Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for the ‘Political’ Category

Democrats Should Fear Melania Trump


By: Kevin Jackson | January 27, 2025

Read more at https://theblacksphere.net/2025/01/democrats-should-fear-melania-trump/

Democrats and other Leftists should be ashamed of how they treated Melania Trump during President Trump’s first term. If anyone else besides The Donald has a reason to be vindictive, it’s Melania.

Despite her impeccable credentials and undeniable accomplishments, she was repeatedly overlooked and disrespected by the media establishment. Only a few years earlier, the world pretended to celebrate Michelle Obama. They marveled at the fact that she breathed.

Michelle Obama wore some of the most atrocious fashions, yet Leftists acted as if she were the star of New York Fashion Week. From her sleeveless dresses to her infamous floral boots, the media fawned over her with an almost embarrassing eagerness to elevate her as a fashion icon. I remember when she exited an airplane during a vacation with her daughters, and she wore clothes that made her look like she just changed the oil in the family car. The media gushed. In reality, Michelle Obama was far less glamorous.

Next came Jill Biden: the woman who insisted on being called “Dr. Jill.” This honorary title was given for a Doctor of Education degree that could have been earned by an eighth-grade honor student. Despite this lack of true academic rigor, Jill Biden demanded deference. As for her fashion sense, she hardly set any trends. By the end of Joe Biden’s term, the press had dropped the “doctor” title entirely and chided her for playing president while Joe Biden was incapacitated.

Melania Trump: The Overlooked Icon

In stark contrast, Melania Trump, a former international supermodel with a resume that most women would envy, was treated like an afterthought. It is worth noting that Melania speaks five languages fluently, a testament to her intelligence and adaptability. She became a naturalized U.S. citizen and established herself as a successful entrepreneur long before her husband entered the political arena.

Yet during her time in the White House, Melania was conspicuously absent from magazine covers. Michelle Obama graced the cover of Vogue three times, and Jill Biden appeared on the cover of Vogue in 2021. Melania? Not once during Trump’s presidency. Her only Vogue cover came in 2005 after her marriage to Donald Trump, where she was portrayed in her wedding gown. This glaring omission speaks volumes about the media’s bias. (Newsweek)

Media’s Political Bias

The disparity in coverage is not limited to magazine covers, however. Media outlets gushed over Michelle Obama’s Garden initiatives and praised Jill Biden’s classroom visits. Meanwhile, Melania’s impactful “Be Best” initiative, which focused on combating cyberbullying and opioid abuse, was mocked and dismissed. Leftists barely concealed their disdain, overlooking the real substance of her advocacy.

Anna Wintour, the editor-in-chief of Vogue, has been criticized for her overt favoritism. An article in The New York Post challenged Wintour to feature Republican figures like Usha Vance, exposing a pattern of ideological bias in the magazine’s coverage. (NY Post)

Melania’s Fashion and Style

Melania’s fashion choices were nothing short of iconic. Her ensembles reflected sophistication and elegance, rivaling those of Jacqueline Kennedy. Her outfit at President Trump’s second inauguration was a prime example. Wearing a tailored coat and a wide-brimmed hat, she exuded confidence and strength. It was reminiscent of Guy Fawkes, with a touch of Doc Holliday’s bravado. Her presence declared, “I’m your Huckleberry” to the Leftists who had spited her.

Even MSNBC had to acknowledge her aura, stating: “It’s really clear that she has a confidence that we didn’t necessarily see the first time around. She understands not only what’s at stake for this administration, but what’s at stake for her.”

A New Chapter for Melania Trump

As the world anticipates President Trump’s return to the White House, Melania is poised to take on an even more prominent role. This second term offers her an opportunity to cement her legacy, not just as a First Lady but as a cultural icon and advocate for meaningful causes. She now understands the stakes and the opportunities, and she is ready to rise to the occasion.

She is a brilliant woman whose husband commands the world stage. Imagine how powerful she can be, having been the right hand of the “person” who defeated the biggest political establishment on the planet. And let’s not forget that she provided half the DNA for a young man who is a genius and child prodigy. Barron Trump’s intellectual potential is yet another testament to her influence and upbringing.

Melania’s potential to bolster the Trump legacy is immense. She could leverage her platform to expand the “Be Best” initiative, perhaps focusing on education reform or global women’s empowerment. As someone who has navigated the complexities of international politics and American media, she could inspire a new generation of women to embrace grace, strength, and independence.

The possibilities are endless: writing a memoir that details her journey from Slovenia to the White House, creating a global foundation to support underserved communities, or even curating a fashion line that reflects her impeccable taste. Melania Trump’s story is far from over, and the world is watching to see how she will continue to shine in her own right.

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


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Bunker Buster

A.F. Branco | on January 28, 2025 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-bunker-buster/

Mother Of All Presidencies
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2025

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

A.F. Branco Cartoon – The Deep State is feeling the heat from the Mother Of All Presidencies (MOAP). Trump is resending the security clearances of many for lying about the Hunter Laptop and the Russia collusion hoax and is weeding out others who have leftist political motives.

Deep Stater John Brennan Upset About Losing His Security Clearance, Claims He Only Used it to Advise Government (VIDEO)

By Mike Lachance – The Gateway Pundit – Jan 23,  2025

Former CIA chief John Brennan is among the many ‘spies who lied’ that had their security clearances revoked by Trump this week.
Brennan ran to MSNBC to complain, because what else is he going to do?
He used his appearance in an attempt to rewrite history, claiming that his security clearance was only ever used to advise the government on certain affairs. He also completely misrepresents the famous letter about Hunter Biden’s laptop.
“The only reason why I still had a security clearance, as I have for the past number of years since I left government service, was for the benefit of the government, so that if the CIA or another government agency wanted to call me in to discuss the classified matter, they could do that,” Brennan said.
READ MORE

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

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

Justice Department fires more than a dozen key officials on former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team


By Brooke Singman Fox News | Published January 27, 2025, 3:26pm EST

Read more at https://www.foxnews.com/politics/justice-department-fires-more-than-dozen-key-officials-former-special-counsel-jack-smiths-team

EXCLUSIVE: The Justice Department is firing more than a dozen key officials who worked on Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team prosecuting President Donald Trump, after Acting Attorney General James McHenry said they could not be trusted in “faithfully implementing the president’s agenda,” Fox News Digital has learned. 

McHenry has transmitted a letter to each official notifying them of their termination, a Justice Department official exclusively told Fox News Digital.

TRUMP TO TAKE MORE THAN 200 EXECUTIVE ACTIONS ON DAY ONE

It is unclear how many officials received that letter. The names of the individuals were not immediately released. 

trump and jack smith
Donald Trump and Jack Smith  (Getty Images)

“Today, Acting Attorney General James McHenry terminated the employment of a number of DOJ officials who played a significant role in prosecuting President Trump,” a DOJ official told Fox News Digital. “In light of their actions, the Acting Attorney General does not trust these officials to assist in faithfully implementing the President’s agenda.” 

This action “is consistent with the mission of ending the weaponization of government,” the official told Fox News Digital.

The move comes after the Justice Department reassigned more than a dozen officials in the first week of the Trump administration to a Sanctuary City task force and other measures. 

DOJ RELEASES FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH’S REPORT ON INVESTIGATION INTO TRUMP ELECTION INTERFERENCE CASE

It also comes after Trump vowed to end the weaponization of the federal government. 

Former Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith, a former Justice Department official, as special counsel in November 2022. Smith, a former assistant U.S. attorney and chief to the DOJ’s public integrity section, led the investigation into Trump’s retention of classified documents after leaving the White House and whether the former president obstructed the federal government’s investigation into the matter. 

HOUSE WEAPONIZATION PANEL RELEASES 17,000-PAGE REPORT EXPOSING ‘TWO-TIERED SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT’

Smith was also tasked with overseeing the investigation into whether Trump or other officials and entities interfered with the peaceful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election, including the certification of the Electoral College vote on Jan. 6, 2021. 

Smith charged Trump in both cases, but Trump pleaded not guilty.

North-Korea-Identity-Theft
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan created the subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government during the previous Congress.  (Andrew Harnik/The Associated Press)

The classified records case was dismissed in July 2024 by U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Judge Aileen Cannon, who ruled that Smith was unlawfully appointed as special counsel. 

Smith charged Trump in the U.S. District Court for Washington D.C. in his 2020 election case, but after Trump was elected president, Smith sought to dismiss the case. Judge Tanya Chutkan granted that request. 

Both cases were dismissed. 

Brooke Singman is a political correspondent and reporter for Fox News Digital, Fox News Channel and FOX Business.

Barrett-Lite: The Supreme Court Takes Up Major New Religion Clause Case with One Notable Exception


By: Jonathan Turley | January 27, 2025

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2025/01/25/barrett-lite-the-supreme-court-takes-up-major-new-religion-clause-case-with-one-notable-exception/

On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to review a potentially blockbuster religion clause case in Oklahoma Charter School Board v. Drummond. However, there is a catch. While the lawyers representing St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School may need every vote they can get in this heavily contested area; they may have to prevail without Justice Amy Coney Barrett who recused herself for an unstated reason.

The case could bring clarity to an area long mired in 5-4 decisions. The question presented is “whether a state violates the First Amendment’s free exercise clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state’s charter-school program solely because the schools are religious.”

The basis for the recusal is a mystery. Barrett was on the faculty at Notre Dame University and has close ties to the institution. Notre Dame Law Professor Nicole Garnett has been involved in the case and the Notre Dame Religious Liberty Clinic is on the brief for St. Isidore.

St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School is a Roman Catholic institution focused on digital learning.

The lower court ruled that such funding of a religious school is unconstitutional. Before the Oklahoma Supreme Court, Oklahoma Attorney General, Gentner Drummond, prevailed in arguing that the charter school board violated state law, the Oklahoma Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution. He insisted that the board should not have chartered the school because “St. Isidore’s educational philosophy is to establish and operate the school as a Catholic school.” He also opposed review by the Supreme Court, warning that the school intends to “serve the evangelizing mission of the church.”

The case could produce one of the most consequential decisions on the separation of Church and State in decades. Given her past interest and writing in the area, it would be ironic for Barrett to miss this ruling.

It is reminiscent of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s recusal in the Harvard affirmative action case due to her close ties to that institution. However, for Jackson, it was immaterial since she was allowed to vote in the sister case involving the University of North Carolina.

The case will be argued in April.

Here is the lower court decision: St. Isidore Opinion

The CIA Report: Why a Low Confidence Finding is the Height of Hypocrisy


By: Jonathan Turley | January 27, 2025

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2025/01/27/the-cia-report-why-a-low-confidence-findings-is-the-height-of-hypocrisy/

Every modern president seems to promise transparency during their campaigns, but few ever seem to get around to it. Once in power, the value of being opaque becomes evident. We will have to wait to see if President Donald Trump will fulfill his pledges, but so far this is proving the cellophane administration. Putting aside his constant press gaggles and conferences, the Administration has ordered wholesale disclosures of long-withheld files from everything from the JFK investigation to, most recently, the CIA COVID origins report. That report is particularly stinging for both the Biden Administration and its media allies, which treated the lab theory as a fringe, conspiratorial, or even racist theory.

Newly-confirmed CIA Director John Ratcliffe released the report, which details how it views the lab theory as the most likely explanation for the virus. Expressing “low confidence,” the agency did not reject the theory over the natural origins theory, which was treated as sacrosanct by the media and favored by figures like Anthony Fauci. (Other recent reports have contradicted the equally orthodox view on the closing of schools, showing no material benefit in terms of slowing the transmission of COVID).

The BBC reported that “the CIA on Saturday offered a new assessment on the origin of the Covid outbreak, saying the coronavirus is ‘more likely’ to have leaked from a Chinese lab than to have come from animals. But the intelligence agency cautioned it had ‘low confidence’ in this determination.”

The low confidence finding shows that the agency found the evidence fragmented and fluid. However, the point is that the natural origins theory and the lab theory were both viable theories. Neither was disproven or rejected. Other agencies like the FBI seemed to have a higher confidence in the lab theory over the natural origins’ theory.

Even a low-confidence finding shows the height of hypocrisy in Washington where politicians and pundits savaged any scientist who even suggested the possibility that the virus was man-made and likely originated in the Wuhan lab near the site of the outbreak.

This follows a recent disclosure in the Wall Street Journal of a report on how the Biden administration may have suppressed dissenting views supporting the lab theory on the origin of the COVID-19 virus. Not only were the FBI and its top experts excluded from a critical briefing of President Biden, but government scientists were reportedly warned that they were “off the reservation” in supporting the lab theory.

As previously discussed, many journalists used the rejection of the lab theory to paint Trump as a bigot. By the time Biden became president, not only were certain government officials heavily invested in the zoonotic or natural origin theory, but so were many in the media.

Reporters used opposition to the lab theory as another opportunity to pound their chests and signal their virtue.

MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace mocked Trump and others for spreading one of his favorite “conspiracy theories.” MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt insisted that “we know it’s been debunked that this virus was manmade or modified.”

MSNBC’s Joy Reid also called the lab leak theory “debunked bunkum,” while CNN reporter Drew Griffin criticized spreading the “widely debunked” theory. CNN host Fareed Zakaria told viewers that “the far right has now found its own virus conspiracy theory” in the lab leak.

NBC News’s Janis Mackey Frayer described it as the “heart of conspiracy theories.”

The Washington Post was particularly dogmatic. When Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark) raised the theory, he was chastised for “repeat[ing] a fringe theory suggesting that the ongoing spread of a coronavirus is connected to research in the disease-ravaged epicenter of Wuhan, China.”

Likewise, after Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) mentioned the lab theory, Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler mocked him: “I fear @tedcruz missed the scientific animation in the video that shows how it is virtually impossible for this virus jump from the lab. Or the many interviews with actual scientists. We deal in facts, and viewers can judge for themselves.”

As these efforts failed and more information emerged supporting the lab theory, many media figures just looked at their shoes and shrugged. Others became more ardent. In 2021, New York Times science and health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli was still calling on reporters not to mention the “racist” lab theory.

In Kessler’s case, he wrote that the lab theory was “suddenly credible” as if it had sprung from the head of Zeus rather than having been supported for years by scientists, many of whom had been canceled and banned.

As these figures were attacking reports, Biden officials were sitting on these reports. Figures like Fauci did nothing to support those academics being canceled or censored for raising the theory.

The very figures claiming to battle “disinformation” were suppressing opposing views that have now been vindicated as credible. It was not only the lab theory. In my recent book, I discuss how signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration were fired or disciplined by their schools or associations for questioning COVID-19 policies.

The suppression of the lab theory proves the ultimate fallacy of censorship. Throughout history, censorship has never succeeded. It has never stopped a single idea or a movement. It has a perfect failure rate. Ideas, like water, have a way of finding their way out in time.

Yet, as the last few years have shown, it does succeed in imposing costs on those with dissenting views. For years, figures like Bhattacharya (who was recently awarded the prestigious Intellectual Freedom Award by the American Academy of Sciences and Letters) were hounded and marginalized.

Others opposed Bhattacharya’s right to offer his scientific views, even under oath. For example, in one hearing, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) expressed disgust that Bhattacharya was even allowed to testify as “a purveyor of COVID-19 misinformation.”

Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik decried an event associated with Bhattacharya, writing that “we’re living in an upside-down world” because Stanford University allowed dissenting scientists to speak at a scientific forum. Hiltzik also wrote a column titled “The COVID lab leak claim isn’t just an attack on science, but a threat to public health.”

One of the saddest aspects of this story is that many of these figures in government, academia and the media were not necessarily trying to shield China. Some were motivated by their investment in the narrative while others were drawn by the political and personal benefits that came from joining the mob against a minority of scientists.

The CIA report obviously does not resolve this debate, but it shows that there is a legitimate debate despite the overwhelming message of the media and the attacks on scientists. Of course, the same media and political figures responsible for this culture of intimidation have simply moved on. The value of an alliance with the media is that such embarrassing contradictions are not reported. At most, these figures shrug and turn to the next subject for groupthink and mob action.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

NB: This column was changed shortly after publication to add the link to the meaning of “low confidence” in the CIA report and to repeat that the issue is not which theory is correct, but that neither theory was found dispositive or invalid. Other media links were added as background.

Today’s TWO Politically INCORRECT Cartoons by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Enter Stage Left

A.F. Branco

 on January 26, 2025 at 4:00 am

Democrat Clowns
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2025

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

A.F. Branco Cartoon – A group of thugs sent by Democrat Rep. Leigh Finke today attempted to obstruct House Republicans from conducting a scheduled Public Safety hearing,” Rep. Walter Hudson said.

‘Group of thugs’: Left-wing protesters attempt to shut down House committee meeting

By Hayley Feland – AlphaNews.org – Jan 22, 2025

Protesters crashed a Minnesota House committee meeting on Tuesday, following a demonstration they held outside protesting what they called a “power grab” by Minnesota Republicans.

“Quite enough of that bullshit, we’re done with this,” a protester, identified as Amber Muhm with the Aliveness Project, stood up and yelled into a bullhorn during a House Public Safety Committee meeting.
The protesters were gaveled down and called out of order. “No, this is an illegitimate committee,” Muhm said. “You don’t have a quorum in the House. You know this is bullshit.”
House staff then cut the audio of the stream and the rest of the tirade was not able to be heard from the official video feed. The rant went on for over 20 minutes. READ MORE

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Slavers

A.F. Branco

 on January 27, 2025 at 4:30 am

Modern Democrat Slavery
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2025

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Democrats were the party of slavery and today are the party of a new type of labor oppression toward illegal immigrants, but not to pick our cotton but to pick our fruit and clean our toilets for subpar wages.

Archbishop Vigano Exposes Globalist Elite’s Hypocrisy: How Religious and Civil Leaders Profit from Illegal Immigration and the LGBTQ+ Agenda

by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò  – The Gatway Pundit – 01/23/25

When the servants of the globalist elite placed at the top of the institutions – both civil and religious – talk about welcoming illegal immigrants, they do not tell you that they make huge profits from the management of immigrants.
When they talk about the rights of the LGBTQ+ community, they do not tell you that they have a conflict of interest since they themselves are involved.
When they talk about going green, they do not tell you about their non-disinterested investments in the alternative energy sector.
This betrayal of their institutional role is what unites them: they earn money and increase their social power to the extent that they support the globalist agenda. READ MORE

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

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

Tulsi Gabbard Is an American Hero Being Tarred as A Terrorist


By: Tristan Justice | January 23, 2025

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2025/01/23/tulsi-gabbard-is-an-american-hero-being-tarred-as-a-terrorist/

Tulsi Gabbard
Senators are obviously trying to figure out how to sink Gabbard’s nomination before her scheduled hearing on Jan. 30.

Author Tristan Justice profile

Tristan Justice

Visit on Twitter@JusticeTristan

More Articles

Senators are looking for excuses over reasons to refuse President Donald Trump’s pick for director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard — a combat veteran who previously served as a Democrat congresswoman from Hawaii and now faces character assassination.

Gabbard, who is meeting with lawmakers on Capitol Hill Thursday afternoon, committed two crimes that now threaten to derail her confirmation: leaving the Democrat party and campaigning against the interventionist impulses of the deep state war machine.

After Democrats fought to delay her way forward, Semafor reported Wednesday that Gabbard’s nomination was “on shaky ground” within the GOP. According to the outlet, Republicans are “particularly hesitant” about previous statements from Gabbard “that some have read as too warm toward Vladimir Putin and former Syrian regime leader Bashar al-Assad.” The piece goes on to note that Gabbard met with Assad in 2017 and highlights her criticism of “some intelligence-gathering tools” — such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) used to execute the Russia hoax.

One anonymous GOP Senator told Semafor that “[t]here are very serious concerns by enough members to put her nomination in jeopardy.” Another anonymous GOP senator told the outlet that Gabbard still “has a lot of questions to answer.”

