an advertisement with Right to Life St. Joseph County that condemned Roe v. Wade. In 2008, Barrett co-authored a journal entry for the Notre Dame School of Law which stated that abortion “is always immoral.” When questioned about this publication during her confirmation hearings, Barrett said that she and her co-author were referencing the standard of the Catholic Church’s teachings and said that if she was confirmed, her faith would have no influence “on the discharge of my duties as a judge.” While this could sound as if her pro-life position is dormant in her jurisprudence, it is crucial to remember the normalcy of neutral answers during confirmation hearings.

Verdict: Justice Barrett is likely to uphold Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban and overturn Roe.

The Battle Timeline of Mississippi’s 15-Week Abortion Ban:

March 2018

On March 19, then-governor of Mississippi Phil Bryant signs the 15-week abortion ban into law. Hours later, the Center for Reproductive Rights files suit in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Mississippi.

On March 20, 2018, the Center for Reproductive Rights is granted their request of a temporary restraining order, blocking the 15-week ban for 10 days.

November 2018

The Center for Reproductive Rights is granted a permanent injunction by the same federal court, blocking Mississippi’s 15-week ban on abortion indefinitely. When issuing the order, Judge Carlton Reeves delivers a strong rebuke of the Mississippi legislature:

“…the real reason we are here is simple. The State chose to pass a law it knew was unconstitutional to endorse a decades-long campaign, fueled by national interest groups, to ask the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. This Court follows the commands of the Supreme Court and the dictates of the United States Constitution, rather than the disingenuous calculations of the Mississippi Legislature.

“Mississippi’s law violates Supreme Court precedent, and in doing so it disregards the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of autonomy for women desiring to control their own reproductive health.”

December 2019

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirms the lower court’s decision, with Judge Patrick Higginbotham opining,

“In an unbroken line dating to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s abortion cases have established (and affirmed, and re-affirmed) a woman’s right to choose an abortion before viability. States may regulate abortion procedures prior to viability so long as they do not impose an undue burden on the woman’s right, but they may not ban abortions.”

Mississippi then requests a hearing en banc, which would summon the entire 5th Circuit and not just a panel of three. This request is denied the following January.

June 2020

Mississippi files a writ of certiorari requesting the U.S. Supreme Court review the 15-week abortion ban.

May 2021

The U.S. Supreme Court grants Mississippi’s request.

December 1, 2021

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for Dobbs.

Originally published at Standing for Freedom Center

John Wesley Reid is the editor-in-chief at the Standing for Freedom Center. Follow him on Twitter at @johnwesleyreid.

Kyle Rittenhouse Acquitted On All Charges

Reported by BRIANNA LYMAN | REPORTER | November 19, 2021


Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Continues In Kenosha, WI
(Photo by Mark Hertzberg-Pool/Getty Images)

Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted Friday of all charges in relation to the deaths Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber.

Rittenhouse was acquitted on the following charges:

CHARGE: First-Degree Reckless Homicide, Use Of A Dangerous Weapon

VERDICT: Acquitted

The charge alleged Rittenhouse was responsible for Rosenbaum’s death under circumstances that showed an utter disregard for human life. The decision by prosecutors to charge reckless homicide rather than intentional homicide indicated the prosecution was unsure what Rittenhouse’s intent was. The charge carried up to 60 years in prison.


CHARGE: First-Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety, Use Of A Dangerous Weapon 

VERDICT: Acquitted

This charge relates to Rittenhouse’s alleged reckless endangerment of individuals on scene at the time of the incident, including Daily Caller Video Director Richie McGinniss, who testified he was in the line of fire when Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum. This charge carried a maximum 12 1/2 year sentence.


CHARGE: First-Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety, Use Of A Dangerous Weapon

VERDICT: Acquitted

Video footage of the fatal night showed an unidentified individual, known as “Jump kick man” appearing to try and kick Rittenhouse as Rittenhouse laid on the floor just before Huber moved toward Rittenhouse with his skateboard. Rittenhouse appeared to fire two rounds at the unidentified individual but missed as the man ran away. This charge carried a 12 1/2 year sentence.