Apparently, both senators have some research to do. If meeting with Assad is disqualifying, then why did the Senate confirm 94 to 3 to confirm Secretary of State John Kerry in 2013? Kerry met with the Syrian president while serving as a senator from Massachusetts in 2006. Were either of the anonymous senators who are now apparently critical of Gabbard’s meeting in office 12 years ago? Did they vote to confirm Kerry as the nation’s chief diplomat? If they were previously in the House, did either complain when then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi met with Assad over President George W. Bush’s objections a year later?

Or is Gabbard’s meeting now suddenly a problem because, under President Trump, engaging with overseas adversaries is an effective strategy to keep the peace, and neocons in Congress are allergic to world peace?

Lest lawmakers truly believe Gabbard is a champion for the since-dismantled Assad regime, any honest examination of her past comments suggests otherwise. In 2019, Gabbard was asked in an NBC interview whether she believed the ex-Syrian dictator was a “good person.”

“No, I don’t,” she said.

But the story in Politico on Gabbard’s comments at the time focused on her refusal to explicitly condemn Assad as a “U.S. adversary.”

“My point is that whether it is Syria or any of these other countries, we need to look at how their interests are counter to or aligned with ours,” she said.

How radical that a member of Congress might offer a sobering analysis of the realities in the Middle East. When Assad’s regime finally did fall in December, the rebel coalition to take over was essentially run by ISIS and al-Qaida, two groups whose interests generally run counter to the nation they repeatedly want to bomb. Acknowledging there are no good guys in a fight doesn’t make someone an ally to one or the other.

Gabbard predicted what would ultimately happen in Syria during an interview with CNN nearly a decade ago. She noted how the Syrians she met with during her 2017 visit acknowledged that “[t]here [were] no moderate rebels” attempting to overthrow Assad.

“The Syrian people recognize, and they know that if President Assad is overthrown, then Al-Qaida or a group like Al-Qaida … will take charge of all of Syria,” she said.

If anything, Americans should feel safer with a director of national intelligence who can accurately foresee what might happen in global affairs.

Semafor cited “two people close to the White House” reportedly “still behind” Gabbard. According to the outlet, one of these sources said the “concerns” about Gabbard are “not people trying to put a knife in Tulsi,” but that “there’s a problem, and nobody can figure it out.”

What these anonymous senators and other opposition are obviously trying to figure out is how to sink Gabbard’s nomination before her scheduled hearing on Jan. 30.

Gabbard, a nearly two-decade veteran, a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve, and a long-time critic of America’s forever wars is no rookie competing against deep state smear campaigns. Last year, the former Democrat congresswoman was the subject of surveillance under a counterterrorism program within the U.S. Federal Air Marshals Service (FAMS). Gabbard came under surveillance just “one day after she criticized the Biden Administration” on Fox News, according to a letter from the whistleblower watchdog group Empower Oversight.

Now the victim of deep state abuses may be given the keys to oversee the deep state in what would be the worst nightmare for Gabbard’s neocon opponents.


Tristan Justice is a national correspondent for The Federalist and the co-author of “Fat and Unhappy: How ‘Body Positivity’ Is Killing Us (and How to Save Yourself).” 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 Tristan@thefederalist.com. Sign up for Tristan’s email newsletter here. Buy “Fat and Unhappy” here.

Hawaii’s Hirono only senator to vote no on Collins, continuing partisan streak at hearings


By Alec Schemmel Fox News | Published January 23, 2025, 4:43pm EST | Updated January 23, 2025, 4:45pm EST

Read more at https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hawaiis-hirono-only-senator-vote-no-collins-continuing-partisan-streak-hearings

Democrat Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono was the only lawmaker on the Senate’s Veterans’ Affairs Committee to oppose the confirmation of President Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, former GOP congressman from Georgia Doug Collins.

Amid the slew of confirmation hearings that have taken place, Hirono has been unafraid to poke and prod about nominees’ sex lives, and at one point she accused Trump’s defense secretary nominee, Pete Hegseth, of being willing to shoot at lawful protesters.

“Would you carry out such an order [to shoot protesters] from President Trump?” Hirono asked Hegseth during his hearing in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee, citing reports that the president asked former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper to shoot protesters in the leg during the 2020 riots in Washington, D.C., that ensued after the death of George Floyd.

Hirono/Hegseth photo split
Sen. Mazie Hirono and defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth (Getty Images)

Hegseth tried to offer a response to Hirono’s question, but the senator would not let him get a word in and instead answered the question for him, “You will shoot protesters in the leg,” she asserted to Hegseth. “Moving on.”

Hirono also has been unafraid to ask each of Trump’s nominees she questioned throughout their confirmation hearings, including Collins, about unfounded allegations of sexual assault.

“As part of my responsibilities to ensure the fitness of nominees before any of the committees, I ask the following two questions,” Hirono posited during the hearing for Trump’s interior secretary nominee, Doug Burgum. “First is, since you became a legal adult have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature? Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?”

Hirono Burgum photo split
Sen. Mazie Hirono and interior secretary nominee former North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum (Getty Images)

For Trump’s attorney general nominee, Pam Bondi, Hirono asked the same questions about unfounded sexual allegations. She similarly answered her own questions as she did with Hegseth. Bondi, however, clapped back with criticism of her own during the senator’s questioning, noting that Hirono refused to meet with her privately to discuss her concerns ahead of the public hearing.

Hirono Bondi photo split
Trump AG pick Pam Bondi, right, went back and forth with Sen. Mazie Hirono in her confirmation hearing. (Getty Images)

“Sen. Hirono, I wish you had met with me. Had you met with me, we could have discussed many things and gotten to the meat [of your questions],” Bondi told Hirono as she was lobbing questions at the nominee. “You were the only one who refused to meet with me.”

Senate Advances Nomination of Defense Nominee Hegseth


By: REP. AUGUST PFLUGER on NAT DESK | Thursday, 23 January 2025 03:14 PM EST

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/politics/hegseth-trump-cabinet/2025/01/23/id/1196270/

The U.S. Senate narrowly voted on Thursday to advance the nomination of Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News host and military veteran, to be President Donald Trump’s secretary of defense, clearing the way for a vote on his confirmation later this week.

The tally was 51-49 in the 100-member Senate on a procedural measure to end debate.

© 2025 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.

Nazispolozza: The Left’s Third Reich Mania Collapses into Comedy


By: Jonathan Turley | January 23, 2025

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2025/01/23/nazispolozza-the-lefts-third-reich-mania-collapses-into-comedy/

YouTube

Below is my column in the New York Post on the latest attack on Elon Musk from the left. There is a mania on the left in calling people with opposing views “Nazis” and referencing the Third Reich. The left has jumped the Nazi shark in this rhetoric as the public tunes out these increasingly hysterical voices.

Here is the column:

One of the least successful efforts of the left and many in the media this election was to paint Republican voters as “Nazis” hellbent on destroying democracy. While once verboten as a political comparison, liberal politicians and pundits have developed something of a Nazi fetish, where every statement and gesture is declared a return of the Third Reich. It seems like each news event presents a Rorschach test where every inkblot looks like a Nazi.

That mania reached absurd, even comedic, levels with the attack on Elon Musk over an awkward gesture during the inauguration celebration. An exuberant Musk told the crowd, “My heart goes out to you. It is thanks to you that the future of civilization is assured.” As he gave those words, he placed his right hand on his chest and stretched his arm outward, his palm facing the floor. He then repeated the gesture before putting his hand on his chest again. It was all done in a matter of seconds, but it was enough for the usual mob to erupt in faux outrage.

Pundits insisted that Musk had chosen the moment to come out as a Nazi on national television. The Washington Post breathlessly reported this week how the “Nazi-style salute” had “invigorated fans on the far right.” The usual liberal professors were rolled out to offer a patina of authority to the ridiculous claim.

Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a professor of history at New York University, declared, “Historian of fascism here. It was a Nazi salute and a very belligerent one too.”

Mike Stuchbery went on X (the company owned by the man he now suggests is a Nazi reenactor) to declare, “I studied the Nazis at university, taught the history of Nazi Germany on two continents and wrote for major newspapers about Nazi Germany. I am internet famous for fact-checking chuds [gross people] on the history, ideology and policy of Nazi Germany. That was a Nazi salute.”

Well, that settles it.

As the outrage continued, any doubt or dissent was denounced as evidence that you are obviously a Nazi as well. That became a bit embarrassing when the leading Jewish organization, the Anti-Defamation League, stated the obvious: This was not a Nazi salute but rather an “awkward gesture.”

The core principle of liberal mob tactics is that there can be no divergence, even by a group like the ADL. The way to deal with opposing ideas or writings is by making someone persona non grata. If you do not cancel others, you will be canceled.

So, the ADL was effectively declared soft on Nazis by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY): “Just to be clear, you are defending a Heil Hitler salute that was performed and repeated for emphasis and clarity. People can officially stop listening to you as any sort of reputable source of information now. You work for them. Thank you for making that crystal clear to all.”

We’ve reached a level of absurdity where Jewish advocates are treated like they are virtual Nazi sympathizers.

This is not the first time the Democrats have labeled Trump and his supporters “Nazis.”

It started years ago as Democrats repeated analogies of Trump to Hitler and his followers to brownshirted neo-Nazis. Defeating Trump has been compared to stopping Hitler in 1933, and media personalities like Rachel Maddow went on the air with a hysterical claim that death squadswere authorized by the Supreme Court.

When Trump held a massive rally in New York’s Madison Square Garden before the election, the media were apoplectic and immediately declared it … you guessed it … akin to a Nazi rally. From the Washington Post to the New York Times, the media formed an affinity group meeting to fret over “echoes of 1939.” In case anyone missed the message, Democratic vice-presidential candidate Tim Walz emphasized “a direct parallel” with the Nazis.

Over at the Nation, David Zirin treated Madison Square Garden (known for everything from cage fights to dog shows) as an almost Vatican-like space: “With his fascist New York City rally, Donald Trump has befouled what many believe to be a sacred space: Madison Square Garden.”

So Trump is a Nazi. Musk is a Nazi. Half the country are Nazis. The problem is that, if you say everyone is a Nazi, then no one is a Nazi. It loses its meaning.

That includes Ocasio-Cortez, who appears to have joined the ranks of the Reich after critics posted her making a Musk-like gesture during a speech.

There was no torrent of media fretting about how the gesture reflected the extremism of AOC’s questioning need for a Supreme Court, seeking to bar Trump and dozens of Republicans from ballots, or supporting censorship. AOC is a certified Nazi hunter, a license that seems only to be available to figures on the left.

Of course, labeling political opponents as diabolically evil fanatics and seeking to bar candidates from ballots sounds a lot like … well … it sounds familiar.

There is an alternative. We can put the rage rhetoric aside and have honest debates over differences on politics and laws. In other words, we can fight over policy … and leave the Nazis out of it.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

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


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Kindred Spirit

A.F. Branco | on January 23, 2025 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-kindred-spirit/

Tulsi Gabbard George Washington
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2025

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

A.F. Branco Cartoon – There is a huge reason the Deep State and the Military Industrial Complex don’t want Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence: She doesn’t want to play their multi-foreign war game. George Washington warned many years ago to beware of foreign entanglements.

Just as Trump Warned: Senate Democrats Secretly Move to Sabotage and Delay Tulsi Gabbard Confirmation

By Cristina Laila – The Gateway Pundit – Jan 9, 2025

Senate Democrats are quietly working to delay Tulsi Gabbard’s confirmation hearing next week.
President Trump nominated Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence.
“I am pleased to announce that former Congresswoman, Lieutenant Colonel Tulsi Gabbard, will serve as Director of National Intelligence (DNI). For over two decades, Tulsi has fought for our Country and the Freedoms of all Americans. As a former Candidate for the Democrat Presidential Nomination, she has broad support in both Parties – She is now a proud Republican! I know Tulsi will bring the fearless spirit… READ MORE

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

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

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


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Left in The Lurch

A.F. Branco | on January 22, 2025 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-left-in-the-lurch/

No Pardons for Hillary
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2025

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

A.F. Branco Cartoon – It seems Biden has pardoned almost every criminal in Washington, DC, but missed one of the biggest of all, Hillary. She must be feeling left out and hung out to dry. Will she ever answer for her crimes? Benghazi, 30,000 missing emails, and the Russia collusion hoax come to mind.

LOATHSOME: Biden Regime Reportedly Considering Preemptive Pardons for Several of Trump’s Enemies Including Liz Cheney, Adam Schiff, and Anthony Fauci

By Cullen Linebarge – The Gateway Pundit – Dec 4, 2024

The lawless Biden regime is not satisfied with the White House occupant’s pardon of his ne’er do well son Hunter and is looking to give even more of the political class’s worst characters a complete pass on their crimes.
Politico on Wednesday dropped an explosive report that Biden’s handlers are strongly considering issuing preemptive several current and former government officials who they believe will be in the incoming Trump administration’s crosshairs.
The outlet notes that the Regime has become even more panicked since Trump announced he was picking MAGA hero Kash Patel to drain the Deep State swamp and ensure those who persecuted Trump do not escape punishment. READ MORE

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

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

An Image of a Thousand Words


January 22, 2025

President Trump urged to pardon 76-year-old grandmother, others in prison for pro-life activism


By Peter Pinedo Fox News | Published January 21, 2025, 2:52pm EST

Read more at https://www.foxnews.com/politics/president-trump-urged-pardon-76-year-old-grandmother-others-prison-pro-life-activism

Conservative law firm calls on Trump to pardon 21 pro-life activists prosecuted by Biden DOJ

Amid newly inaugurated President Donald Trump’s pardon of nearly 1,500 January 6 protesters, anti-abortion groups are calling on the president to pardon a 76-year-old grandmother and 20 others who were imprisoned and prosecuted for pro-life protests under the Biden Department of Justice.

One group, the Thomas More Society, a law firm specializing in pro-life cases, filed a petition to the new president in which it laid out the legal grounds for him to issue pardons and pointed out how President Joe Biden abused the justice system to target these pro-life activists.

Steve Crampton, a senior counsel at the Thomas More Society, told Fox News Digital that it is “absolutely vital” these activists be pardoned to restore equality under the law.  

“We hope by President Trump’s actions here that he will restore some sanity and rule of law to the approach of the Department of Justice and the FBI, but also help move this culture back toward a culture of life rather than one of death,” said Crampton. “This small act on his part would, in fact, serve to kind of ignite a momentous movement toward restoring a respect for life in this nation that’s so desperately needed.”

WHITE HOUSE HINTS AT ‘MASSIVE’ ANNOUNCEMENT FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP ON FIRST FULL DAY IN OFFICE

Donald Trump signs pardons for January 6 defendants in the Oval Office
President Trump signs pardons for Jan. 6 defendants in the Oval Office at the White House on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 2025. (Reuters/Carlos Barria)

Trump indicated several times during his campaign that he is open to issuing pardons for some of these pro-lifers who were prosecuted under a federal law called the Freedom of Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. The activists were convicted of FACE Act violations for participating in various “sit-in” protests inside abortion clinics in Washington, D.C., Nashville, Detroit, Long Island and Manhattan.

According to the Thomas More Society, Biden’s Department of Justice used the FACE Act to increase sentences for crimes that would otherwise have been simple trespassing charges. The group says Biden sought to make examples of these pro-lifers, prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law, despite their sit-in protests inside abortion clinics being entirely peaceful and with no threat of violence or intimidation.

Now that Trump is back in the White House, the Thomas More Society believes he can restore justice for these 21 activists and, in so doing, help restore confidence and trust in the justice system among the American people.

“In my lifetime, I’ve never seen a president honor his campaign promises the way this president has,” said Crampton. “So, we’re very hopeful that he will do so again in this case. And for these people who are really just salt of the earth, the best kind of folks that ought to be in their communities doing good rather than behind bars.” 

TRUMP PARDONS NEARLY EVERY JAN 6 DEFENDANT BUT SAYS HE’S JUST GETTING STARTED

Abortion activist sentenced
Lauren Handy, director of activism for Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising, in Washington, D.C. on April 2, 2022. (Eric Lee for The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Of the 21 activists prosecuted under the Biden administration’s use of the FACE Act, nine are currently in prison. Several of those in prison are elderly, with three, Jean Marshall, Paullette Harlow and Joan Andrews Bell, in their 70s. The eldest is Bell, who, at 76, has seven adult children and seven grandchildren. She was sentenced to over two years in prison. One activist, Heather Idoni, 59, who was sentenced to two years, has undergone serious health difficulties and suffered a minor stroke while in prison.

The longest prison sentence went to 31-year-old Lauren Handy, who is currently serving a nearly five-year sentence for her role in organizing a 2020 sit-in protest at the Washington, D.C., Surgi-Clinic run by Dr. Cesare Santangelo.

Also facing prison time is 89-year-old Eva Edl, a survivor of a communist concentration camp, who has been active in the pro-life movement for decades.

LEADERS FROM AROUND THE WORLD REACT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP’S WHITE HOUSE RETURN

SUPREME-COURT-ABORTION-PROTESTERS
Anti-abortion demonstrators in front of the Supreme Court building, on the day justices heard arguments in the Mississippi abortion rights case, in Washington, Dec. 1, 2021. (Reuters/Jonathan Ernst)

“Down is up and up is down in this case,” said Crampton. “These people are folks who, some of them, have adopted several special-needs children from places like Ukraine. Some are missionaries to China and Ukraine and the worst places on the planet, going out of their way to do good to people that are in desperate need. These are folks that ought to be receiving those citizenship medals that President Biden is handing out to the likes of George Soros, who is trying to destroy our nation.”  

“We must restore the rule of law,” he went on. “The questioning of Mr. Trump’s Cabinet appointees this past week, ironically enough, from the left, points again and again, back to the need not to single out political opponents for prosecution and so forth.”

“We have recently undertaken a disrespect for the rule of law that has undermined any respect for authority in general, let alone the law in particular,” he said. “So, I really think that this also is a small step back to restoring that absolutely essential respect for the rule of law that we must have if America is to survive.”

Peter Pinedo is a politics writer for Fox News Digital.

The End of Shock and Awe: How the Justice Department Made the Case for the J6 Pardons


By: Jonathan Turley | January 21, 2025

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2025/01/21/the-end-of-shock-and-awe-how-the-justice-department-against-the-case-for-the-j6-pardons/

Below is my column in the New York Post on the pardoning of the January 6th defendants by President Donald Trump. The scope of the pardon appears broader than some had hoped. What is clear is that any such relief should not extend to violent actors, particularly those who attacked police officers.  However, the Justice Department itself may have made the strongest case for presidential pardons.

Here is the column:

On January 20, 2025, the “shock and awe” campaign of the Justice Department came to an end as President Donald Trump pardoned 1,500 January 6th defendants.

Four years ago, the Justice Department set out to send a chilling message to the nation. In an interview with CBS News a year later, Justice Department official Michael Sherwin indicated that they wanted to send a message with the harsh treatment of defendants. Sherwin explained that “our office wanted to ensure that there was shock and awe … it worked because we saw through media posts that people were afraid to come back to D.C. because they’re, like, ‘If we go there, we’re gonna get charged.’ … We wanted to take out those individuals that essentially were thumbing their noses at the public for what they did.”

The awe is gone but the shock remains at the Justice Department. If Sherwin and his colleagues hoped to “Trump proof” the nation, they failed in spectacular fashion. While there was ample basis for criminal charges, the excessive treatment of some of the January 6th defendants undermined the credibility of their prosecutions for many.

That is no easy feat.

Most of us denounced the January 6th riot as a desecration of our constitutional process. Those who engaged in the rioting, and most importantly the violence, needed to be punished. However, what followed left many increasingly uneasy. The Justice Department rounded up hundreds and, even though most were charged with relatively minor crimes of unlawful entry or trespass, the Justice Department opposed the release of many from jail and sought absurdly long sentences in some cases. It also sought restrictions on defendants that raised troubling first amendment concerns.

In my recent book, “Indispensable Right,” I discuss these cases and their troubling elements.

A good example is the handling of the most well-known case of the so-called QAnon Shaman. Bare-chested, wearing an animal headdress, horns, and red-white-and-blue face paint, Jake Angeli Chansley became the iconic image of the riot.

Seeking to make examples of these defendants, the Justice Department took special measures in hammering Chansley. He was held in solitary confinement and denied bail.

Chansley was treated more harshly because of his visibility. It was his costume, not his conduct, that seemed to drive the sentencing. In the hearing, Judge Royce Lamberth noted, “He made himself the image of the riot, didn’t he? For good or bad, he made himself the very image of this whole event.”

Lamberth hit Chansley with a heavy 41-month sentence for “obstructing a federal proceeding.”

However, long withheld footage, showed recently that Chansley (like hundreds of people that day) simply walked into the Capitol past police officers and was then escorted by officers through the Capitol. At one point, two officers not only appear to guide him to the floor but actually try to open locked doors for him. Chansley is shown walking unimpeded through a large number of armed officers with his four-foot flag-draped spear and horned Viking helmet on his way to the Senate floor.

Does that make Chansley’s actions acceptable, let alone commendable? Of course not. He deserved to be arrested and punished. However, what many saw was a troubled individual being made an example for others.

In my book, I discuss how, in history, “rage rhetoric” was allowed to become “state rage.” This is one such case.

Trump ran on the promise to pardon these defendants and secured not just the White House but the popular vote. It was not just the public that rejected the narrative of January 6th as an “insurrection.”

In the recent Supreme Court decision in Fischer v. U.S. to reject hundreds of charges in January 6th cases for the obstruction of legal proceedings, the Court left most cases as simply a mass trespass and unlawful entry.

The shock may be gone for these defendants, but it may only be beginning for the Justice Department and the FBI.

  • When the campaign of Hillary Clinton secretly funded the infamous Steele Dossier to launch the Russian conspiracy investigation, it was the Justice Department that was not just the willing but eager partner.
  • The “insurance policy” described by former FBI official Peter Strzok was redeemed in investigations that derailed much of Trump’s first term.
  • Later, it was the Justice Department again that pursued a no-holds-barred effort to convict Trump before the election.

The Justice Department is the hardest of silos in Washington to reform. Unlike most departments, it is largely homogenous, with thousands of lawyers who share professional and cultural ties. It is a department composed of people who are by their very definition, litigious.

Trump insisted on selecting an Attorney General, nominee Pam Bondi, who has no past ties or identification with the department. For the Justice Department, it must feel like the Visigoths arriving at the gates of Rome . . . only to be let in by the citizens.

According to polling, the public ultimately found the “barbarians” less threatening than those who have insisted that Rome would fall. That must certainly be shocking for many in Washington, but the record of the Justice Department showed how the awe can become awful when officials feel the license of state rage.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

The Sting: Joe Biden Delivers the Final Blow to Mainstream Media


By: Jonathan Turley | January 21, 2025

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2025/01/21/the-sting-joe-biden-delivers-the-final-blow-to-mainstream-media/

Below is my column on the Biden family pardons in Fox.com. President Joe Biden merely confirmed the worst expectations of his critics. The true condemnation rests with those in the media who enabled the Biden influence-peddling operation.

Here is the column:

At 11:45 am, the media felt the final sting of the Biden scandal. It was delivered by President Joe Biden, who shattered any pretense of principle in pardoning family members allegedly implicated in the influence-peddling corruption scandal.

According to an old fable, a scorpion convinced a leery frog to carry him across a river, noting that he could not sting him since they would both drown. Halfway across, the scorpion struck and the frog asked why he would doom them both. The scorpion replied “I am sorry, but I couldn’t resist the urge. It’s in my nature.”

For those of us who have written about the corruption of the Biden family for decades, the pardons were crushingly predictable. The President simply couldn’t resist the urge. In a city where corruption is a cottage industry, the Bidens have long been in a league of their own, from nepotism to influence peddling to illicit lobbying. In the influence-peddling scandal, millions were generated from foreign sources in virtual plain view.

There were the luxury hotel rooms, a diamond, a sports car, and massive payments called “loans. In the summer of 2019, one Chinese businessman wired Hunter Biden $250,000 using Joe Biden’s Delaware home as the beneficiary address.”

The sense of absolute impunity came out in shake-down communications. For example, there was the WhatsApp message to a Chinese businessman openly threatening the displeasure of Joe Biden if money was not forked over without delay. In the message, Hunter warned:

“I am sitting here with my father, and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled. Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight. And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the Chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father.”

That sense of impunity was due to mainstream media forming a protective shell around the family. The media refused to pursue the scandal despite the Hunter Biden laptop and clear evidence of influence peddling.

In 2020, CBS News’s Lesley Stahl literally laughed mockingly at then-President Donald Trump when he raised the Hunter Biden laptop and what it revealed about the Bidens. (Yet Stahl still recently expressed confusion and alarm that people were abandoning legacy media for new media.)

Reporters assured citizens that the laptop was presumptive “Russian disinformation.” Even after the media belatedly acknowledged that it was authentic, MSNBC and Washington Post analysts were still making the claim last year.

After Republicans in the House detailed millions in payments, the media shifted to claiming that there was no real scandal unless it was shown that Joe Biden actually received money directly. It was a ridiculous claim since courts have long treated money going to family members as the same as going directly to a principal as criminal conduct.

The media continued to protect Biden, as evidence showed that Biden had repeatedly lied about not meeting with Hunter’s clients or not having knowledge of his foreign dealings.

As the media narrative continued to collapse, it latched on the promise of Biden that he would never pardon his son – proof that the President was willing to let the criminal justice system run its course. Biden then was shown to be lying about the pardon promise. After he was forced out of the election, Biden signed a pardon for any crimes over a decade committed by his son.

The media gave muttered “harrumphs” and moved on. Many said that it was understandable for a father of a son who struggled with drugs.

Now, in the final minutes of his presidency, Biden pardoned his other allegedly implicated family members, including James Biden, Sara Jones Biden, Valerie Biden Owens, John Owens, and Francis Biden. James Biden was previously referred for criminal charges for lying under oath to Congress as part of its investigation into the corruption scandal.

The pardons were clearly timed to avoid media scrutiny and questions. While he described the act as one of “conscience,” it was an almost mocking act of corruption.

In a strange way, it passed in Bidenworld as an honest moment. There were no claims of supporting an addicted son or dealing with a pending case. It was done in the final minutes because it was raw and obvious.  There is no pretense or apology. Just good old-fashioned corruption Biden-style.

It was as honest a moment as when Biden told a friend that “no one f**ks with a Biden.” There was nothing revealing in this about Biden. He could shrug and say, “It’s in my nature.” The sting instead fell on the media, which trusted Biden not to demean it further with such an unethical and disgraceful final act.

The funny thing is that Biden made it across the river. He boarded his final flight with his family (and himself) protected by the misuse of his presidential authority. However, if he looked out the window, he could see his media allies slipping stunned beneath the waters.

Jonathan Turley is a Fox News Media contributor and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).

Today’s TWO Politically INCORRECT Cartoons by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – End of an Error

A.F. Branco | on January 20, 2025 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-end-of-an-error/

End of An Error
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2025

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Biden is out, which is the end of an error. Trump will usher in new America First policies to correct the destructive policies of the last four years.

Trump’s Official Email as President Releases ‘America First’ Agenda: A Comprehensive List of Priorities for the Nation

By Jim Hoft – The Gateway Pundit – Jan 20, 2025

Following President Trump’s swearing-in ceremony, the White House Press Secretary today released President Donald Trump’s comprehensive ‘America First’ agenda.
The plan encompasses a series of executive orders and policy initiatives aimed at reshaping domestic and foreign policies to prioritize American interests.
These plans could potentially be enacted today through Trump’s executive orders.
The email reads… READ MORE

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Shovel Back Better

A.F. Branco | on January 21, 2025 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-shovel-back-better/

Shovel Back Better
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

A.F. Branco Cartoon—In Trump’s first term, he needed a bigger shovel to bring America back to greatness, and now he has one. It’s time to root out government corruption, burdensome regulations, and taxes.

President Trump Humiliates Democrats With Blistering Opening Lines of Inauguration Speech—Destroys Crooked Joe Biden and His Dirty Shadow Regime [VIDEO]

By Patty McMurry – The Gateway Pundit – Jan 20, 2025

President Trump knocked it out of the ballpark with his second inaugural speech in front of millions, while America’s most talented individuals were seated next behind him, ready to assume their top roles in his soon-to-be transformational administration.
Our newly-inaugurated 47th President of the United States didn’t hold back in his powerful speech, as he outlined his “Golden Age of America” plan to bring prosperity and strength back to America while dismantling the woke nightmare caused by a very dark four years in American history led by a shadow government.
READ MORE

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

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

Summing up the Week of January 17, 2025, Politically INCORRECT Cartoons and Memes


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


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Schiff for Brains

A.F. Branco | on January 17, 2025 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-schiff-for-brains/

Schiff questions Bondi
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2025

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Known liar Schiff, also censured in Congress for lying about Trump in the Russia collusion hoax impeachment hearings, is at it again with his pointed attack on Pam Bondi during the confirmation hearings.

OUCH: Pam Bondi Blows Up Loathsome Senator Adam Schiff with a Pair of Devastating Responses When He Brings Up J6 and Liz Cheney (VIDEO)

By Cullen Linebarger – The Gateway Pundit – Jan 15, 2025

Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi delivered a one-two punch during a recent televised confirmation hearing, dismantling Schiff’s narrative on January 6 and his incessant praise for former Representative Liz Cheney.
As TGP’s Jordan Conradson reported, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi is facing questions from Senators this morning during a confirmation hearing for the U.S. Attorney General.
Bondi, the former Florida Attorney General, was nominated after Rep. Matt Gaetz withdrew his name as Trump’s pick for AG.
As Conradson also noted, Trump Department of Defense Secretary nominee Pete Hegseth’s first confirmation hearing was held yesterday, and he passed the test with flying colors. Now, Bondi is shining as well. READ MORE

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

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

The Quantum Mechanics of Democrat Misinformation


By: Kevin Jackson | January 16, 2025

 Read more at https://theblacksphere.net/2025/01/the-quantum-mechanics-of-democrat-misinformation/

You need a quantum computer to keep up with all the lies Democrats tell. The people whose pictures are next to the dictionary definition of “misinformation” continue claiming they want to prevent it. The irony could power a small city.

Before I explain Democrats’ new strategy, let’s revisit just a few of their lies.

They’ve lied about COVID, vaccines, the 2020 election, January 6th, the border, Biden’s health, Kamala Harris’ popularity, and more. At this point, it’s easier to compile a list of what they haven’t lied about—although that might be a very short article.

Take Biden’s health, for instance. According to the Left, Biden is a spry 81-year-old whose physical fitness rivals an Olympic decathlete. Forget the times he’s needed directions to exit a stage or appeared to shake hands with invisible people. These are just “Right-wing conspiracy theories,” they assure us. Pay no attention to the fact that his press secretary has to fend off questions about cognitive tests as if she were playing dodgeball at a middle school gym.

But the lies don’t stop there. Polls, the Holy Grail of Democrat propaganda, are another playground for their creativity.

They’d have us believe that Kamala Harris is an inspirational leader—a cross between Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Beyoncé. Never mind her poll numbers, which are less popular than cold soup on a winter night. It’s not that people dislike her; it’s that they “don’t understand her brilliance,” we’re told. Apparently, Harris’ true genius is just too avant-garde for the unwashed masses.

When it comes to controlling the narrative, Democrats run their misinformation machine with the precision of a Swiss watchmaker. They use their iron grip on media and social platforms to determine what’s permissible to discuss. Don’t believe Hunter Biden’s laptop is real? Good. Because until recently, they didn’t want you to. Now that they’ve quietly admitted its authenticity, it’s suddenly not a story. The Left’s motto? “When caught lying, either double down or move on.”

COVID might be their magnum opus of deception. Remember “two weeks to flatten the curve”? That turned into two years of lockdowns, masks, vaccine mandates, and lives disrupted—all built on shifting narratives. When questioned about the science behind their mandates, they responded with a collective shrug and a mantra: “Trust the experts.” But their experts were often caught contradicting themselves. Masks worked until they didn’t. Vaccines prevented transmission until they didn’t. Yet, questioning any of this earned you a label: “misinformation spreader.”

And then there’s the border. According to Democrats, it’s “secure.” To anyone with eyes, it’s a humanitarian disaster. Footage of people streaming across the border like concertgoers at a music festival? That’s just Right-wing fearmongering, they insist. Meanwhile, cities like New York and Chicago are collapsing under the weight of their sanctuary policies, but don’t expect an admission of failure. For the Left, reality is just another obstacle to overcome with spin.

Speaking of spin, the 2020 election was a masterclass in narrative control.

Question the results? You’re a “threat to democracy.” Ignore the irregularities, the last-minute rule changes, and the statistical anomalies—all “perfectly normal,” they assured us. Then came January 6th, which they’ve weaponized to such an extent that it’s become the Left’s 9/11. To hear them tell it, the Capitol breach was an existential threat to the republic, second only to people questioning vaccine efficacy.

But perhaps the most brazen lie is their insistence that they’re the party of “truth.” They’ve launched a new version of Obama’s infamous “Attack Watch” website, this time with a straight face. It’s a digital tattletale system designed to flag dissent and offer counter-narratives, which are really just rebranded talking points. Back in 2011, Attack Watch was mocked out of existence, but Democrats are banking on the fact that people have short memories.

Big Disinfo” is their answer. A website dedicated to trying to debunk the truth.

And if you’re wondering where all that extra money went that the Biden team gave to the NGOs to spend as quickly as possible, you guessed it. Big Disinfo promises to defend democracy the lies with fact-checking operations promised to patrol the boundaries of reality.

Their desperation to control the truth is a sign of how tenuous their grip on it has become. They’re the snake oil salesmen of politics, peddling elixirs that don’t work and hoping no one notices. But here’s the catch: the American people are noticing. Polls show increasing skepticism of the media, distrust of institutions, and disapproval of the Biden administration’s policies. The harder the Left tries to sell their version of reality; the more people question the product.

Democrats are trapped in a web of their own making.

Their lies have become so convoluted that even they can’t keep them straight. Like a bad sitcom with too many plot twists, the audience is tuning out. And while they’ll undoubtedly try to spin this as another “Right-wing conspiracy,” the truth is catching up with them. Slowly, but inevitably.

As we head into 2025, expect the Left’s misinformation machine to go into overdrive. The lies will get bigger, the narratives more absurd, and the denials more emphatic. But remember: desperation smells a lot like a Democrat trying to convince you they’re telling the truth. And the stench is getting harder to ignore.

Scam Melting Under the Heat of Truth


By: Kevin Jackson | January 16, 2025

Read more at https://theblacksphere.net/2025/01/scam-melting-under-the-heat-of-truth/

Add climate change to the list of overhyped catastrophes that are finally biting the dust in 2025.

For nearly three decades, Leftists have spun weather phenomena into a doomsday narrative—a lucrative grift disguised as concern for the planet. And who can forget Y2K’s poster boy for failed predictions, Al Gore? The man who swapped a marriage for a mansion and financed his newfound bachelor lifestyle on taxpayer dollars under the pretense of saving the Earth.

It’s bad enough we’re forced to buy bottled water because of the toxins in the water supply we’re already taxed for. But paying for air? That was my personal line in the sand. From the alleged melting of the polar ice caps to predictions that New York would be underwater by now, the climate change narrative has produced as much hot air as the “science” it’s built upon.

Decade after decade, we’ve been bombarded with predictions as credible as the Heaven’s Gate cult’s belief in salvation by alien spacecraft. At least those poor souls had the decency to only ruin their own lives. Climate alarmists, on the other hand, have turned fleecing the public into an art form.

Take the Heaven’s Gate incident as an example of misplaced faith gone too far.

In 1997, 39 people tragically took their own lives, believing their bodies were mere “containers” to be abandoned for a spaceship trailing the Hale-Bopp comet. While tragic, their actions didn’t involve imposing a global carbon tax. Climate crusaders, however, demand nothing less than a financial and behavioral overhaul of our entire way of life, all based on shaky science and apocalyptic forecasts that never come true.

As it turns out, 2025 is shaping up to be the year of the “climate deniers”—also known as people who simply trust the science of meteorology over the politics of fearmongering. Americans are waking up to the con, and even CNN’s Harry Enten has inadvertently highlighted this shift. As he pointed out, while Google searches for “wildfires” have skyrocketed by 2,400%, searches for “climate change” have actually dropped by 9%.

“So, despite all these extreme weather events, Americans are really no more worried about climate change than they were, what is that, now nearly 35 years ago,” Enten noted. “I mean there’s just no real trend line here.”

The disconnect is clear. People are interested in learning about wildfires and other natural disasters, but they’re not buying the narrative that these events are tied to man-made climate change.

The recent California wildfires underscore this skepticism. Despite relentless Democratic hyperbole and their insistence that the sky is falling, the public took note of the inconvenient truth: many of these fires were manmade—and not in the way climate alarmists would like you to believe.

Take the Maui wildfire disaster as a prime example. Initial cries of “climate change” were quickly drowned out by reports of human negligence and bureaucratic incompetence. From poorly maintained power lines to a stunning lack of preparedness, it became clear that these tragedies had less to do with carbon emissions and more to do with systemic mismanagement. In other words, it wasn’t your SUV’s fault.

This decline in climate change fervor is more than anecdotal. It’s part of a larger trend: the return to common sense. Americans are no longer swayed by Greta Thunberg’s doomsday theatrics or John Kerry’s jet-setting lectures on reducing carbon footprints. They’re realizing that the Earth’s climate has always been in flux, long before humans entered the equation.

Critics like Bjørn Lomborg, author of “False Alarm,” have been vocal about the economic and scientific shortcomings of the climate change narrative. Lomborg argues that the costs of aggressive climate policies far outweigh their benefits, particularly for developing nations that can’t afford to sacrifice economic growth for hypothetical gains in global temperature regulation. And he’s not alone. Scientists like Judith Curry, once a darling of the climate establishment, have since turned whistleblowers, exposing the groupthink and funding biases that plague climate research.

The financial motivations behind climate alarmism are hard to ignore.

Al Gore’s net worth skyrocketed after he left the vice presidency, thanks in no small part to his climate ventures. Meanwhile, organizations like the United Nations continue to push for trillions in climate reparations, conveniently ignoring the rampant corruption and inefficiency that characterize many of their initiatives.

Even Hollywood—typically a reliable cheerleader for leftist causes—is losing its grip on the climate narrative. Recent box office flops with overtly environmentalist themes suggest that audiences are tired of being lectured. People want escapism, not guilt trips.

And then there’s the generational factor. Millennials and Gen Z, often portrayed as the foot soldiers of climate activism, are showing signs of disillusionment. Saddled with student debt and skyrocketing living costs, many are questioning the practicality of policies that prioritize abstract environmental goals over immediate economic realities.

In the end, the death of the climate change narrative isn’t just about science. It’s about trust. Decades of failed predictions, exaggerated claims, and financial exploitation have eroded the credibility of climate alarmists. The public is no longer willing to sacrifice their livelihoods for a cause that increasingly resembles a scam.

As 2025 unfolds, expect to see more pushback against the climate industrial complex. The hysteria that once drove policy decisions is giving way to rational debate and evidence-based approaches. And while the Al Gores and Greta Thunbergs of the world may cling to their talking points, the rest of us can breathe a little easier—both figuratively and literally. The air, after all, is still free.