CHARGE: First-Degree Intentional Homicide, Use Of A Dangerous Weapon

VERDICT: Acquitted

Prosecutors alleged Rittenhouse intentionally killed Huber, who had been seen on video attempting to hit Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard and trying to grab Rittenhouse’s gun before Rittenhouse fatally shot him. Prosecutors argued Rittenhouse pointing the gun at Huber and firing was intentional, though Rittenhouse’s right to self-defense trumped the intentional charge.  A guilty verdict for first-degree intentional homicide carried a life in prison sentence.


CHARGE: Attempted First-Degree Intentional Homicide, Use Of A Dangerous Weapon

VERDICT: Acquitted

Rittenhouse wounded Gaige Grosskreutz in the arm just after fatally shooting Huber. Grosskreutz was seen in video footage approaching Rittenhouse with a pistol drawn before Rittenhouse fired a single round at Grosskreutz, injuring his arm. The charge carried a maximum sentence of 60 years.

Judge Bruce Schroeder dismissed the charge of possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor Monday. Rittenhouse was 17-years-old at the time of the shooting. The charge only applied if the individual possessed, or was armed with a rifle or shotgun that was a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun, or if the person was not in compliance with certain hunting restrictions. Schroeder dismissed the charge on the grounds of an exception within the law relating to the gun’s barrel.

Schroeder had previously dismissed a curfew violation charge against Rittenhouse, with the judge agreeing with the defense that the prosecution had not provided sufficient evidenced that a curfew had been in effect.

This is a breaking story and will be updated as information becomes available. 

Rittenhouse Prosecutors Close With Story Backed Up By Neither Evidence Nor Eyewitness Testimony

NOVEMBER 16, 2021 By Eddie Scarry


Rittenhouse Prosecutors Close With Story Backed Up By Neither Evidence Nor Eyewitness Testimony

Closing arguments of Wisconsin state prosecutors against Kyle Rittenhouse can best be summed up for the jury as, “Never mind! Don’t believe the video evidence or independent witnesses introduced in this trial; believe this alternate version of events that we’re telling you right now instead.”

Deliberations start Tuesday, and the jury has two options. It can acquit Rittenhouse based on scores of video evidence and testimony that show and say Rittenhouse shot three men who were chasing him and trying to get his gun. Or it can convict him based on a weird story that contradicts the state’s own witnesses and that requires a belief that 18-year-old Rittenhouse, for no obvious reason, felt like shooting some random people, all white men, that night last August.

During summations on Monday, Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger claimed that Rittenhouse was in Kenosha, Wis., at the time because, “We all know someone like the defendant,” who “enjoys the thrill of telling people what to do without the courage or honor to back it up.”

This is the baby-faced, then-17-year-old jurors saw on video walking around that night with a medic kit calling out “medical” to protestors on the scene who might need assistance and “friendly, friendly, friendly” so rioters would know he posed no threat.

Binger then described Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, as having done no wrong that evening of rioting before he was hunted down by a bloodthirsty Rittenhouse. By contrast, jurors had seen Rosenbaum on video antagonizing others, lighting a dumpster on fire, and repeatedly yelling at someone, “Shoot me, n——!”

It was Rosenbaum whom witnesses said was yelling at bystanders that he would kill them. It was Rosenbaum who someone described as a “babbling idiot.” And it was ultimately Rosenbaum who then chased Rittenhouse into a dark parking lot before finding himself at the wrong end of an AR-15, and who, again, according to a witness, tried grabbing the barrel before being shot.

The overwhelming evidence showed that Rittenhouse shot someone who was pursuing him. After that, he headed in the direction of police as a mindless mob of rioters gathered to take him down. Two more men made attempts at taking Rittenhouse’s gun, with one of them striking him over the head with a skateboard while he was on the ground. The other one pointed his own gun at Rittenhouse.

Binger, however, is insisting to jurors that they disregard the video evidence and his own witnesses. They should instead trust in his personal assessment that Rittenhouse is a person who “enjoys the thrill of telling people what to do without the courage or honor to back it up.” Whatever that means.

If you told me Binger was given this case as part of a humiliating hazing ritual, I’d believe it. I’d even be relieved to know that he followed through with the case against his will and isn’t actually this stupid.