“Your Credibility with Me is about None”: CNN Trial Goes From Bad to Worse


By: Jonathan Turley | January 16, 2025

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2025/01/16/your-credibility-with-me-is-about-none-cnn-trial-goes-from-bad-to-worse/

In following the defamation trial against CNN by veteran Zachary Young, we have previously (herehere, and here) marveled at how bad things were going for the network.  It appears that they are getting even worse. This has been a brutal week as CNN figures, including host Jake Tapper, took the stand. If “this is CNN,” the judge (and possibly the jury) are not liking what they are seeing. The report at the heart of the case aired on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper” on Nov. 11, 2021, and was shared on social media and (a different version on) CNN’s website. In the segment, Tapper told his audience ominously how CNN correspondent Alex Marquardt discovered that “Afghans trying to get out of the country face a black market full of promises, demands of exorbitant fees, and no guarantee of safety or success.” Marquardt piled on in the segment, claiming that “desperate Afghans are being exploited” and need to pay “exorbitant, often impossible amounts” to flee the country. He then named Young and his company as an example of that startling claim. The evidence included messages from Marquardt that he wanted to “nail this Zachary Young mf**ker” and thought the story would be Young’s “funeral.” After promising to “nail” Young, CNN editor Matthew Philips responded: “gonna hold you to that cowboy!” Likewise, CNN senior editor Fuzz Hogan described Young as “a shit.” As is often done by media, CNN allegedly gave Young only two hours to respond before the story ran. It is a typical ploy of the press to claim that they waited for a response while giving the target the smallest possible window. In this case, Young was able to respond in the short time and Marquardt messaged a colleague, “f**king Young just texted.” In the last week, Tapper was seen on video by the jury and was mocked for claiming under oath that he doesn’t pay attention to ratings,” a claim that could make him unique as a network host. While Tapper can argue that he was referencing the following of daily numbers, critics hammered him by showing repeated clips where he discussed ratings. However, the most damaging testimony may have come from top producers who told the jurors that they opposed the modest apology given to Young on air. Since Young seemed to do well before the jury, the testimony of senior editor Fuzz Hogan, CNN correspondent Alex Marquardt, CNN producer Michael Conte, CNN’s executive vice president of editorial Virginia Moseley, and CNN supervising producer Michael Callahan undermined any effort to portray the network as seeking to amend a wrong or reduce damage to Young.

Arguably, the worst moment came with an argument by CNN’s lead attorney, David Axelrod. Axelrod introduced a document that he claimed was a smoking gun and showed that Young was a liar. Pointing dramatically at Young and waiving the document in the air, Axelrod declared that he had the proof:

“Plaintiff’s entire case, sitting right there, is that after the publications, he couldn’t get any work…Mr. Young knew, when he filed this lawsuit that he had entered into a new consulting agreement with a government contractor one month after CNN’s publication. This entire lawsuit was a fraud on this court. It was a fraud on CNN. This man knew it. I don’t know what they know. But when this came up in discovery, CNN’s counsel asked Mr. Young about the Helios connection, and he completely lied in his deposition. Over and over again, he made up some incredible ruse that Helios just had his security clearance because it was a company that held security clearances. It makes no sense. He knew at that time that he had a consulting agreement with Helios Global and he didn’t disclose it. It was an outright lie.”

However, it turned out that the document merely was Young’s application to maintain his security clearance.

Young’s attorney, Vel Freedman, later laid waste to CNN. He told the court that Young had lost his security clearance back in 2022 and that he hadn’t been aware of that until he double-checked after his testimony in the case. Freedman asked for the right to present a witness who would testify on the issue and Axelrod objected. Judge Henry had had enough and blew up at CNN. He read back Axelrod’s comments and said “You called him a liar multiple times there.” He told Axelrod that he owed an apology to the plaintiff. After telling CNN that “this isn’t Kindergarten,” he added “Right now, your credibility with me, Mr. Axelrod, is about none.”

That is never a good thing to hear from a judge.

Axelrod apologized but the damage is clearly considerable.

The most chilling aspect from a litigation perspective? Axelrod replaced the earlier lead counsel who also imploded in court over ill-considered arguments.

None of this bodes well for the network. Alienating the judge is obviously never good, but it also could have a material impact if there is an award that CNN wants reduced by a order of remittitur. In addition, having top producers expressing a lack of regret and even opposition to the on-air apology could push such damages higher for a jury. Both sides are arguing that “this is CNN,” but these moments are building a more negative view of what that is.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

After Media Try To Provoke Trump-Rubio Rift, Sec. Of State Nominee Pledges Loyalty To America First


By: Jordan Boyd | January 15, 2025

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2025/01/15/after-media-try-to-provoke-trump-rubio-rift-sec-of-state-nominee-pledges-loyalty-to-america-first/

Marco Rubio at his confirmation hearing
Rubio plans to follow through on President Trump’s promises to secure the homeland and re-stabilize the globe.

Author Jordan Boyd profile

Jordan Boyd

Visit on Twitter@jordanboydtx

More Articles

President Donald Trump’s pick for Secretary of State Sen. Marco Rubio doubled down on his commitment to the America First foreign policy agenda during his confirmation hearing on Wednesday, despite a corporate media effort to cause a rift between him and the incoming president.

Politico published a piece one day before the hearing attempting to kiss Rubio’s role as Secretary of State goodbye before it even begins. In the gossip column masquerading as an article, Politico’s Senior Foreign Affairs Correspondent Nahal Toosi uses the alleged analysis of a dozen unnamed “current and former U.S. and foreign officials” to claim that Rubio won’t last as Trump’s Secretary of State because “the odds are high that the two will differ on policy.” Toosi also invokes Trump and Rubio’s history as presidential primary rivals in 2016 as a potential problem for the pair’s ability to strategize effectively.

The only way Rubio will survive leading the State Department, the author insists, “may be to take the punches from his internal rivals, suffer through whatever insults Trump lobs at him, stick to the lanes that are open, and simply let the State Department fade into irrelevance.”

While it’s true that Rubio and Trump ran against each other and that the former used to take more of an interventionist and neocon approach to foreign policy than he does now, a lot has changed politically and globally in the last decade. The ongoing transformation of the Republican party from an arm of the establishment to a party of and for the people, paired with the rapid rise of China’s hegemony, has pushed Trump and Rubio’s visions for the globe much closer together than they were nearly 10 years ago. Both care deeply about projecting U.S. strength to the world while keeping American tax dollars from funding endless wars.

Rubio spokesman Dan Holler told Politico that Rubio is far more focused on executing Trump’s “ambitious foreign policy agenda that will put Americans first and correct the failures of the past four years” than devoting time to corporate media’s “silly games or gossip.” Rubio confirmed to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday that his new job will center on putting America first.

“Under President Trump, the top priority of the United States Department of State will be the United States,” Rubio said in his opening statement. “The direction he has given for the conduct of our foreign policy is clear. Every dollar we spend, every program we fund, every policy we pursue, must be justified by the answer to one of three questions: Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Or does it make America more prosperous?”

On Rubio’s agenda is executing Trump’s vision to curb China’s global influence, end the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas wars, and address the vast problems exacerbating the U.S. border invasion.

In our very own hemisphere, narcoterrorists and dictators, and despots take advantage of open borders to drive mass migration, to traffic in women and children, and to flood our communities with deadly fentanyl and violent criminals,” Rubio said.

The biggest foreign threat facing the U.S. today, he told senators, is the Communist Party of China, “the most potent and dangerous, near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.”

“We welcomed the Chinese Communist Party into the global order, and they took advantage of all of its benefits. And they ignored all of its obligations and responsibilities. Instead, they have repressed, and lied, and cheated, and hacked, and stolen their way into global superpower status. And they have done so at our expense and at the expense of the people of their own country,” Rubio said.

When it comes to Eastern Europe, Rubio says he echoes Trump’s desire for “people to stop dying” and for the U.S. to stop funding a conflict with no end in sight — especially when its own border is compromised.

“I think it should be the official position of the United States that this war should be brought to an end,” Rubio said. “My differences with the Biden administration throughout this process, is that they never clearly delineated what the end goal of the conflict was — what exactly were we funding? What exactly were we putting money towards? On many occasions, it sounded like however much it takes, for however long it takes — that is not a realistic or prudent position.”

Corporate media outlets, anonymous foreign policy officials, and America’s adversaries alike are trying to drive a stake between Rubio and the man who named him to be the face of the nation’s foreign relations with hopes of hampering their effectiveness. Yet, Politico’s own pages admit that Trump and Rubio have successfully worked together to secure their foreign policy goals before.

Rubio’s public commitment to following through on Trump’s promises to secure the homeland and restabilize the globe suggests that, if he is confirmed, productivity is the priority, not pretend personal strife.


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

AG Nominee Bondi Clashes with Democratic Senators in Confirmation Hearing


By: Fred Lucas | January 15, 2025

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/01/15/ag-nominee-bondi-clashes-with-democratic-senators-confirmation-hearing/

Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday at her confirmation hearing for U.S. attorney general. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Attorney General-designate Pam Bondi vowed Wednesday that her focus, if confirmed, would be on restoring integrity to a politicized Justice Department and to “make America safe again,” as she fended off criticism from Democratic senators. 

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a confirmation hearing for Bondi, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for attorney general. While Republicans on the panel talked about the weaponization of the Justice Department that has occurred in recent years, Democrats warned that Trump might seek to prosecute opponents. 

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said that Bondi must be willing to say “no” to Trump if the president-to-be were to order her to target political opponents.

“You have to be able to say that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. You dodged that question. You have to be able to say the Jan. 6 insurrectionists who committed violence shouldn’t be pardoned,” Blumenthal said. “You have to be able to say that a nominee to be FBI director who says he has an enemies list … shouldn’t be FBI director.”

Bondi responded that she didn’t “have” to say anything. 

“I need to clarify something that you said, that I have to sit up here and say these things,” Bondi told Blumenthal. “No, I don’t. I sit up here and speak the truth. I’m not going to sit up here and say anything that I need to say to get confirmed by this body. I don’t have to say anything. I will answer the questions to the best of my ability and honestly.”

She also challenged the characterization of several Democratic senators that Trump’s nominee to be FBI director, Kash Patel, had an “enemies list.”

During the hearing, Bondi told Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., “There will never be an enemies list in the Department of Justice.”

Whitehouse asked whether Justice Department prosecutors—presumably referring to those who investigated Trump—will be prosecuted during the incoming Trump administration. 

“Will everyone be held to an equal, fair system of justice? Absolutely. And no one is above the law,” Bondi said, adding, “You find the facts of the case, apply the law in good faith, and treat everyone fairly.”

Whitehouse responded, “It would not be appropriate for a prosecutor to start with a name and look for a crime. It’s a prosecutor’s job to look for a crime and start with a  name. Would you agree?”

“Senator, I think that is the whole problem of the weaponization we have seen the last four years and what has happened to Donald Trump. They targeted Donald Trump. They went after him. Back in 2016, they targeted his campaign.”

In another exchange, Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said, “I’m asking you, sitting here today, whether you are aware of any predicate to investigate Liz Cheney?”

Bondi replied, “Senator, no one has asked me to investigate Liz Cheney,” a Republican former member of Congress from Wyoming.

Schiff, who as a House member participated on the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol uprising alongside Cheney, shot back, “But the president has called for it.”

“You are so worried about Liz Cheney, senator,” Bondi replied. “Do you know what we should worry about? The crime rate in California right now is through the roof. Your robberies are 87% higher than the national average. That’s what I want to be focused on, Senator, as attorney general.”

Despite some of the drama, toward the end of the hearing, Schiff’s fellow California Democrat, Sen. Alex Padilla, suggested it was clear that Bondi would be confirmed for the job by the full Senate.

“I know how to count and know how to read tea leaves,” Padilla said. “It seems to me you are very likely to be confirmed. … And I look forward to working with you.”

Bondi, the Florida state attorney general from 2011 to 2019, was Trump’s second choice for attorney general, after it became clear that then-Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., lacked support in the Senate. Before her election to state office, Bondi was a state prosecutor in Hillsborough County, Florida. Bondi has been an ally of Trump, and was on his legal team for the first Senate impeachment trial as a lawyer for the White House counsel. 

Early in the hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, talked about “the rot infecting” the Justice Department, which he described as “catastrophic.” Grassley noted that current Attorney General Merrick Garland did not respond to the Iowa senator’s letters of oversight inquiry.

“In short, Ms. Bondi is highly qualified, and of course as we all know, a change is desperately needed,” Grassley said. “The Justice Department is infected with political decision making, while its leaders refuse to acknowledge that reality.”

Bondi told Grassley that transparency to Congress will be key to reforms. Unlike Garland, Bondi said she would respond to congressional oversight of the Justice Department, including Grassley’s letters.

“Senator, either I or my top staff will personally review the letters and do everything we can to respond to you,” the nominee said.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., raised the issue of attacks on religious freedom under the Biden-Harris administration’s Justice Department; specifically, an FBI field office seeking to investigate traditional Catholic churches. 

“This memo that calls for repeatedly targeting Catholic parishes repeatedly refers to an expert source as a group called the Southern Poverty Law Center,” Hawley noted.  “The Southern Poverty Law Center has a long history as an anti-religious group that has repeatedly gone after conservative and religious organizations calling them ‘hate groups,’ called ‘terrorist groups.’ … Will you put a stop to the use of the SPLC as an official source for any Department of Justice memorandum or finding?”

Bondi replied, “That will be one of the first things we look at, Senator, and report back to you and the committee.” 

Also during the hearing, Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., praised Bondi for the goal of restoring credibility to the Justice Department, but said the department shouldn’t launch its own lawfare.

“There will be those who say, ‘Two wrongs don’t make a right, but it does make it even,’” Kennedy said. “Resist that temptation. Help us restore legitimacy to the Department of Justice.” 

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, similarly noted it’s ironic that Democrats on the committee seemed worried about a weaponized Justice Department. 

“I don’t want a Republican Department of Justice. I don’t want a Democratic Department of Justice. I want a Department of Justice that enforces the damned law,” Cruz said. 

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., brough up the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances, or FACE Act, law that the Justice Department regularly uses to prosecute pro-life protesters at abortion clinics. 

“Will you commit to continuing to enforce the FACE Act to address violence and threats against those providing reproductive health care?” Klobuchar asked. 

Bondi responded that the law also protects pregnancy centers that don’t focus on abortion. 

“Senator, the FACE Act not only protects abortion clinics, but it protects pregnancy centers and people going for counseling,” Bondi said. “The law should be applied evenhandedly.”

Several Democrats noted that Bondi also worked for Trump during the post-2020 election litigation. 

“Joe Biden is the president of the United States,” Bondi answered on several occasions. 

In response to a question from Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill, the committee’s ranking member, Bondi said: “Do I accept the results? Of course,” adding: “No one from either side of the aisle should want any issue with election integrity.”

Bondi added: “We should all want our elections to be free and fair.” 

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., asked if she becomes attorney general, whose lawyer would she be?

“My oath would be to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. My client would be the people of America. I would advise the president,” Bondi replied. 

Coons followed with an unusual question: “Is President Trump eligible to run for another term in 2028?”

Bondi replied, “No, Senator, not unless they change the Constitution.” 

Coons followed by asking what would happen if Trump asked her not to investigate a criminal defendant, or to do something illegal. 

“If I thought that would happen, I would not be sitting here today,” Bondi said. “Every case will be prosecuted, and the law will be applied in good faith. … Politics has played a role for years and years and years, and it has to stop.”

Free Speake: Music Professor to Sue Over Cancel Campaign


By: Jonathan Turley | January 15, 2025

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2025/01/15/free-speake-music-professor-to-sue-over-cancel-campaign/

Martin Speake, a British jazz “composer, saxophonist, academic and educator” is preparing a lawsuit against Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music and Dance over a cancel campaign that targeted him after he criticized the school’s “BLM/anti-racist policies and initiatives” and denied that there was “systemic racial inequality in the UK jazz scene.” His case is strikingly similar to other targeted professors discussed in my recent book on free speech.

The controversy began when Speake was asked to give feedback on the policies. As he later explained, he was immediately set upon by critics calling him a racist. He stressed his bona fides:

“I hold a true and genuine belief in the equality and dignity of all human beings. I have been politically expressive about this and was even arrested in 1977 for protesting against the National Front. More recently, I co-organised the initiative ‘Long Tones for Peace’ in London’s Union Chapel, with the aim of inspiring the peaceful co-existence of all people worldwide.”

They did not help.

Sometime later I forwarded this email to a student with whom I had had a stimulating conversation on the topic earlier that day. This student showed the email to some peers, but didn’t forward it to anyone. Nevertheless, as some students heard about it, the email began to attract some discontent and speculation within the student body. TL [Trinity Laban] then halted my teaching and pressured me to consent to the circulation of my email to the entire jazz department.

Speake said that Trinity Laban “threatened” him with “disciplinary action,” and he was subjected to the all-too-familiar cancel campaign, including a boycott of his classes.

Students complained that his view of the jazz community had “affected their mental health” and a Change.org petition created by “Distressed Student” complained of being “deeply affected” by Speake’s view and how it “perpetuated harmful and defamatory narratives about black musicians in the jazz industry.”

Most disturbing may have been the knee-jerk reaction of the London Jazz Orchestra. Speake was the lead alto saxophonist for 15 years, but he was requested to take a leave of absence. So, the London Jazz Orchestra forced a musician to take leave after he exercised his free speech rights. He would not have faced such action if he had supported the policies. He had voiced a dissenting note on such policies, and the Orchestra tossed a fellow artist to the curb.

So, Speake is now persona non grata because, by offering his view of these policies, he allegedly showed a “lack of sensitivity” and “created an uncomfortable and distressing learning environment.”

Speake later announced that “with a very heavy heart I had no choice but to resign from my post with [Trinity Laban] in November 2024 as my working environment had become unbearable.” He has filed a complaint against Trinity Laban.

George Gershwin once said that “life is a lot like jazz… it’s best when you improvise.” However, Trinity Laban and the London Jazz Orchestra would add that musicians should not take such freedom beyond their music. Improvisation in speech is likely to get you canceled. When it comes to free speech, the jazz community is perfectly Gregorian.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

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


A.F. Branco Cartoon – A Head Scratcher

A.F. Branco | on January 15, 2025 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-a-head-scratcher/

02 MovingOut DT 1080
A Political Cartoon by A.F Branco 2025

FacebookTwitterPinterestFlipboard

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Democrat voters, seeing firsthand the disaster their Democrat leaders’ policies have brought to their neighborhood, will most likely continue to vote for them.

Powerful: Actress Justine Bateman Unloads on California’s ‘Useless’ Leaders Who Should “Resign Out of Shame” (Video)

By Margaret Flavin – The Gateway Pundit – Jan 11, 2025

Gen Xer’s grew up on the iconic show Family Ties. Actress Justine Bateman played the slightly ditzy but surprisingly deep sister Mallory opposite Michael J. Fox’s briefcase-carrying tie-wearing Republican brother Alex.
While Bateman’s acting career has continued over the years, she has also expanded her creative repertoire to include directing, producing, and writing.
Bateman’s X account has become a must-follow for her straightforward take on the current political landscape.
On Friday, a justifiably angry Bateman joined Jesse Watters and unloaded on California’s useless leaders and their abject failure to protect their citizens. READ MORE

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

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

Pete Hegseth Makes The Definitive Case Why He’s Qualified To Be Trump’s Defense Secretary


By: Shawn Fleetwood | January 14, 2025

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2025/01/14/pete-hegseth-makes-the-definitive-case-why-hes-qualified-to-be-trumps-defense-secretary/

Pete Hegseth testifying at his confirmation hearing.

During his Tuesday Senate confirmation hearing, Pete Hegseth provided his best case yet on why he’s the perfect man to be President-elect Donald Trump’s defense secretary.

Speaking before the Armed Services Committee, the Army veteran noted how the “the primary charge” given to him by Trump was to “bring the warrior culture back to the Department of Defense.” He subsequently detailed how he intends to make the Pentagon into an agency “laser focused on warfighting, lethality, meritocracy, standards, and readiness.”

“The Defense Department under Donald Trump will achieve Peace Through Strength. And in pursuing these America First national security goals, we will remain patriotically a-political and stridently Constitutional,” Hegseth said. “Unlike the current administration, politics should play no part in military matters. We are not Republicans or Democrats — we are American warriors. Our standards will be high, and they will be equal (not equitable, that is a very different word).”

Since coming to power nearly four years ago, the Biden-Harris Pentagon has made implementing neo-Marxist ideologies such as “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) a top priority. These policies have undermined military readiness and contributed to the service’s ongoing recruiting crisis.

Hegseth stressed that the Defense Department must “make sure every warrior is fully qualified on their assigned weapon system, every pilot is fully qualified and current on the aircraft they are flying, and every general or flag officer is selected for leadership based purely on performance, readiness, and merit.” He further noted how, “Leaders — at all levels — will be held accountable,” and that “warfighting and lethality — and the readiness of the troops and their families — will be our only focus.”

“That has been my focus ever since I first put on the uniform as a young Army ROTC cadet at Princeton University in 2001,” Hegseth said. “I joined the military because I love my country and felt an obligation to defend it. I served with incredible Americans in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, Afghanistan and in the streets of Washington, DC — many of which are here today. This includes enlisted soldiers I helped become American citizens, and Muslim allies I helped immigrate from Iraq and Afghanistan. And when I took off the uniform, my mission never stopped.”

[READ: ‘Pete’s A Patriot’: More Than 100 Veterans And Supporters Rally For Hegseth’s Pentagon Nomination]

The former Fox News host described the three-prong approach he and Trump will take to restore lethality and efficiency to the military. Specifically, he noted that the incoming administration will focus on bringing back the military’s “warrior ethos,” rebuilding the service’s broken infrastructure, and reestablishing “deterrence” to create peace on the world stage.

Hegseth also responded to Democrat allegations that he’s not “qualified” to serve as defense secretary. The Army veteran acknowledged that he doesn’t “have a similar biography to defense secretaries of the last 30 years,” but noted, “we’ve repeatedly placed people atop the Pentagon with supposedly ‘the right credentials’ — whether they are retired generals, academics, or defense contractor executives — and where has it gotten us?”

President-elect Trump “believes, and I humbly agree, that it’s time to give someone with dust on his boots the helm. A change agent. Someone with no vested interest in certain companies or specific programs or approved narratives,” Hegseth said.

The Army veteran reaffirmed that his “only special interest is [America’s] warfighter[s], [d]eterring wars, and if called upon, winning wars — by ensuring our warriors never enter a fair fight.” He further emphasized the importance of the military letting its troops “win” and then “bring[ing] them home.”

“Like many of my generation, I’ve been there. I’ve led troops in combat, been on patrol
for days, pulled a trigger downrange, heard bullets whiz by, flex-cuffed insurgents, called
in close air support, led medevacs, dodged IEDs, pulled out dead bodies, and knelt before a battlefield cross,”
Hegseth said. “[T]his is not academic for me; this is my life. I led then, and I will lead now.”


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

Author Shawn Fleetwood profile

Shawn Fleetwood

Visit on Twitter@ShawnFleetwood

More Articles

Two House Dems join GOP to ban biological males from girls’ school sports


By Elizabeth Elkind Fox News | Published January 14, 2025 2:49pm EST | Updated January 14, 2025

Read more at https://www.foxnews.com/politics/two-house-dems-join-gop-ban-biological-males-from-girls-school-sports

Two House Democrats have voted alongside Republican lawmakers to ban athletes born male from participating on girls’ school sports teams. The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, led by Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., would amend federal law to specify that student athletes must participate in school sports teams that coincide with their gender at birth. 

Reps. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, and Vicente Gonzales, D-Texas, were the lone Democrats to vote for the bill when it passed 218 to 206. Rep. Don Davis, D-N.C., voted “present.”

All three won re-election on razor-thin margins in districts that have trended redder over the years.

Senate Republicans have already signaled they are aiming to take up the bill soon.

TRANS VOLLEYBALL PLAYER ACCUSED OF PLAN TO HARM TEAMMATE AFTER TAKING SCHOLARSHIPS FROM FEMALE PLAYERS

Save Women's Sports sign held at the US Capitol
Republicans have been pushing to restrict transgender sports participation, particularly for girls’ teams. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The change would apply to all federally funded schools from kindergarten through high school, as well as colleges and universities that receive federal dollars.

It comes after several Democrats spoke out against their own party’s laser focus on inclusivity and progressivism, arguing that the far-left did not leave any room for dissent on issues like transgender youth. Notably, however, some Democrats who raised such issues – like Reps. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., and Seth Moulton, D-Mass. – voted against the bill.

Republicans have championed the bill as a bid to protect women and girls from unfair athletic standards.

HOW TRANSGENDERISM IN SPORTS SHIFTED THE 2024 ELECTION AND IGNITED A NATIONAL COUNTERCULTURE

Florida Republican Rep. Greg Steube
Florida Republican Rep. Greg Steube first introduced the bill in the 118th Congress. (Mandel Ngan/AFP/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., challenged Democrats on the bill during his weekly press conference on Tuesday.

“Everyone’s talking about their children today. I’ve got two sons and two daughters, and we see the difference. Of course everyone does. And it’s kind of silly to deny it,” Johnson said. “The American people sent a clear message in November. They want us to return to common sense, and we’re going to see if Democrats have heard that message.”

Rep. Doug LaMalfa, R-Calif., said during debate on the bill, “Why are we even having to discuss this? It’s amazing to me that the idea that we would have XY chromosome males competing and taking the place of women and girls in sports is just mind-blowing. Where are we in society that we’re doing this? Where are the feminists? Where are the people who fought so hard to get rights for women?” LaMalfa asked.

TRANSGENDER BILL BARRING MEN FROM WOMEN’S SPORTS TO GET FLOOR VOTE IN NEWLY GOP-LED SENATE

https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2025/01/2025-01-03-protection-of-women-and-girls-in-sports-act-text.pdf

But the majority of Democrats were vehemently opposed to the bill, with Rep. Sara Jacobs, D-Calif., and others dubbing it “The GOP Child Predator Empowerment Act.”1

Rep. Andrea Salinas, D-Ore., argued, “This bill sets an unfair playing field that any parent can raise a concern that a transgender girl is playing on a girls’ team,” while noting such cases were rare.

“These decisions should be left to parents, coaches, teachers, and families – not D.C. politicians. In addition, this bill could open the door to young girls experiencing intrusive questioning, or worse. I will not rubber stamp bad policy. Republicans should stop focusing on culture wars and start getting to work on lowering costs, investing in public education, and increasing access to affordable health care,” freshman Rep. Eugene Vindman, D-Va., said after the bill passed.

The bill previously passed the House in 2023 in a 219 to 203 vote, but it was never taken up in the formerly Democratic-controlled Senate.

Elizabeth Elkind is a politics reporter for Fox News Digital leading coverage of the House of Representatives. Previous digital bylines seen at Daily Mail and CBS News.

Follow on Twitter at @liz_elkind and send tips to elizabeth.elkind@fox.com

Parts I, 2 & 3: Inferno of Insanity in LA


By: Kevin Jackson | January 11, 2025

Read more at https://theblacksphere.net/2025/01/inferno-of-insanity-la/

The City of Angels is ablaze, and the irony couldn’t be more striking. LA burning to the ground has accomplished something rare: it’s turned the national spotlight on the absurdity of Leftist governance.

Let’s take stock of the players in this tragedy. At the top, we have a governor who could be the poster child for style over substance. Gavin Newsom is the guy you’d hire to play “concerned politician” in a Netflix series, not someone you’d trust to lead in an actual crisis. His brand? Smug photo-ops and buzzword-riddled speeches. Substance? Nonexistent.

And at the local level, it somehow gets worse. The leadership of the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) reads like a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) experiment gone terribly wrong. The hiring and promotion process is more about checking identity boxes than finding people qualified to combat real-world disasters.

Then there’s the cause of the fires. Initially blamed on global climate change, the narrative quickly unraveled. Authorities discovered a literal flamethrower in the hands of a deranged individual—one who, I might add, seemed more like a walking caricature of Leftist dysfunction than the embodiment of any conservative boogeyman. Five cell phones? A United Nations calling card? If the Devil had a child, they’d look like this guy, complete with chaos as their middle name.

So yes, climate change has a face, and it’s a human being—though perhaps we should check which pronouns the arsonist prefers before proceeding further.

Democrats and the Politics of Chaos

Newsom wasted no time blaming climate change for the fires. Think about that for a moment: one of the most catastrophic fires in recent history was weaponized to perpetuate the climate change narrative. Yet the truth revealed that it was the work of one of Newsom’s own citizens, not some freak weather phenomenon.

It’s a pattern, isn’t it? Democrats thrive on chaos. If chaos doesn’t exist, they manufacture it. Where chaos already exists, they stoke the flames—sometimes literally. This isn’t hyperbole; it’s a playbook.

Meanwhile, conservatives—especially MAGA conservatives—are problem solvers. We work to uphold the Constitution’s promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Democrats, on the other hand, torch the framework, then sell you on the lie that their arsonist tendencies are somehow virtuous.

Another Conspiracy Confirmed

Once again, what started as a wild conspiracy theory has been confirmed: Democrats are responsible for the fires. Whether by arsonist proxy or through failed policies that allow such lunatics to thrive, the result is the same—destruction disguised as progress.

In a particularly sardonic twist, local authorities describe the culprit as a “savvy arsonist” familiar with wind patterns and fire science, targeting affluent areas. So much for the climate change fairy tale. Turns out, it’s plain old arson—strategic, methodical, and painfully human.

When your neighborhood HOA newsletter contains more actionable intelligence than your elected officials, maybe it’s time to admit we have a problem. And it’s not climate change. It’s leadership—or rather, the lack thereof.

To showcase the real insanity of Leftism, even acts of kindness must be investigated by the California Gestapo:

This California city wanted to make sure it got tax revenue and perhaps a license fee if this man had been selling hot dogs to beleaguered firefighters.

California politicians need to reset their priorities. Because they couldn’t be more out of touch.

Check out Part II of this article, where I discuss the players in this horrible saga.

Part II: Playing with Fire and How DEI Policies Let LA Burn

By: Kevin Jackson | January 11, 2025

https://theblacksphere.net/2025/01/part-ii-playing-with-fire-and-how-dei-policies-let-la-burn/

The United States is the land of plenty, yet when it comes to providing water—a basic necessity for life—we’re starting to look like a Third World country. It’s a surreal problem, given that one of our citizens has mastered feats like landing rockets back on Earth. So why can’t we solve water crises in places like California? The truth is as simple as it is damning incompetence and greed.

California, with all its wealth and technological prowess, could solve its water issues if it wanted to. Areas of the country regularly flood while others face severe droughts. The solution—moving excess water to areas in need—isn’t rocket science. The same man who lands spaceships back to earth manufactures earth boring equipment. One would think we could dig tunnels from areas of high rain to areas of low rain and manage the water supply chain. But instead of solving the problem, California prioritizes political posturing over practicality.


DEI and the LA Fires

In case you were aware of how bad DEI is, understand that a Chinese spy who infiltrated New York City’s government promoted it.

If our biggest enemy is promoting something, it stands to reason we should avoid it. But look at this statistic regarding probability of hiring 3 Lesbians in the LAFD:

The LA fire crisis exemplifies this deadly mix of incompetence and misplaced priorities. At its core, the issue isn’t just about water; it’s about the leadership managing these crises—or failing to manage them.

The Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) is a case study in progressive politics gone awry. The department’s leadership roster isn’t filled with the most qualified individuals but instead boasts a trio of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) appointees:

  • Kristina Crowley: First LGBTQ Fire Chief of the LAFD, earning a staggering $439,722 annually.
  • Kristine Larson: First Black lesbian Equity Bureau Chief, with a salary of $399,000.
  • Kristina Kepner: First Lesbian Assistant Chief, making $264,468 per year.

Together, these three cost taxpayers over $1 million annually. But what are they delivering for that money?


Leadership or Liability?

Let’s start with Assistant Chief Kristine Larson, who openly admits that some women may struggle to carry a man out of a fire. Her solution? Blame the victim. Larson’s words, paraphrased: “He shouldn’t have gotten himself into that position in the first place.” Imagine hearing that as your loved one’s life hangs in the balance.


The emphasis on DEI over competence has real consequences. Fires don’t care about your race, gender, or sexual orientation. When your house is engulfed in flames, the only thing that matters is whether the person coming to your rescue is capable. DEI does nothing to ensure that. Instead, it undermines meritocracy, placing political agendas above public safety.


Beyond the LAFD: A National Crisis

The problem isn’t confined to Los Angeles. This is a microcosm of what’s happening across the nation. DEI is infiltrating every sector—from the military to education to criminal justice. As meritocracy gives way to identity politics, the cost is measured in lives lost, homes destroyed, and dreams shattered.

The LA fires—massive, deadly, and avoidable—stand as a fiery indictment of this systemic failure. Water was available, but mismanagement and greed kept it from where it was needed most. DEI hires aren’t solving these problems; they’re exacerbating them.


Political Fires Burn Hotter

While LA burned, leftists on social media cheered the destruction of conservative actor James Woods’ home. They ignored the fact that their neighbors’ homes burned too. To them, the fire wasn’t a tragedy—it was a political statement. This kind of thinking exemplifies the broader issue: a society so divided by ideology that even disasters become partisan talking points.

We need leaders who are chosen for their ability to do the job, not their ability to check a diversity box. Until then, expect more fires, more failures, and more preventable tragedies.

Next, I will discuss the political leadership that allowed this clusterf*ck to occur.

Part III: California Leftists Leaders Fan the Flames of Incompetence

When Diversity Kills More Than It Saves

By: Kevin Jackson | January 12, 2025

https://theblacksphere.net/2025/01/part-iii-california-leftists-leaders-fan-the-flames-of-incompetence/

Los Angeles is in ashes—both literally and figuratively. A combination of failed leadership, radical ideologies, and gross mismanagement has left the city devastated. The staggering toll includes $60 billion in property damage, lives lost, and neighborhoods destroyed. What’s worse is that it didn’t have to happen.

The culprit remains DEI. And we have more Leftist women to add to the list of Lesbians who actually allowed this massive fire to occur. But before we get to them, let’s remove one boogeyman: the insurance companies.

Insurance Fallout and Fire Prevention Neglect

Leftists have tried to deflect blame of the fire to insurance companies. Democrats want people outraged by insurance companies dropping coverage. However, what they don’t want known is why the insurance companies dropped coverage.

The reason points back to government incompetence. Because the state of California has consistently failed to perform basic fire prevention activities, such as clearing brush and maintaining firebreaks. These are the very measures that keep fires from spiraling into uncontrollable infernos. And this is just for starters.

Intentional Malfeasance?

Governor Gavin Newsom slashed CalFire budgets while vetoing a bill that would have retained thousands of seasonal firefighters, leaving critical positions unfilled. Meanwhile, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass cut $17 million from the fire department budget last year and, according to a leaked document obtained by the Daily Mail, requested an additional $49 million in cuts. The very departments tasked with protecting Angelenos from disasters are being gutted by leftist leaders who claim to champion public welfare.

Water Shortages: Janisse Quinones and LADWP

At the center of the fire response debacle is Janisse Quinones, head of LA’s Department of Water and Power (LADWP). Appointed by Mayor Bass in May 2024, Quinones earns $750,000 annually, nearly double the salary of her male predecessor. Her appointment was a “diversity win” for Bass’s administration but has proven to be an operational disaster. Under her leadership, LA ran out of water for fighting fires, leaving firefighters unable to contain the blazes.


The failure to provide basic resources underscores a grim reality: DEI-driven appointments that prioritize symbolism over competence put lives at risk. The so-called “patriarchy” may not be in vogue, but it certainly kept the water flowing when it mattered.

Leftist Ideology Over Lives

Instead of accepting responsibility, leftists have deflected blame by invoking their favorite scapegoat: climate change. Fires that result from neglected firebreaks, underfunded departments, and bureaucratic incompetence are framed as acts of nature. But there’s no denying the truth: these disasters are man-made, created by those in power.

Even as Oregon fire crews offered aid, their engines were delayed in Sacramento for DOT inspections—bureaucracy over urgency. This red tape kept critical resources from reaching LA while fires raged unchecked, and is symbolic of how leftism works.

The Media’s Complicity

Media outlets, ever eager to shield Democrats, have rushed to obfuscate the facts. CNN’s Anderson Cooper absurdly suggested that the real issue wasn’t government failure but homeowners “hoarding water” to protect their properties. These homeowners, many of whom have been abandoned by insurers, were left to fend for themselves because government services failed.

As President Reagan famously said [pp]: “The most terrifying words in the English language are, I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

Gavin Newsom: Lies and Negligence

Governor Newsom, always quick to spin disasters into self-promotion, was caught lying about reaching out to President Biden for federal assistance. His office claimed he had made the call, but no such communication exists. This “style over substance” governance is nothing new for Newsom, whose veto of critical fire-prevention funding set the stage for these catastrophes.


Worse yet, his broader policies—gutting fire budgets while championing costly green energy initiatives—have made California more vulnerable to disasters. Newsom’s failures are not just negligence; they’re malpractice.

Karen Bass: A Radical Agenda

Karen Bass’s radical agenda has left LA vulnerable in more ways than one. From pushing “Down With the Patriarchy” rhetoric to dismantling functional systems in favor of ideological experiments, Bass has prioritized politics over public safety. The leaked document revealing her request for additional fire department budget cuts is a chilling reminder of her misplaced priorities.

DEI = DIE

The formula is clear: prioritizing diversity and ideology over competence and safety leads to disasters. The current crisis in Los Angeles is a case study in what happens when DEI policies replace proven systems. The people of LA are left with ashes, excuses, and a government that continues to fail them.

The Real Danger

As long as leftists hold power, they will continue to deflect responsibility and blame invisible boogeymen like “climate change.” But the truth is clear: radical progressivism is the real danger—not just to California, but to the nation.

Jacksonian Obstruction: Smith Explains How He Was Planning to Circumvent the Decision in Fischer


By: Jonathan Turley | January 14, 2025

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2025/01/14/smiths-supreme-obstruction-special-counsel-explains-how-he-was-planning-to-circumvent-the-supreme-court-decision-in-fischer/

The release of the first part of Jack Smith’s report at midnight was the special counsel’s version of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision: we had seen it before. Putting aside the public filings where Smith fought to get this information out before the election, there was little new in the report. What the report did not contain is an explanation of how Smith destroyed his own cases against Trump. However, one notable element was Smith’s reliance on a dubious concurrence by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the subject of a prior column on what would be an interpretation that was too clever by half.

Much of the report was vintage Smith in dismissing countervailing precedent and insisting that he could “obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.” He may be right about obtaining a conviction before a D.C. jury and a highly motivated judge against Trump.  However, he would not have been able to sustain any conviction — and this report makes that abundantly clear.

Smith repeats the same conclusory evidence, such as citing how Trump said “fight” ten times in his January 6th speech. He minimized the immunity decision by removing some evidence but kept largely the original indictment. However, the treatment of the obstruction claims was the most telling and indicative of Smith, who has repeatedly lost cases due to overextending constitutional and statutory authority.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States rejecting the use of obstruction of legal proceedings against January 6th defendants will potentially impact hundreds of cases. For some, it may lead to dismissals or, in the cases with multiple charges, resentencings. One of those cases that will be impacted is the pending prosecution of former president Donald Trump who is facing four charges, including two obstruction counts. It was not clear if Special Counsel Jack Smith would yield to the decision or possibly take the dubious path laid out by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her concurrence.

However, Smith tended to push the law to the breaking point to bag defendants. That was the case when his conviction of former Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell was unanimously reversed as overextending another law.

As I wrote previously after the decision, “It is doubtful that [Smith] will go quietly into the night after the Fischer decision.” In most cases, a prosecutor would go back and secure a superseding indictment in light of the loss of the obstruction claims. Those claims were central to the narrative of the government under the Trump indictment. However, I wrote that it “is not Smith’s style” to yield to precedent and that he would likely “take a not-so-subtle hint from Jackson in her concurrence.”

Jackson supported the majority in finding that the obstruction provision, Section 1512(c), was enacted after the Enron case to address the destruction of documents and records.

Section 1512(c)(1) prohibits corruptly obstructing an official proceeding by altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing a record, document, or other object with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding. However, a second provision under subsection (c)(2) allowed for charges that would “otherwise” obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding. The Court held that the obstruction cases under Section 1512(c)(2) must be tied to impairing the integrity or availability of evidence.

However, in a single justice concurrence, she added a way that Smith and other prosecutors might still be able to shoehorn January 6th into a Section 1512 offense:

“That official proceeding [Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote] plainly used certain records, documents, or objects—including, among others, those relating to the electoral votes themselves. And it might well be that Fischer’s conduct, as alleged here, involved the impairment (or the attempted impairment) of the availability or integrity of things used during the January 6 proceeding “in ways other than those specified in (c)(1).” Ante, at 8. If so, then Fischer’s prosecution under §1512(c)(2) can, and should, proceed. That issue remains available for the lower courts to determine on remand.”