It’s possible that the jury, nervous about more rioting that an acquittal could bring, will choose Binger’s storyline. If they do, it will mean they followed the prosecutor’s suggestion to set aside what they saw on video and heard from Binger’s own witnesses.

Eddie Scarry is the D.C. columnist at The Federalist and author of “Privileged Victims: How America’s Culture Fascists Hijacked the Country and Elevated Its Worst People.”

Alan Dershowitz: Rittenhouse ‘should be acquitted,’ then sue liberal media outlets for their ‘deliberate and willful lies’; ‘It’s the New Yorker and CNN that are the vigilantes’

Reported by PHIL SHIVER | November 16, 2021


Former Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz blasted liberal media outlets such as CNN and the New Yorker over the weekend for their biased and erroneous reporting on the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. The scholar said the Illinois teenager charged with killing two men and wounding another during Black Lives Matter riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin, last summer “should be acquitted” and then should go on the offensive against the media outlets that have branded him a white supremacist vigilante before the conclusion of his trial.

“If I were a juror, I would vote that there was reasonable doubt [and] that he did act in self-defense,” Dershowitz told Newsmax on Saturday.

“Then he’ll bring lawsuits, and that’s the way to answer … vigilante justice is what CNN is doing, not what a 17-year-old kid under pressure may have done right or wrong. It’s CNN who is involved in vigilante justice. It’s the New Yorker that’s guilty of vigilante justice,” he added.

Dershowitz compared Rittenhouse’s case to former Kentucky high school student Nicholas Sandmann, who became the target of left-wing media attacks following an encounter with a Native American activist in Washington, D.C. Sandmann later sued CNN and the Washington Post. Both the network and the paper ended up settling.

“The idea is to make the media accountable for deliberate and willful lies,” Dershowitz explained.

He added in a Sunday conversation with Breitbart’s Joel Pollak that “CNN and some of the other TV stations” are the “ones who want to put not the thumb, but the elbow on the scale of justice.”

“They want to influence the outcome of this case,” he argued. “And there are others who are threatening violence if there is anything but convictions in this case, as they threatened violence in previous cases and will in subsequent cases unless something is done about it. It’s the New Yorker and CNN that are the vigilantes. They’re the ones who are trying to influence justice without regard to evidence or the law.”

Rittenhouse is currently facing multiple felony murder charges — including first-degree intentional homicide and first-degree reckless homicide — for fatally shooting Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, and wounding Gage Grosskreutz, 28.

Rittenhouse’s defense team has maintained that their client was in Kenosha on Aug. 25, 2020, to protect local businesses and provide medical aid during the uprising and that he was only acting in self-defense when he fired the shots.

Videos of the incidents seen by the public appear to show Rittenhouse being chased and physically threatened before firing his gun. The prosecution, however, argued that the defendant provoked the attacks by bringing an AR-15 to the protests.

As of Tuesday afternoon, the jury was still deliberating over the verdict.

North Carolina High School SUSPENDS 15 Year Old Female Student For Reporting Sexual Assault in Girls Restroom – School Accused Teenager of Filing a False Report Even AFTER Male Student Confessed to Police and Was Charged

Reported By Julian Conradson | Published November 7, 2021


Last month, a 15-year-old student in Charlotte, North Carolina confided in her school’s administrators that a classmate had sexually assaulted her in the girl’s restroom. She claimed that the unnamed male student had been following her into the bathroom, groping her without consent and that he had been doing so “for weeks” before she was able to work up the nerve to come forward.

But instead of intervening or protecting her, the woke administrators at the Hawthorne Academy of Health Sciences inexplicably called her a liar and suspended her for “filing a false report,” even though the police had already charged the male student with two counts of sexual battery and even coaxed a confession out of him.

The school has reportedly not punished the alleged attacker in any way.

“They are making her feel like she is being punished for coming forward,” the mother told WBTV.


The assaults went unreported for quite some time because, according to the Daily Beast, the victim “was afraid no one would believe her,” which makes the school’s punishment of her for coming forward that much more unsettling – also begs the question, what kind of ‘culture’ is in place at Hawthorne that would make a student feel that way?

After enduring the abuse for weeks, she felt confident enough to speak up after attending a Title IX assembly earlier in the year that encouraged students to come forward about instances of abuse.