Once again, no other justice joined Jackson in the concurrence.

Right on cue, Smith revealed that he was going to do precisely what I feared in taking a position supported by a single justice. In his report, Smith wrote:

“Mr. Trump’s and his co-conspirators’ obstruction involved replacing valid elector certificates from the contested states with false ones they had manufactured-the Office anticipated the possibility of such a result in Fischer and confirmed that the evidence would prove Mr. Trump’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt even under a narrow interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2).”

Just saying that a proceeding involves “certain records” is transparently artificial and forced. Even the submission of an alternative slate of electors is not the destruction of electors certified by the secretaries of state.

The federal law allows for challenges in Congress, which Democrats previously utilized without claims of insurrections or attacks on democracy. J6 Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), voted to challenge the certification of the 2004 results of President George W. Bush’s reelection; committee member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sought to challenge Trump’s certification in 2016. Both did so under the very law that Trump’s congressional supporters used in 2020. And Pelosi and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) praised the challenge organized by then-Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) in 2004.

Those challenges under the same loose theory could have been viewed as attempting to negate or destroy certifications from the states. It would have likely, in my view, result in another reversal. However, Smith is always about securing convictions more than sustaining appeals. That is why he filed the second case in D.C., where he was given the best possible judge for the prosecution, a judge viewed by many as predisposed against Trump.

In a sentencing hearing of a Jan. 6 rioter in 2022, Chutkan had said that the rioters “were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution.” She added then, “[i]t’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” That “one person” was then brought to her for trial by Smith.

So Smith was going to proceed on the theory of a single justice with the help of a favorable jury and a motivated judge. Little has changed with Smith since his unanimous reversal in the McDonnell case, which seems much of the reason that he was appointed.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

This column also appeared on Fox.com


Merchan’s Monster: Judge’s Attempt to Calm the Townspeople Fails Spectacularly in Trump Trial

By: Jonathan Turley | January 13, 2025

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2025/01/11/merchans-monster-judges-attempt-to-calm-townspeople-fails-in-trump-trial/

Below is my column in the New York Post on the statement by Acting Justice Juan Merchan in the sentencing of President-elect Donald Trump. Merchan’s effort to justify the handing of the case sounded like the second defense argument made in the hearing. It likely changed few minds in the court of public opinion.

Here is the column:

This week, the sentencing of President-Elect Donald Trump saw one of the most impassioned defense arguments given at such a hearing in years . . . from the judge himself. Acting Justice Juan Merchan admitted that the case was “unique and remarkable” but insisted that “once the courtroom doors were closed, the trial itself was no more special, unique, and extraordinary than the other 32 cases in this courthouse.”

If so, that is a chilling indictment of the entire New York court system. Merchan allowed a dead misdemeanor to be resuscitated by allowing Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to effectively prosecute declined federal offenses. He allowed a jury to convict Trump without any agreement, let alone unanimity, on what actually occurred in the case. Merchan ruled that the jury did not have to agree on why Trump committed an alleged offense in describing settlement costs as legal costs. Neither the defendant nor the public will ever know what the jury ultimately found in its verdict.

once described this case as a legal Frankenstein: “It is the ultimate gravedigger charge, where Bragg unearthed a case from 2016 and, through a series of novel steps, is seeking to bring it back to life…Bragg is combining parts from both state and federal codes.”

Even liberal legal experts have denounced the case and Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) recently called it total “b—s–t.”

Now, Merchan seemed to assure this Frankenstein case that he was just like any other creature of the court. It did not matter that he was stitched together from dead cases and zapped into life through lawfare.

Merchan knows that there is a fair chance this monstrosity will finally die on appeal, and he was making the case for his own conduct. The verdict, however, is likely to last far longer than the Trump verdict. It is a judgment against not just Merchan but the New York legal system, which allowed itself to be weaponized against political opponents.

In the Mary Shelley novel, Frankenstein says “I am thy creature: I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel.”

Trump can now appeal the case as a whole. Prior appeals in the New York court system were unsuccessful, and hopes are low that the system will redeem itself. However, Trump can eventually escape the vortex of the New York court system in search of jurists willing to see beyond the rage and bring reason to this case.

Notably, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass cited Chief Justice John Roberts in his argument before Merchan, noting that Roberts recently chastised those who attack the courts. (Roberts just the night before joined liberal justices and Justice Amy Coney Barrett in refusing to stay the sentencing). Steinglass portrayed Trump as an existential threat to the rule of law.

Roberts, however, is everything that Merchan is not. You can disagree with him, but he has repeatedly ruled against his own preferred outcomes in cases, including rulings against President Trump and his campaign and Administration. For his part, Trump declined to criticize the court and declared that “This is a long way from finished and I respect the court’s opinion.”

Indeed it is. Merchan’s monster will now go on the road and work its way back to the Supreme Court. Outside of New York this freak attraction will likely be viewed as less thrilling than chilling.

The election had the feel of the townspeople coming to the castle in the movie. In this case, however, the townspeople were right about what they saw in the making of a creature that threatened their very existence. Lawfare is that monster. It threatens us all, even those who hate Trump and his supporters. Once released, it spreads panic among the public which can no longer rely on the guarantees of blind and fair justice. That includes businesses who view this case and the equally absurd civil case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James as creating a dangerous and even lawless environment. Many are saying “but for the grace of God go I” in a system that allows for selective prosecution.

In the sentencing proceeding, Merchan was downplaying his hand in creating this Frankenstein. However, the case is the fallen angel of the legal system. While heralded in court by Bragg’s office as the triumph of legal process, it is in fact the rawest and most grotesque form of lawfare. Many will be blamed as the creators of this monster but few will escape that blame, including Merchan himself.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).

How Jack Smith Destroyed His Own Case Against Trump


By: Jonathan Turley | January 13, 2025

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2025/01/13/how-jack-smith-destroyed-his-own-case-against-trump/

Below is my column in The Hill on the one thing that the forthcoming report of Special Counsel Jack Smith will not address: how he destroyed his own case against Donald Trump. Smith will be something of a tragic figure for future special counsels. The only thing missing is a shirt reading, “I spent over two years and $50 million dollars and all I got was this lousy t-shirt (and a redacted report).”

Here is the column:

The expected release of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report will occur as early as this weekend, albeit without those sections dealing with the Florida documents case. (Other defendants are still facing prosecution in that case.) However, the most glaring omission will be arguably an explanation of how Smith lost this war without firing a single shot in a trial.

After more than two years, two separate cases and countless appeals (not to mention more than $50 million spent), Smith left without presenting a single witness, let alone charge, at trial. It is an example of how a general can have the largest army and unlimited resources and yet defeat himself with a series of miscalculations.

History probably won’t be kind to Smith, whose record bespeaks a “parade general” — a prosecutor who offered more pretense than progress in the prosecution of an American president.

Indeed, this report will be one of Smith’s last chances to display a case that notably never got close to an actual trial. One-sided and unfiltered, it will have all of the thrill of a Sousa march of a regiment in full dress. We know because we have seen much of this before. At every juncture, Smith has taken his case out on parade in the court of public opinion.

The Smith report will reportedly concern only the Washington case alleging crimes related to Jan. 6 and the 2020 election — a case that was always a bridge too far for Smith.

When first appointed, Smith had a straightforward and relatively easy case to make against Trump over his removal and retention of presidential materials. The case was not without controversy. Some of us questioned the selective nature of the prosecution given past violations by other presidents, particularly as shown by the violations of President Biden going back decades found by another special counsel.

However, the case originally focused on the conspiracy and false statements during the federal investigation into the documents at Mar-a-Lago. Those are well-established crimes that Smith could have brought to trial quickly with a solid shot for conviction.

But Smith’s undoing has always been his appetite. That was evident when he was unanimously reversed by the Supreme Court in his case against former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R).

In Florida, Smith was in signature form. He took a simple case and loaded it up with press-grabbing charges regarding the retention of classified material. In so doing, he slowed the case to a crawl. As a defense lawyer who has handled classified documents cases, I said at the outset that I did not believe he could get this case to a jury before the 2024 election, and that after that election, Smith might not have a case to present. Smith had outmaneuvered himself.

Then came the Washington filing, the subject of this forthcoming report. It was another vintage Smith moment. Smith played to the public in a case that pushed both the Constitution and statutory provisions beyond the breaking point. He simply could not resist, and he was only encouraged after the assignment of Judge Tanya Chutkan, a judge viewed by many as predisposed against Trump.

In a sentencing hearing of a Jan. 6 rioter in 2022, Chutkan had said that the rioters “were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution.” She added then, “[i]t’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” That “one person” was then brought to her for trial by Smith.

The D.C. case was doomed from the outset by both a prosecutor and judge who, in their zeal to bag Trump, yielded to every temptation. As time ticked away, Smith became almost apoplectic in demanding an expedited path to trial, including cutting short appeals. After refusing to recuse herself, Chutkan seemed to indulge Smith at every turn. But the Supreme Court failed to agree that speed should trump substance in such reviews.

With both cases slipping out of his grasp, Smith then threw a final Hail Mary. He asked Chutkan to let him file what was basically a 165-page summary of this report against Trump before the election. There was no apparent reason for the public release of the filing, except to influence the election — a motivation long barred by Justice Department rules. Chutkan, of course, allowed it anyway, despite admitting that the request was “procedurally irregular.” It did not work. Although the press and pundits eagerly repeated the allegations in the filing, the public had long ago reached its own conclusion and rendered its own verdict in November.

In my view, Smith’s D.C. case would never have been upheld, even if he had made it to a favorable jury in front of a motivated judge. As established by the court in Trump v. United States, Smith could not rely on much of his complaint due to violating constitutionally protected areas.

Smith responded to the immunity decision again in typical Smith fashion, largely keeping the same claims with minimal changes. His new indictment was to indictments what shrinkflation is to consumer products — the same package with less content. As in the McDonnell case, Smith was going for conviction at all costs, despite a high likelihood of the case eventually being overturned.

Then the public effectively put an end to both cases by electing Trump.

The Smith investigation should be a case study for future prosecutors in what not to do. An abundance of appetite and arrogance can prove as deadly as a paucity of evidence and authority.

Ironically, Smith will not be the only special counsel offering such a cautionary tale. The report of Special Counsel David Weiss into the Hunter Biden controversy will also be released soon. Weiss was widely denounced for allowing major crimes to lapse against Hunter Biden and offering an embarrassing sweetheart plea deal that collapsed in open court. Notably, Weiss succeeded by minimizing his charges (for the wrong reason). In that way, Weiss has one claim that Smith does not: He made it to court and secured a conviction. Indeed, he was about to prosecute a second case when President Biden pardoned his son.

Weiss’s report will likely only increase questions over his failure to pursue Hunter more aggressively. For Smith, the question is whether he was too aggressive, to the detriment of his own prosecution.

Prosecutions are not the sole measure of success for a special prosecutor. At times, the report itself can be of equal, if not greater, importance to the public.

This is not one of those cases.

The public will be given Smith’s detailed account of a case that was never brought and would likely never have held up. At more than $50 million, it is arguably the biggest flop since “The Adventures of Pluto Nash. The difference is that it did not take more than two years to watch Eddie Murphy’s film disaster, and the actor did not then write up a report on how good the movie really was.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

New Hampshire Supreme Court Rejects Hate Speech Enforcement


By Jonathan Turley | January 13, 2025

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2025/01/13/how-jack-smith-destroyed-his-own-case-against-trump/

The New Hampshire Supreme Court just handed down a victory for free speech in Attorney General v. Hood. As is often the case, defending free speech means supporting viewpoints that most of us find grotesque and hateful. However, the justices rejected the position of the Portsmouth Police Department that it could force the removal of a racist banner from an overpass. Such signs and flags are commonly allowed, but the police and prosecutors insisted that racist messages “interfered with the rights” of other citizens. The controversy began on July 30, 2022, when a group of roughly ten people with NSC-131, a “pro-white, street-oriented fraternity dedicated to raising authentic resistance to the enemies of [its] people in the New England area,” hung banners from the overpass, including one reading “KEEP NEW ENGLAND WHITE.”

The police informed the leader, Christopher Hood, that they were violating a Portsmouth municipal ordinance that prohibited hanging banners from the overpass without a permit. While the group removed the banners, it later posted statements on the incident. The state responded by filing complaints against the defendants seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief for their alleged violation of RSA 354-B:1.

Notably, the state did not deny that groups routinely hang flags and signs from overpasses.  However, it claimed that hanging banners reading “Keep New England White” was “motivated by race and interfered with the lawful activities of 2 others.”

N.H. Stats. 354-B:1 provides,

All persons have the right to engage in lawful activities and to exercise and enjoy the rights secured by the [constitutions and laws] without being subject to actual or threatened physical force or violence against them or any other person or by actual or threatened damage to or trespass on property when such actual or threatened conduct is motivated by race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity, or disability….

It shall be unlawful for any person to interfere or attempt to interfere with the rights secured by this chapter.

The justices held that the enforcement in this case violated the New Hampshire Constitution’s free speech provision:

[T]he State alleged that the defendants “trespassed upon the property of the State of New Hampshire and the City of Portsmouth when [they and other individuals] displayed banners reading ‘Keep New England White’ from the overpass without a permit.” In objecting to Hood’s motion to dismiss, the State argued that “[t]he defendant displayed a banner upon the fencing—causing a thing to enter upon land in possession of another, without any prior authorization from city or state authorities.” Because the State alleged that the defendants intentionally invaded the property of another, and because “[t]he State, no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated,” we conclude that the State’s complaints sufficiently alleged a civil trespass.

Nonetheless, we must next determine whether the State’s proposed construction of the Act, applying the aforementioned definition of trespass, violates the defendants’ constitutional rights to free speech…

Government property generally falls into three categories — traditional public forums, designated public forums, and limited public forums. Here, the trial court correctly reasoned that because “application of the Civil Rights Act requires no consideration of the relevant forum or the nature of the underlying regulations as to that forum,” it applies “with equal force in traditional public fora as it does in limited or nonpublic fora.” We agree with the trial court’s assessment and proceed to the regulation at issue.

Government regulation of speech is content-based if a law applies to a particular type of speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed. The State argues that the Act “does not become a content or viewpoint-based action because the State relies upon a defendant’s speech.” Rather, it maintains that “[c]onsidering an actor’s motivation to assess whether that remedy may be warranted has no impact on the person’s right to freedom of speech, even when proof of motivation relies upon evidence of the person’s speech, because a person’s motivation has always been a proper consideration.” We disagree.

The Act prohibits threatened and actual conduct only when “motivated by race, color, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity, or disability.” Thus, we agree with the trial court’s assessment that “[b]ecause the Civil Rights Act’s additional sanctions apply only where a speaker is ‘motivated by race’ or another protected characteristic, it is ‘content-based’ in that it ‘applies to … particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed.’”

Content-based restrictions must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The State asserts that the requirement that a trespass be unprivileged or otherwise unlawful functions as a limitation sufficient to prevent its construction of the Act from being unconstitutionally overbroad. We are not persuaded. The trial court determined, and we agree, that although “prohibiting or discouraging interference with the lawful rights of others by way of bias-motivated conduct (including actual trespass) is a compelling government interest,” the State’s construction of the Act “is overly broad and not narrowly tailored to that end because, so construed, the Civil Rights Act applies in numerous circumstances which have no relation to this interest.”

The ruling is notable in part because of the position of various Democratic leaders that hate speech is not protected under the First Amendment. I have spent years contesting that false claim, including in my recent book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.

Democratic Vice Presidential candidate and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz repeatedly claimed that “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.”

Ironically, this false claim, repeated by many Democrats, constitutes one of the most dangerous forms of disinformation. It is being used to convince a free people to give up some of their freedom with a “nothing to see here” pitch.

In prior testimony before Congress on the censorship system under the Biden administration, I was taken aback when the committee’s ranking Democrat, Del. Stacey Plaskett (D-Virgin Islands), declared, “I hope that [all members] recognize that there is speech that is not constitutionally protected,” and then referenced hate speech as an example.

That false claim has been echoed by others such as Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who is a lawyer. “If you espouse hate,” he said, “…you’re not protected under the First Amendment.” Former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean declared the identical position: “Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.”

Even some dictionaries now espouse this false premise, defining “hate speech” as “Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification.”

The Supreme Court has consistently rejected Gov. Walz’s claim. For example, in the 2016 Matal v. Tam decision, the court stressed that this precise position “strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).

H/T Gene Volokh

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


A.F. Branco Cartoon – What Goes around

A.F. Branco | on January 12, 2025 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-what-goes-around-4/

Blackwell Sues Alpha News
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2025

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Katie Blackwell’s lawsuit against Alph News may backfire. Dozens of Police officers claim Katie Blackwell perjured herself when testifying in the Chauvin Trial that MPD didn’t train officers in the knee on the neck ‘Improvised Position.  33 former Minneapolis police officers and one current officer who have all sworn under oath that MPD actually trained the knee on the neck restraint.

Director of ‘The Fall of Minneapolis’ responds to defamation lawsuit after bombshell court filings

By Liz Collin – AlphaNews.com – Jan 8, 2025

Dr. Chaix believes that in filing her lawsuit, Blackwell has unwittingly helped bring more of the truth to light.
For the first time, the director of “The Fall of Minneapolis” responded to the defamation lawsuit filed by Minneapolis Assistant Police Chief Katie Blackwell. The suit names producer and reporter Liz Collin, Alpha News and director Dr. JC Chaix. Dr. Chaix believes that in filing her lawsuit, Blackwell has unwittingly helped bring more of the truth to light.
Blackwell has said Alpha News defamed her by using her sworn testimony during Derek Chauvin’s trial when she testified that she did not recognize what she called an “improvised position” that the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) did not train. READ MORE

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

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

Now, on the Lighter Side


January 11, 2025

California’s DEI-Obsessed Anarchotyrants Threw Money at Everything but Water and Firefighters


By: Chris Bray | January 10, 2025

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2025/01/10/californias-dei-obsessed-anarchotyrants-threw-money-at-everything-but-water-and-firefighters/

California Palisades fire
California has enormously expensive and intrusive government that can’t even provide firefighters or water when your neighborhood burns down.

Author Chris Bray profile

Chris Bray

More Articles

Astonishingly devastating fires are burning mostly unchecked in Los Angeles, destroying whole neighborhoods, and see if you can spot the problem in this Yahoo News update, I found in my inbox this week:

As of that report, thousands of acres of fire burning into (and then straight through) neighborhoods; 1,400 firefighters. In Pacific Palisades alone, where the biggest fire started first, we’re below one firefighter per two acres of fire. I’ve spent most of my life in California, and a quite common experience is to be in way-Northern California, for example, and watch a line of fire engines go racing past from San Diego and Newport Beach, 500 miles from home. We deal with big fires with prompt statewide mutual aid, a well-practiced system.

I live near the Eaton fire, which is burning in the hills above Pasadena, and I listened all Tuesday night for the cavalry to arrive. The cavalry, bizarrely, did not seem to arrive. And so, I watched houses burn, on the news, with reporters present but no firefighters.

This is becoming a widespread problem, so serious and obvious that even the Los Angeles Times has noticed, writing:

As wildfires raged across Los Angeles on Tuesday, crews battling the Palisades blaze faced an additional burden: Scores of fire hydrants in Pacific Palisades had little to no water flowing out.

“The hydrants are down,” said one firefighter in internal radio communications.

“Water supply just dropped,” said another.

By 3 a.m. Wednesday, all water storage tanks in the Palisades area “went dry,” diminishing the flow of water from hydrants in higher elevations, said Janisse Quiñones, chief executive and chief engineer of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the city’s utility.