From The Daily Beast:

“Around the time of the assembly, the girl spoke with another student who told her she had had a similar experience with the same assailant. The two of them brought their allegations to the assistant principal, who notified the police, triggering an investigation. (A copy of the police report reviewed by The Daily Beast states that two minors reported that the suspect “attempted to engage in sexual contact against the victims will.”)

A few weeks later, her mother said, the police called to say the alleged assailant had confessed. He was later charged with two counts of sexual battery.”

The Legacy Report

The whole situation has left the victim’s mother completely shocked, especially with the school’s decision-making. While remaining anonymous for her daughter’s protection, she told The Daily Beast this week that she believes the school “has failed” her daughter.

“Schools teach your kids – ‘you see something, you say something’ – and in this case my daughter did, and it seems that the school system has failed her.”

Shortly after the school was notified of the incidents, the victim’s mother was informed by Hawthorne’s assistant principal – Nina Adams – that they had found no evidence of a sexual assault, and instead accused her daughter of filing a false report based on lies. When the mother confronted Adams with the fact that the police had gotten a confession to the assaults from the male student, she brazenly replied “unfortunately, the police department has nothing to do with the school system.”

“I said to her, ‘I’m a little confused because this student admitted to the detectives that interviewed him at the police station that he did in fact do this,’’’ the mother recalled. “And she said, ‘Unfortunately, what the police department does has nothing to do with the school system.’”

Keep in mind, this is a PUBLIC school official…

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg School District has been largely silent throughout the incident. Members of the board who were questioned by WBTV refused to comment at all, and even the mother of the victim said she had not heard from them until this Friday when someone from their office called to say they were opening an investigation. Hawthorne’s principal – Diann Weston – has not reached out to the mother or the victim even once.

The only one to issue a public statement was the District’s Superintendent, Earnest Winston, who said he could not release “confidential information about such matters as individual student discipline or ongoing police investigations.”

Despite intense criticism and protests by students and parents, the school is refusing to back down from requiring the victim to not only serve her suspension but also sign a “non-retaliation” agreement against her attacker and unbelievably attend a class called “sexual assault is preventable” before they allow her to return to class.

By forcing her to attend this class, the administrators are directly implying that the 15-year-old could have prevented the assaults if she modified HER behavior in some way.

It is a bit similar to the Loudon County assault case.

If you are a parent or have any concerns you would like to share with the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School District about this incident and their decision to punish the student for coming forward, they can be contacted HERE – and the School Board can be found HERE.

Or you can contact the Hawthorne Academy of Health Sciences directly HERE.

Supreme Court To Decide If Dred Scott Should Apply To All Americans On Guns

Commentary By David Kopel | NOVEMBER 2, 2021


On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, to decide whether the Second Amendment right to “bear arms” is a legally enforceable right. The case raises some of the same questions that were at issue at the infamous 1857 Supreme Court case Dred Scott v. Sandford.

The Dred Scott majority held that free blacks could never be citizens of the United States, so plaintiff Scott could not bring a case in federal court. In support of the supposed “absurdity” of free blacks having citizenship rights, Chief Justice Taney described a parade of horribles that would ensue.

Free black citizens would have the right to travel about the United States“‘without pass or passport,” to enter any state, to stay there as long as they pleased, and within that state they could go where they wanted at any hour of the day or night, unless they committed some act for which a white person could be punished. Further, black citizens would have “the right to . . . full liberty of speech in public and private upon all subjects which [a state’s] own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” (Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 Howell) 393, 417 (1857)).

Most of the rights on the list were straightforward rephrasings of the Bill of Rights. Instead of “freedom of speech,” Taney wrote “liberty of speech”; instead of the right “peaceably to assemble,” he discussed the right “to hold meetings,” and instead of the right to “keep and bear arms,” he discussed the right to “keep and carry arms.” Although the right to travel is not textually stated in the Constitution, it has long been found there by implication.

So according to the Supreme Court, the “right to . . . keep and carry arms” is like “the right to . . . full liberty of speech,” the right to interstate travel, and the “the right to . . . hold public meetings on political affairs.” Each is an obvious individual right of American citizenship.

Congress Shall Not Infringe

Although resolving the citizenship issue was sufficient to end the Dred Scott case, the Taney majority decided to address what it considered to be an error in the opinion of the circuit court. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress had no power to outlaw slavery in a territory, as Congress had done in the 1820 Missouri Compromise for the future Territory of Nebraska. The Court noted the universal assumption that the Bill of Rights constrained congressional legislation in the territories:

No one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the territory peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel anyone to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.

Because Congress could not infringe the Bill of Rights in the territories, Taney concluded that Congress could not infringe the property rights of slave-owners by abolishing slavery in the territories. Again, the Taney Court treated the Second Amendment as one of the constitutional rights belonging to individual Americans.

What This Has to Do with Bruen

Dred Scott has several implications for the Bruen case. First, it affirms that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is a normal individual right, like the other individual rights listed in the case, such as free exercise of religion, freedom of speech and of the press, jury trial, and so on.

In Bruen, several amicus briefs have asserted that District of Columbia v. Heller was wrongly decided, because the Second Amendment was supposedly only for militiamen. The argument is based on a misapplication of a form of legal scholarship known as “corpus linguistics”—essentially, searching historic databases for certain words, and counting how often those words were used in various ways.

There is no dispute that in the Founding Era, “bear arms” was frequently used in a military context. That does not mean that militia service was the only meaning of bear arms. Indeed, when one looks for “bear arms” in the context of the word “right,” or when one looks for the phrase “keep and bear arms,” most of the uses unmistakably point to a general right of all citizens, not solely for militiamen.

Dred Scott shows that the Second Amendment’s original public meaning from 1791 remained the same through 1857. The Scott Court put Second Amendment rights into lists of other ordinary rights belonging to all citizens, not solely for a subset of citizens engaged in military service.

No, Gun Bans Were Not the Norm

Another argument of some anti-rights briefs in Bruen is that as of the mid-nineteenth century, Americans had no right at all to bear arms. The no-rights argument asserts that England’s 1328 Statute of Northampton was still the law in the United States, and that it banned arms-carrying.

However, the American case law is exactly the opposite. For example, the North Carolina Supreme Court in 1843 explained that the Statute of Northampton (while not applicable in North Carolina), was just a formalization of a common law rule (which did apply in North Carolina) against carrying arms “to terrify and alarm.”

As for peaceably bearing arms, “[T]he carrying of a gun per se constitutes no offence. For any lawful purpose . . . the citizen is at perfect liberty to carry his gun” (State v. Huntley, 25 N.C. 418, 420 (1843)).

As of 1857, eight states and the District of Columbia had statutes allowing lawsuits against persons whose bearing of arms threatened to cause a breach of the peace. If the defendant was proven to have been carrying in an unpeaceable manner, then he could continue to carry only if he posted a bond for good behavior. Aggressively misreading the Massachusetts statute and its parallels in some other states, several anti-rights amicus briefs assert that carrying guns was generally prohibited by these statutes.

However, a detailed survey of newspaper reports of the enforcement of these statutes has found that the very rare instances of someone being haled into court for peaceable carry all involved black defendants—two in Boston and two in the District of Columbia. Only one of the defendants had the resources to appeal, and when he did, the prosecutor withdrew the case.

Dred Scott refutes the notion that bans on bearing arms were the norm in the United States (or in any State). According to Dred Scott, American citizens have always had the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went”—so recognizing blacks as citizens would mean recognizing their right to bear arms.

Supreme Court Justice Lists 2A as Constitutional Right

Dred Scott’s treatment of the Second Amendment was consistent with legal tradition. In the 18th and 19th centuries, Supreme Court justices individually “rode circuit,” by serving as judges in lower federal courts when the Supreme Court was not in session. In 1833, Supreme Court Justice Henry Baldwin, while circuit-riding, gave a jury charge that listed some of the constitutional rights possessed by the plaintiff.

Justice Baldwin pointed out that Article IV of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that “the citizens of each state shall be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” As part of the list of “the privileges and immunities” of U.S. citizens, Baldwin stated: “The second amendment provides, ‘that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’” (Johnson v. Tompkins, 13 F. Cas. 840, 850 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1833) (No. 7416)).