Where I live, in the western San Gabriel Valley, a large group of suburban fire departments has built an effective system of integrated and automatic mutual aid, the Verdugo system, run from a shared dispatch center in Glendale. I was listening to Verdugo dispatch Tuesday night, and the dispatchers gave up on dispatching. They broadcast calls in sets of 10 or 12, without assignments, so firefighters could hear what was happening, in case anyone could get to any of it: homes burning at the following addresses, brush burning at the following addresses, wires down at the following addresses…

The fire departments aren’t the problem, and the firefighters on the ground are very much not the problem. A cluster of headlines this morning at the highly alert news aggregator Rantingly begins to get at the underlying reality:

The mayor of Los Angeles, having cut fire department funding to pay for social justice programs, was on a city-funded outreach trip to Ghana as her city burned. How important.

As a matter of symbolism, the destruction of Pacific Palisades (and, as we saw Wednesday morning, big stretches of Malibu) is a gut punch. These are the most comfortable places in Los Angeles, and one of the discussions on social media this week is about which celebrities have evacuated or lost their homes. (“Oh my God, Tom Hanks!”) The places that are burning are the Democrat Party’s ATM machine. One wonders if they’ll notice the meaning of the fires. Meanwhile:

So yes, the ability of leftists to miss the point appears to be infinite. California has enormously expensive and intrusive government that can’t provide firefighters or water when your neighborhood burns down, which proves that Orange Man Bad.

I’m more than a mile from the edge of the nearest evacuation warning, so we’ll be fine. But that’s because of the accident of our location relative to the fire, not because anything here actually works.

This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, “Tell Me How This Ends.”


Chris Bray is a former infantry sergeant in the U.S. Army, and has a history PhD from the University of California Los Angeles. He is the author of “Court-Martial: How Military Justice Has Shaped America from the Revolution to 9/11 and Beyond,” published last year by W.W. Norton.

‘Great embarrassment’: Hear Trump’s courtroom response to Judge Merchan’s ‘political witch hunt’ trial


By Andrew Mark Miller Fox News | Published January 10, 2025 1:09pm EST | Updated January 10, 2025

Read more at https://www.foxnews.com/politics/great-embarrassment-hear-trumps-courtroom-response-judge-merchans-political-witch-hunt-trial

‘Great embarassment’: Hear Trump’s courtroom response to Judge Merchan’s ‘political witch hunt’ trial

The audio tape of President-elect Trump’s New York City sentencing hearing was released to the public on Friday, giving insight into the unprecedented conviction against a former president where Trump was ultimately sentenced to an unconditional discharge.

“This has been a very terrible experience,” Trump, who virtually attended the criminal trial sentencing hearing, told the New York City courtroom on Friday morning. “I think it’s been a tremendous setback for New York and the New York court system.”

“This is a case that Alvin Bragg did not want to bring. He thought it was, from what I read and from what I hear, inappropriately handled before he got there. And a gentleman from a law firm came in and acted as a district attorney,” the president-elect continued. “And that gentleman, from what I heard, was a criminal or almost criminal in what he did. It was very inappropriate. It was somebody involved with my political opponent.” 

“I think it’s an embarrassment to New York and New York has a lot of problems, but this is a great embarrassment,” he added.

DONALD TRUMP SENTENCED WITH NO PENALTY IN NEW YORK CRIMINAL TRIAL, AS JUDGE WISHES HIM ‘GODSPEED’ IN 2ND TERM

Video

At one point, Trump, appearing virtually, leaned forward, looking at Judge Juan Merchan, and referenced the November election, suggesting that it represented a repudiation of this case.

“It’s been a political witch hunt,” Trump explained. “It was done to damage my reputation so that I’d lose the election. And obviously, that didn’t work. And the people of our country got to see this firsthand because they watched the case in your courtroom. They got to see this firsthand. And then they voted, and I won.”

Assistant District Attorney Josh Steinglass stated that there was “overwhelming evidence to support the jury’s verdict” and was critical of Trump, claiming the president-elect “has caused enduring damage to public perception of the criminal justice system and has placed officers of the court in harm’s way” with the comments he publicly made during the trial.

“I very, very much disagree with much of what the government just said about this case, about the legitimacy of what happened in this courtroom during the trial and about President Trump’s conduct fighting this case from before it was indicted, while it was indicted, to the jury’s verdict, and even to this day,” Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche said in response to the prosecution.

ANDREW MCCARTHY: SUPREME COURT ALLOWS TRUMP TO BE TAINTED AS A FELON. BUT THERE’S A CATCH

Former President Donald Trump appears in court for arraignment before Judge Juan Merchan following his surrender to New York authorities at the New York County Criminal Court. (Seth Wenig-Pool Photo via USA TODAY)
Former President Trump appears in court for arraignment before Judge Juan Merchan following his surrender to New York authorities at the New York County Criminal Court in April 2024. (Seth Wenig-Pool Photo via USA TODAY)

During the hearing, Merchan defended the actions he took along the way. 

“The imposition of sentence is one of the most difficult decisions that any criminal court judge is called to make,” Merchan said, noting the court “must consider the facts of the case along with any aggravating or mitigating circumstances.”

Merchan reflected on the case, saying that “never before has this court been presented with such a unique set of circumstances.” The judge said it was an “extraordinary case” with media interest and heightened security but said that once the courtroom doors were closed, the trial itself “was not any more unique or extraordinary” than any other case.

Merchan acknowledged that Trump is afforded significant legal protections but argued that “one power they do not provide is the power to erase a jury verdict.”

“Sir, I wish you Godspeed as you assume the second term in office,” Merchan said at the close of the hearing.

Justice Juan Merchan instructs the jury before deliberations as Donald Trump looks on
In this courtroom sketch, Justice Juan Merchan instructs the jury at Manhattan state court in New York City on May 29, 2024, before deliberations during former President Trump’s criminal trial over charges that he falsified business records to conceal money paid to silence porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016. (Reuters/Jane Rosenberg)

Merchan’s unconditional discharge sentence means there is no punishment imposed: no jail time, fines or probation. The sentence also preserves Trump’s ability to appeal the conviction. 

“After careful analysis, this court determined that the only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgment of conviction is an unconditional discharge,” Merchan said Friday. “At this time, I impose that sentence to cover all 34 counts.” 

Trump’s team said in court that they will appeal the conviction, and he will be sworn in as the 47th president of the United States on Jan. 20. 

Fox News Digital’s Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

Andrew Mark Miller is a reporter at Fox News. Find him on Twitter @andymarkmiller and email tips to AndrewMark.Miller@Fox.com.

With the Trump Sentencing, the Verdict is in . . . for the New York Legal System


By: Jonathan Turley | January 10, 2025

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2025/01/10/with-the-trump-sentencing-the-verdict-is-in-for-the-new-york-legal-system/

Below is my column at Fox.com on the sentencing of President-Elect Donald Trump. The conviction should be overturned on appeal. However, the most lasting judgment will be against the New York court system itself in allowing this travesty of justice to occur.

Here is the column:

With the sentencing of Donald Trump Friday, the final verdict on the New York criminal trial of the president-elect is in. The verdict is not the one that led to no jail or probation for the incoming president. Acting Justice Juan Merchan has brought down the gavel on the New York legal system as a whole.

Once considered the premier legal system in the country, figures like New York Attorney General Letitia James, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Justices Arthur F. Engoron and Juan Merchan have caused the system to be weaponized for political purposes. Trump will walk away from this trial and into the White House in less than two weeks, but the New York system will walk into infamy after this day.

The case has long been denounced by objective legal observers, including intense Trump critics, as a legal absurdity. Even CNN’s senior legal analyst Elie Honig denounced the case as legally flawed and unprecedented while Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., simply called it total “b—s–t.”

It is a case based on a non-crime. Bragg took a long-dead misdemeanor and zapped it back into life with a novel and unfounded theory. By using federal violations that were never charged, let alone tried, Bragg turned a misdemeanor into dozens of felonies and essentially tried Trump for federal offenses.

Merchan not only allowed those charges to be brought to trial but then added layers of reversible errors in the effort to bag Trump at any cost.  For that, he was lionized by the liberal media and many New Yorkers. However, Trump still managed to pull in 3.6 million New York votes, or 42.7%, in the 2024 election. After all of the lawfare and every advantage (including a heavily biased media and a larger war chest), Vice President Kamala Harris lost hundreds of thousands of votes in 2024 in comparison to Joe Biden just four years earlier.

Many polls showed that the public saw the Manhattan criminal case for what it was: raw lawfare targeting a leading political opponent. The election itself felt like the largest verdict in history as citizens rejected the political, legal, and media establishments in one of our nation’s most historic elections.

The New York court system will now have a chance to redeem itself, but few are holding their breath. The appellate court has still not ruled on an appeal of Attorney General Lettia James’s equally absurd civil lawsuit against Trump. Despite judges expressing skepticism over Engoron’s use of a law to impose a grotesque $455 million in fines and interest, we are still waiting for a decision.

Most are waiting for this criminal case to escape the vortex of the New York court system. With this appeal, this peddler’s wagon of reversible errors will finally pull up in front of the Supreme Court itself.

With its ruling on Thursday night, the setting for a decision could not be better for Trump. The Supreme Court has again demonstrated that it has shown restraint and independence in these cases. In response to the ruling, Trump struck the perfect note Thursday night and declined to criticize the Court, stating that “This is a long way from finished and I respect the court’s opinion.”

The ultimate penalty on Friday morning from Judge Merchan reflects the lack of seriousness in the case. It was more inflated than the Goodyear blimp, pumped up by hot rage and rhetoric. The sentence was the pinprick that showed the massive void within this case.

The verdict is in. The New York legal system has rendered it against itself.

Jonathan Turley is a Fox News Media contributor and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).

Adam Schiff Signals Potential for New Trump Impeachment


By: American Patriot | January 8, 2025

Read more at https://libertyonenews.com/adam-schiff-signals-potential-for-new-trump-impeachment/

Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA)

Donald Trump is set to return to the White House as the 47th president of the United States on January 20, 2025, after securing both the Electoral College and the popular vote in a historic victory. For Republicans, this marks a turning point and a chance to advance their legislative agenda without the same gridlock that characterized much of Trump’s first term.

However, the former president’s triumph also heralds a new chapter in the bitter partisan battles that have defined American politics in recent years. Leading the charge from the Democratic side is Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA), who has already indicated his readiness to scrutinize Trump’s administration—and potentially impeach him again.

One of the key victories for Republicans in the 2024 election was retaking control of the Senate. This development provides a legislative stronghold to support Trump’s policy initiatives and block Democratic resistance. GOP leaders have emphasized that Senate control is vital not only to push forward Trump’s agenda but also to safeguard against Democratic attempts to stymie his administration through investigations or impeachment.

During his first term, Trump faced significant opposition from a divided Congress, which resulted in two impeachment trials. This time, with the Senate firmly in Republican hands, Trump enters office with a stronger foundation to implement his policies.

Despite Trump’s fortified position, Democrats are not backing down. Adam Schiff, who played a prominent role in Trump’s first impeachment trial, has already made his intentions clear. Speaking in a recent interview, Schiff declared: “If he abuses his office, we will vigorously push back, fight back, stand up to him as we had to do during his first term in office.”

Schiff’s statement reflects a broader Democratic strategy to closely monitor Trump’s actions and hold him accountable for any perceived misconduct. However, what Democrats define as “abusing his office” has often been a contentious issue. Critics argue that during Trump’s first term, ordinary executive actions were frequently portrayed as egregious oversteps, leading to constant investigations and political turmoil.

Unlike his first term, Trump’s return to the presidency comes with a clearer mandate. Winning both the popular vote and the Electoral College demonstrates a broad base of support, which could empower him to act with greater confidence.

For his supporters, this victory is a vindication of Trump’s leadership and policies. They see his second term as an opportunity to continue the work he began in his first administration, this time with fewer obstacles.

At the same time, Trump’s opponents, including Schiff, remain prepared to challenge his every move. Democrats have framed their vigilance as a defense of democracy, while Trump’s backers dismiss it as yet another round of obstructionism.

Trump’s first term was marked by relentless legal and political battles, many of which his supporters labeled as “lawfare.” Efforts to investigate and prosecute Trump through various means ultimately failed to derail his presidency or diminish his influence.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by (Fellow California Resident) A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Where There’s Smoke

A.F. Branco | on January 10, 2025 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-where-theres-smoke-3/

Californis Fires Dems at Fault
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2025

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

A.F. Branco Cartoon – S. California fires all lay at the foot of the Democrats. They’ve been so focused on DEI, LGBTQ, the Green Agenda scam, etc. They have failed to do the job of protecting their citizens.
Their poor forest management, DEI hiring, shortage of firefighters due to COVID firings, and lack of water in the reservoirs so they can protect the tiny smelt fish. To name a few.

WAYNE ROOT: Wildfire Alone Didn’t Destroy Los Angeles. How the Dumb, Radical, Left’s 6 Favorite Obsessions Made the Fire Unstoppable- Woke DEI, Climate Extremism, Homelessness, Vaccines, Open Borders & Ukraine

By Assistant Editor  – The Gateway Pundit – Jan 9, 2025
I left Malibu, California 23 yrs ago because of high taxes and liberal morons. I just couldn’t take the liberals and their crazy, radical, extreme ideas anymore. I moved to Las Vegas. It was the best move of my life.
In Las Vegas we have no taxes- no income tax, no business tax, no capital gains tax, no inheritance tax and among the lowest property taxes in America. Guns are legal. The sun is always out. And everyone I know is a conservative MAGA Trump supporter. You know what I call that? HEAVEN… READ MORE

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

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

DEI ets Fire to California: Adam Carolla Exposes Discriminatory Firefighter Policies


By  Jimmy Parker | January 9, 2025

Read more at https://pagetraveler.com/dei-ets-fire-to-california-adam-carolla-exposes-discriminatory-firefighter-policies/

In recent years, there has been much debate over DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) policies and their destructive consequences. However, the truth is, this has been an ongoing issue for quite some time.

During a Congressional testimony several years ago, comedian Adam Carolla shared a shocking story from his own personal experience. He applied to become a firefighter in Los Angeles, a job that is known for its heroic efforts and selfless service. However, he was told that as a white male, he would have to wait years just to take the test.

This is a clear example of how DEI policies are damaging and counterproductive. Communities in California are facing devastating wildfires, yet the very policies that were put in place to promote diversity and fairness are the ones hindering the hiring of qualified individuals for these crucial roles.

Carolla recounted his experience, saying, “Geez, I want to talk about my white privilege so badly. I graduated high school with a 1.7 GPA and couldn’t find a job. I walked to a fire station and asked for a job, but was told I couldn’t have one because I wasn’t black, Hispanic, or a woman. They told me to come back in 7 years.”

Watch

He continued, “I had a young woman of color standing behind me in line, and I asked her when she signed up to become a firefighter. She said, ‘Wednesday.’ That is an example of my white privilege.”

It’s absurd to think that politics would take priority over creating the most efficient and effective firefighting force. Yet, this is exactly what is happening in Los Angeles.

The liberal media often pushes the narrative of “systemic racism” and the need for diversity and inclusivity. But the reality is, these very policies are the root cause of the problems we face today. Carolla’s story is just one of many examples of how these policies are not only discriminatory but also detrimental to society.

Enough is enough. It’s time for the truth to come to light and for these destructive policies to be replaced with fair and merit-based hiring practices. We cannot continue to let the liberal agenda ruin our communities and endanger our lives.

Judge Scraps Biden’s Title IX Rules, Reversing LGBTQ+ Regulations


Thursday, 09 January 2025 04:23 PM EST

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/us/transgender-title-ix-women/2025/01/09/id/1194490/

The Biden administration’s Title IX rules expanding regulations for LGBTQ+ students have been struck down nationwide after a federal judge in Kentucky found they overstepped the president’s authority. In a decision issued Thursday, U.S. District Judge Danny C. Reeves scrapped the entire 1,500-page regulation after deciding it was “fatally” tainted by legal shortcomings. The rule had already been halted in 26 states after a wave of legal challenges by Republican states. President-elect Donald Trump previously promised to end the rules “on day one” and made anti-transgender themes a centerpiece of his campaign.

The decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia and West Virginia. In a statement, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti called it a “victory for the protection of girls’ privacy in locker rooms and showers, and for the freedom to speak biologically accurate pronouns.”

The Education Department did not immediately comment on the decision.

The Biden administration ignited controversy when it finalized the new rules last year. The regulation expanded Title IX, a 1972 law forbidding discrimination based on sex in education, to also prevent discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation. It also expanded the definition of harassment to include a broader range of misconduct.

Civil rights advocates hailed it as a victory, saying it gave LGBTQ+ students new recourse against discrimination. But it drew outrage from conservatives who said it could be used to protect transgender athletes in girls’ sports.

The rule didn’t explicitly address athletics and mostly detailed how schools and colleges were required to respond to cases of discrimination and sexual assault. A separate proposal dealing with transgender athletes in sports was put on the backburner and later revoked after it became a focal point of Trump’s campaign. In his decision, Reeves found the Education Department overstepped its authority by expanding the scope of Title IX.

There’s nothing in the 1972 law suggesting that it should cover any more than it has since Congress created it, Reeves wrote. He called it an “attempt to bypass the legislative process and completely transform Title IX.”

The judge also found that it violated free speech rights by requiring teachers to use pronouns aligning with a student’s gender identity.

“The First Amendment does not permit the government to chill speech or compel affirmance of a belief with which the speaker disagrees in this manner,” Reeves wrote.

Rather than carve out certain aspects of the rule, Reeves decided it was best to toss the regulation in its entirety and revert to a previous interpretation of Title IX. He said his decision will “simply ‘cause a return to the status quo’ that existed for more than 50 years prior to its effective date.”

Among the biggest critics of the rule was Betsy DeVos, former education secretary during Trump’s first term. On the social media site X, she wrote that the “radical, unfair, illegal, and absurd Biden Title IX rewrite is GONE.”

Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

Democrats’ Delusional Security Blanket


By: Kevin Jackson | January 9, 2025

Read more at https://theblacksphere.net/2025/01/democrats-delusional-security-blanket/

For decades, Democrats have treated the popular vote as the ultimate barometer of legitimacy in presidential elections. It’s their comfort zone, their “win” even when they lose.

And then came the election of 2024.

When Donald Trump not only secured the Electoral College but also crushed the popular vote in 2024, it was more than a mere political defeat—it was an existential crisis. The Left had banked on retaining the moral high ground, even in a hypothetical but inevitable Kamala Harris loss. They planned on clutching their beloved “popular vote victory” narrative. Then, Trump’s decisive win kicked their ideological stool right out from under them.

The backlash was predictable: a masterclass in Leftism 101—whine, bitch, rinse, repeat.

Election Denial, the Democrat Way

Let’s address the elephant—or donkey in this case—in the room. The same Democrats who incessantly accuse Republicans of being “election deniers” have a rich history of refusing to accept election outcomes they don’t like. Their hypocrisy was on full display in 2016 when Hillary Clinton and her supporters pushed the “Russia collusion” hoax to delegitimize Trump’s presidency. Fast forward to 2024, and they’ve simply swapped out the script but kept the act.

Among the Left’s most vocal election deniers is Michael Podhorzer, a former AFL-CIO operative and fellow at the Center for American Progress. Podhorzer absurdly claimed that Trump didn’t really win the popular vote in 2024. His rationale? A convoluted cocktail of cherry-picked data and wishful thinking. Podhorzer isn’t alone in his denialism—he joins a long list of Leftist luminaries like Rick Wilson, James Carville, and Allan Lichtman, all of whom confidently predicted a Harris victory and were proven spectacularly wrong.

And let’s not forget the “Russia, Russia, Russia” chorus from 2016, starring Clinton herself, bolstered by Stacey Abrams, who to this day insists she won the Georgia governor’s race in 2018. If denial were an Olympic sport, the Democratic Party would sweep the medals.

Trump: The People’s Choice

What truly terrifies the Left isn’t just Trump’s win—it’s his growing popularity. Despite years of relentless demonization, Trump emerged as the most popular politician in American history, leaving even his critics scratching their heads. His ability to resonate with everyday Americans, even in the face of unprecedented media and institutional attacks, is nothing short of remarkable.

Democrats tried everything to suppress his 2024 bid. They slapped him with the “felon” label, orchestrated smear campaigns, and unleashed their full propaganda machine. Yet Trump’s numbers soared. Imagine how overwhelming his victory might have been without the Left’s interference.

In states with voter ID laws, Trump’s dominance was undeniable. Harris clung to victory only in states where voter ID wasn’t required—a clear indicator of foul play. Without these dubious practices, Harris would have faced a landslide loss of epic proportions.

The Billionaire Betrayal

Adding salt to the wound, some of the wealthiest individuals in America, including Silicon Valley billionaires, have thrown their support behind Trump. The Left, once proud of its tech-savvy allies, now finds itself abandoned by many of the same figures who helped fuel their rise. This shift has left Democrats reeling, as their narrative of Trump being universally despised crumbles before their eyes.

The Left’s Desperate Clinging

In their desperation, Democrats now embrace figures like Podhorzer, who swim against the tide of reality to keep hope alive. These self-proclaimed “defenders of democracy” cling to their denial like a lifeline, even as their arguments grow increasingly absurd. But the truth is inescapable: Trump won, and he won big.

What’s next for the Left? More whining, more protests, and more finger-pointing. But as they flail in denial, the rest of the country moves forward, united behind a president who defied the odds and emerged as the undeniable choice of the American people.

Humorously, the Democrats’ desperation brings to mind an old adage: “If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.” Instead, they’ve opted for dynamite—because why just dig when you can destroy the whole foundation of your argument?

As we watch this political theater unfold, one thing is clear: the Democrats’ love affair with the popular vote has officially turned into a tragicomedy.

Snail Darter RIP: The Species that Shut Down the Tellico Dam May Not Actually Exist


By: Jonathan Turley | January 9, 2025

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2025/01/09/snail-darter-rip-the-species-that-shut-down-the-tellico-dam-may-not-actually-exist/

In the annals of environmental law, no creature is more famous than the Snail Darter, the endangered species that shut down completion of the Tellico Dam in the 1970s. It required congressional legislation to allow the dam to be finished after years in the courts where judges maintained that the species had to be protected under the Endangered Species Act. According to the New York Times., the species may turn out to be as mythical as a unicorn.

The controversy began in 1967 when the Tennessee Valley Authority started constructing a dam on the Little Tennessee River, roughly 20 miles outside Knoxville. Environmentalists and locals opposed the project and, in 1973, a zoologist at the University of Tennessee named David Etnier went snorkeling with his students and found a possible solution. He spotted a small fish and called it a “snail darter” because of its movements and eating habits. He reportedly announced, “Here’s a little fish that might save your farm.”

Dr. Zygmunt Plater, an environmental law professor at Boston College, represented the snail darter before the Supreme Court. He did an excellent job, and, in 1978, the Supreme Court ruled that “the Endangered Species Act prohibits impoundment of the Little Tennessee River by the Tellico Dam” to protect the endangered snail darters.

That was then.

The Times now quotes Thomas Near, the curator of ichthyology at the Yale Peabody Museum who leads a fish biology lab at the university, that “there is, technically, no snail darter.” Worse yet, it was actually just another member of the eastern population of Percina uranidea, or stargazing darters, which is not considered endangered. Near and his colleagues have published the results in Current Biology

In other words, years of litigation and millions of dollars were spent on what was a false claim, and the courts accepted the claims hook, line, and sinker.

Under the ESA, the snail darter was listed as protected and therefore triggered Section 7 of the Act barring federal agencies from undertaking actions that could jeopardize a species’ survival or destroy any of its critical habitat.

In Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978), Chief Justice Warren Burger noted that the finding of this “previously unknown species of perch” changed everything on a legal level. He added:

“Until recently, the finding of a new species of animal life would hardly generate a cause celebre. This is particularly so in the case of darters, of which there are approximately 130 known species, 8 to 10 of these having been identified only in the last five years. The moving force behind the snail darter’s sudden fame came some four months after its discovery, when the Congress passed the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), 87 Stat. 884, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. (1976 ed.).”

Plater insisted that Dr. Near is merely a “lumper” who tends to rely on genetics rather than being a “splitter” who proliferates new species. Dr. Plater added that “whether he intends it or not, lumping is a great way to cut back on the Endangered Species Act.”

That was a particularly revealing point from the law professor since it suggests what could be an overwhelming motive could be legal and not scientific in declaring the new species — the very objection raised in the litigation and denied by many advocates.

Roughly three years ago, the government declared victory in restoring the snail darter and the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed removing it from the ESA list of threatened species.

Facebook Has Admitted Its Error, But Its ‘Fact Checkers’ Are Still Complicit in Censorship


By: Mark Hemingway | January 08, 2025

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2025/01/08/facebook-has-admitted-its-error-but-its-fact-checkers-are-still-complicit-in-censorship/

Mark Zuckerberg wants to turn over a new leaf on the social media censorship — but some in the media don’t seem happy about giving up the power to silence people.

Author Mark Hemingway profile

Mark Hemingway

Visit on Twitter@heminator

More Articles

Tuesday morning, Mark Zuckerberg announced that Meta’s social media sites including Facebook, Instagram, and Threads would be eliminating their heavy-handed censorship policies and moving towards a “community notes” model for policing content like X. This includes terminating their “third party factchecking program” where the company paid legacy media organizations to “fact check” content on the site and then used those judgments to censor content.

At this point there’s little reason to believe that Mark Zuckerberg can do much to atone for what he did to suppress speech and damage conservative publications. However, on the surface level this is a significant PR victory for free speech and, unsurprisingly, Facebook’s fact checking partners are not taking it well. Aaron Sharockman, the executive director of PolitiFact which is one of Facebook/Meta’s original fact checking partners going back eight years, just posted this defensive letter on X. Some of the highlights:

The decision to remove independent journalists from Facebook’s content moderation program in the United States has nothing to do with free speech or censorship. Mark Zuckerberg could not be less subtle. …

Facebook and Meta solely created the penalties that publishers faced and the warning labels and overlays that users saw. It was Facebook and Meta that created a system that allowed ordinary citizens to see their posts demoted but exempted politicians and political leaders who said the very same things. In case it needs to be said, PolitiFact and U.S. fact-checking journalists played no role in the decision to remove Donald Trump from Facebook. …

When we make an error, there is a process to correct those mistakes. And there is also a process to make sure Facebook and Meta receive the corrected information. That’s how the information cycle is supposed to work.

If Meta is upset it created a tool to censor, it should look in the mirror.

PolitiFact has been a thoroughly dishonest and contemptible organization since its inception, but this is a particularly dishonest and self-serving excuse, even for them. And I happen know what I’m talking about. After years of detailed reporting on the dishonesty of so called “fact checkers,” the publication I worked for, The Weekly Standard, made the decision to become, like PolitiFact, one of Facebook’s official fact checking partners. And I can tell you a few things about this arrangement that, if you care about free speech and journalistic integrity, will make your blood boil.

The first is that Facebook paid it’s fact checking partners for participating in this program — in PolitiFact’s case, Meta supplied more than 5 percent of their annual revenue. In practice, this meant that news organizations such as PolitiFact, USA Today, and, yes, The Weekly Standard, participating in this program were taking a large sum from one of the country’s largest and most influential corporations. This was a massive conflict of interest, considering these same publications were also tasked with covering Facebook neutrally when it came up in the news. Which was a lot.

Already news organizations were skittish about Facebook because the death of print media and the subscription model meant they were heavily dependent on Facebook for steering traffic their way to make money on digital advertising. Taking money directly from Facebook meant they had you over a barrel in multiple ways. If there was cause to criticize Facebook’s policies about censoring content or any other matter, doing so meant these publications were biting the hand that fed them.

The second is that the inception of Facebook’s fact checking program was explicitly political and intended to suppress right-leaning news by design. Here’s an excerpt from Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections by an author named Hemingway:

Soon after the [2016] election, BuzzFeed was reporting, “Facebook employees have formed an unofficial task force to question the role their company played in promoting fake news in the lead-up to Donald Trump’s victory in the US election last week.” The group was operating in open defiance of CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who said the idea that Facebook had unfairly tilted the election in Trump’s favor was “crazy.” Zuckerberg had already faced criticism earlier, in May 2016, when Gizmodo reported, “Facebook workers routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential ‘trending’ news section, according to a former journalist who worked on the project.”

By December 2016, Zuckerberg had caved. Facebook adopted a new policy of trying to combat the alleged “fake news” that troubled Facebook’s left-wing employees. The tech giant would start paying media outlets to “fact-check” news on the site. With media revenue steadily declining — in no small part because Facebook had radically disrupted the traditional journalistic business models — once reputable news organizations signed up to participate in the fact-checking program. Media outlets that were supposed to be objectively covering Facebook were now on Facebook’s payroll, given the power to determine all the news that was fit to print.

Whether or not the tech companies wanted to admit it, much of Silicon Valley’s anger over Trump’s victory was about their inability to control American opinion.

Third, the idea that PolitiFact or any of Facebook’s media fact checking partners were blameless for participating in Facebook’s censorship and stifling free speech is such a dubious and offensive argument it’s incredible anyone would attempt to make it.

In the summer of 2018, the Weekly Standard’s participation in the Facebook’s fact checking program led to far and away the most awkward staff meeting in the eight years that I worked there. I wrote about this episode at length (and in this book), but essentially what happened is that the young journalist The Weekly Standard employed who wrote fact checks for Facebook openly said he was uncomfortable with the responsibility:

He explained that whenever he did one of his fact checking columns, part of his gig involved going into a special portal in Facebook’s backend created for its fact checking mercenaries, where he entered details about his fact check. When he entered a claim of “false,” he was asked to enter the URL of the story where he found the claim – at which point Facebook, according to their own press releases, would then kill 80 percent of the global internet traffic to that story. Our fact checker explained this was making him uncomfortable. Some of these fact checks were complicated, and he felt his judgment wasn’t absolute. 

It was a record scratch moment in the staff meeting. After a beat, I spoke up and said something to the effect of “you mean to tell me, that a single journalist has the power to render judgment to nearly wipe a news story off of the internet?” Where our publication had once taken pride in challenging the dishonesty and bias of the corporate media, it dawned on me — and more than a few others in the room — that whatever influence our failing publication had was now being leveraged to act as part of a terrifyingly effective censorship regime controlled by a hated social media company run by one of the world’s richest men. 

Suffice this anecdote to say, this all culminated in one editor at the magazine raising his voice — in defense of Facebook — in a way that made everyone in the room rather uncomfortable. Imagine you’re a writer at a conservative magazine and confronting the fact you’re participating in a program where a centi-billionaire pays a bunch of legacy media hacks to disproportionately censor politically inconvenient opinions on the right. I knew it was bad, but I was pretty alarmed to realize not all of my colleagues found this intolerable. But by this point The Weekly Standard was hemorrhaging subscribers and was shut down a few months later. Alas, the more animated editor in that meeting doesn’t appear to have learned from the episode.

After the closure of The Weekly Standard, alumni from that magazine started a new publication known as The Dispatch. Despite what had happened at our ill-fated previous employer, becoming a Facebook fact checking partner was one easy way for a new publication to get revenue, I guess. Anyway, it wasn’t long before this new arrangement prompted controversy. A Dispatch fact check claimed two advertisements from the pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List claimed “partly false information.” 

The allegedly false information was that the Susan B. Anthony List was claiming Joe Biden and the Democrat Party supported late-term abortion. It didn’t matter that this claim wasn’t even particularly debatable as Biden and the Democrat Party clearly support late-term abortion.

After a lot of online blowback — at the time, one of the marquee names at The Dispatch was David French, an alleged evangelical pro-life stalwart turned Kamala Harris voter — the publication promised to review and correct their error. Despite the public promise, you should not be surprised to learn that, either through negligence by The Dispatch or Facebook, the “process to make sure Facebook and Meta receive the corrected information” touted above got no results. Susan B. Anthony List and its election ads were banned from Facebook in the critical weeks right before the 2020 election, which was decided by a mere 40,000 or so votes.

Mind you, this is all based on my comparably limited experience with a censorship program whose flaws were readily apparent to anyone. It would be impossible to muster enough contempt for an organization such as PolitiFact, who by their own admission did thousands of fact checks for Facebook to enable their direct censorship of ordinary citizens and important political voices alike.

Like I said, I find Mark Zuckerberg’s motivations suspect, to say nothing of the restitution he owes conservative publications like this one that told the truth only to be suppressed and censored. But regardless of how we arrived at this point, Facebook’s statement that what they were doing was wrong and the termination of their fact checking program are important concessions to the reality that ordinary Americans believe in and want free speech.

I imagine it’s hard to accept that you’ve been the villain all along, but Sharockman and PolitiFact don’t get to have it both ways. PolitiFact concedes they took Facebook’s money, but that doesn’t mean they share any responsibility for Facebook justifying censorship with the services they provided? No, PolitiFact knew full well they were providing the bullets for Facebook’s gun, and they were happy to do it because they liked who Facebook was aiming at.

We’ll see if Facebook follows through with its promise to be less censorious, but it’s impossible to read Sharockman’s hackneyed justifications without looking forward to the day where self-appointed fact checkers are irrelevant to what Americans are allowed to say.


Mark Hemingway is the Book Editor at The Federalist, and was formerly a senior writer at The Weekly Standard. Follow him on Twitter at @heminator

Elderly Democrats Say Thousands of Donations to ActBlue Were Made Fraudulently in Their Names


By: Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell | January 08, 2025

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/01/08/elderly-democrats-say-thousands-donations-actblue-were-made-fraudulently-their-names/

An elderly man votes.
(AJ Watt/Getty Images)

Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue may have raked in millions through fraudulent donations, according to the testimonies of elderly Americans who said federal election records do not reflect their giving. 

Eighteen registered Democrats in Connecticut, all over the age of 70, appear to have donated $1.9 million to Democratic causes, including ActBlue, through hundreds of thousands of small donations from 2016 to 2024, according to a review of Federal Election Commission filings by Dominic Rapini, CEO of technology company Queralt Inc. and a former Connecticut Republican candidate for office. 

Curious about the donation patterns, Rapini tracked down some of the Connecticut residents and asked them if they really did make thousands of small donations, sometimes multiple in a day, through ActBlue. Several of the supposed donors told Rapini they did not make any of the reported donations, nor did they know anything about how their names were being used, Rapini told The Daily Signal.

An 88-year-old retired Yale University professor, for example, supposedly made 7,539 donations for a total of $213,163, according to FEC records. After Rapini informed him about the significant donations in his name, he signed an affidavit saying, “I believe this does not reflect my donation frequency or dollars I have donated.” 

According to Rapini, who has analyzed numbers for three decades in the tech industry, this is a possible case of alleged identity theft and money laundering. A contribution made by one person in the name of another is illegal.

“When I examine the donation patterns tied to these alleged ‘smurfs,’ the irregularities jump off the page, revealing behavior that defies both human logic and common sense,” he told The Daily Signal. “To safeguard trust in our election process, we must confront these anomalies head-on.”

Rep. Brian Steil, R-Wis., chairman of the House Administration Committee, told The Daily Signal he’s aware of similar reports from across the country. 

“In response, last fall, I shared the findings of our investigation with several state attorneys general,” Steil said in an emailed statement. “The committee and I remain fully available to collaborate with any state law enforcement officials who wish to access the information we have gathered on this critical issue.”

An elderly acupuncturist and registered Democrat appears to have made 17 donations in 2022 through ActBlue totaling $317. In an email to Rapini, she promised she hasn’t made political contributions since 2016. 

“I can promise you I have NOT made donations myself to the [Democratic National Committee] or Democratic local party since 2016 … ,” she said. “Anything past that are fake and/or manipulated donations.” 

A 91-year-old woman appears to have made 2,591 donations totaling $41,000, according to FEC filings. She signed an affidavit with Rapini denying making the reported donations. 

Another 75-year-old woman looks to have made 4,270 small donations adding up to $32,323. She too signed an affidavit with Rapini denying making the donations in this frequency or quantity.

ActBlue is currently under congressional investigation for alleged laundering of foreign money laundering. 

ActBlue came under fire on Oct. 29 because of its donor-verification policies. In a letter that day to ActBlue, Steil said foreign actors from Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and China could use the platform to launder illicit money for use in U.S. political campaigns. 

The Democratic fundraising platform admitted in 2023 to Steil that it didn’t require contributors to use a card verification value, or CVV, to donate on its website with a credit card. Those security codes are meant to ensure that the person making a purchase physically possesses the credit card. 

ActBlue responded to The Daily Signal’s request for comment about the affidavits by referring The Daily Signal to a post on its blog, which says, “Because of how reporting works for intermediaries, contributions made on platforms like ours often show up more than once in public FEC records, because both ActBlue and the receiving campaign or committee must report the contributions.

“FEC rules require ActBlue to itemize every contribution made through its platform, regardless of amount,” the post says.

“Additionally, FEC reports often lump multiple donors with the same name together,” the post continues. “This can make it difficult to easily identify which contributions should be associated with each individual donor, especially donors with common names.”

Rapini said whether the suspicious donation patterns come from “sloppy data systems at the FEC” or “nefarious actors laundering money through unsuspecting elderly donors,” an investigation is needed.

“Transparency and accountability are nonnegotiable when it comes to protecting the integrity of our democracy,” he said.

Meta Culpa: Zuckerberg Joins Musk in the Global Fight for Free Speech


By: Jonathan Turley | January 8, 2025

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2025/01/07/meta-culpa-zuckerburg-joins-musk-in-the-global-fight-for-free-speech/

Below is my column in Fox.com on the potentially historic change in policy at Meta to restore free speech protections. As one of the longest and loudest critics of the company over its censorship history, it is admittedly hard to trust. However, an alliance of Mark Zuckerberg with Elon Musk could prove the most important development for free speech

Here is the column:

“Faithful friends are hard to find.” For the free speech community, those words from Shakespeare have long been tragically true. Indeed, until Elon Musk bought Twitter (now X), we were losing ground around the world to an unprecedented anti-free speech coalition of government, corporate, media, and academic interests. Now, Musk may have added a major new ally that could help turn the tide for free speech: Mark Zuckerberg.

In a new video, Meta’s CEO announced that the company would adopt X standards and restore free speech protections across Facebook, Instagram, and Meta platforms. Meta will also end its third-party fact-checking program, introduce a ‘community notes’ system, and focus on removing criminal and fraudulent material—the very guidelines proposed by some of us in prior years.

For the free speech community, it was like the United States entering World War II to support Great Britain. Where Musk stopped the progress of the global anti-free speech movement, Zuckerberg could actually help us regain ground around the world.

As one of Zuckerberg’s most vocal critics over free speech, it is admittedly hard to trust. We all love redemptive sinners, but it would be more impressive if the redemption preceded the apprehension.

So allow me a brief cathartic moment…

In the last few years, a mix of House investigations and litigation has forced more of the censorship system under the Biden Administration into public view. That is expected to draw even greater attention with the continued discovery in Missouri v. Biden, showing years of false statements about the extent of this government-corporate alliance across social media platforms.

In my recent book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, I wrote about Zuckerberg and Meta’s record on censorship, including their failure (until recently) to release the Facebook files.

Meta resisted efforts to uncover this evidence for years, even after Musk released the Twitter Files and revealed a censorship system described by one court as perfectly “Orwellian.”

While Zuckerberg portrayed Meta as an unwilling partner in this censorship system in his video, he and the company ignored many years of objections from many of us regarding the critical role the company plays in targeting and censoring opposing viewpoints. Facebook even ran a creepy ad campaign to try to convince young people to embrace what they call “content modification” as part of their evolution with technology. It did not work.

When the anti-free speech movement targeted Musk, Zuckerberg did nothing for years. Fearing that other companies might restore free speech protections, members of Congress, including now Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), sent a chilling letter to Facebook stating that it should not even consider such a move or risk becoming “part of our ongoing oversight efforts.”

In a November 2020 Senate hearing, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), D-Conn., warned Zuckerberg and other CEOs that he and his Senate colleagues would not tolerate any “backsliding or retrenching” by “failing to take action against dangerous disinformation.”

While Musk defied those threats, the pressure seemed to work with Zuckerberg. It was not until the Republicans won both houses and the White House that Zuckerberg