Since Johnson’s lawsuit was against an employee of a subdivision of the Pennsylvania state government, Justice Baldwin’s listing of the Second Amendment implied that he considered the Second Amendment to be a restriction on state actions against individuals.

Sen. Stephen Douglas summed up the litany of individual rights that Dred Scott said could not be violated in the territories:

Nothing can be more certain than that the Court were here speaking only of forbidden powers, which were denied alike to Congress, to the State Legislatures, and to the Territorial Legislatures, and that the prohibition extends ‘everywhere within the dominion of the United States,’ applicable equally to States and Territories, as well as to the United States.

While agreeing that no government within the United States could violate the right to bear arms, Douglas argued that there were particular historic and legal reasons the Court’s protection of property in slaves could not be applied to States that chose to forbid slavery.  Stephen Douglas, The Dividing Line Between Federal and Local Authority: Popular Sovereignty in the Territories, Harper’s (Sept. 1859).

Dred Scott’s holding that blacks are not citizens was repudiated in 1868 by the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, which declares that all persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.

Other language of the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prevent state and local governments from infringing the enumerated rights of American citizens listed in the Bill of Rights. For example, in congressional debate on the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, Representative Henry Raymond (R., N.Y.) stated: “Make the colored man a citizen of the United States and he has every right which you or I have as citizens of the United States under the laws and Constitution of the United States,” among which is “a right to bear arms” (Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 1266 (1866)).

Yes, States Must Obey the Bill of Rights

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court was initially hostile to requiring states to adhere to the Bill of Rights. Slowly, the court has corrected its earlier errors. McDonald v. Chicago in 2010 held that states must obey the Second Amendment, and Timbs v. Indiana in 2019 held that states may not levy “excessive fines” in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Yet today, New York State still refuses to comply with the Second Amendment. State statutes entirely prohibit open carry of handguns. Concealed carry is allowed only with a license, and officials in many counties refuse to issue licenses to adults who have passed a fingerprint-based background check and safety training, and simply want to exercise their Second Amendment right to peaceably bear arms.

The law-abiding citizens of New York are thus placed in the same position as free people of color in the slave states. Although early North Carolina had included free blacks in the state and colonial militia without discrimination and had not restricted the rights of free persons of any color to carry firearms peaceably, in 1841 the legislature enacted a statute that all free persons of color must have an annual license from the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions in order to own or carry firearms, swords, daggers, or bowie knives (“An Act to prevent Free Persons of Colour from carrying Fire-arms,” ch. 30, 1840-41 N.C. Laws 61-62 (1841)).

When the law was challenged, the trial court held it unconstitutional, but the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed. The North Carolina Supreme Court wrote that that “free people of color have been among us, as a separate and distinct class, requiring, from necessity, in many cases, separate and distinct legislation.” It was up to “the control of the County Court, giving them the power to say, in the exercise of a sound discretion, who, of this class of persons, shall have a right to the licence, or whether any shall” (State v. Newsom, 27 N.C. (5 Iredell) 250 (1844)).

Likewise, the Georgia Supreme Court stated in 1848 that “Free persons of color” were not citizens, and thus “not entitled to bear arms” (Cooper v. City of Savannah, 4 Ga. 68, 72 (1848) (upholding municipality’s special tax on free persons of color who moved into the city)). These were the kinds of laws that Dred Scott’s anti-citizenship holding protected.

It is not surprising that the plaintiffs’ briefs in Bruen, and several of the amicus briefs in support of the plaintiffs, directly address the Dred Scott case. It is revealing that neither the Bruen defendants nor their many amici claiming expertise in American legal history even dare to mention Dred Scott. The case destroys their assertions that bearing arms was generally prohibited in the antebellum United States.

Yet it would have been proper for the supporters of the current New York system to defend and extol Dred Scott v. Sandford. The ultimate principle that the anti-rights briefs support is that Dred Scott’s holding against the rights of free people of color should be affirmed and extended to all people, regardless of color. Should the Bruen defendants prevail, then all Americans will be reduced to the degraded legal status of free people of color in North Carolina as of 1844, with the exercise of their right to bear arms contingent on an official’s discretion about “whether any shall.”

David Kopel is research director at the Independence Institute in Denver. He is coauthor of the law school textbook “Firearms Law and the Second Amendment.”

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: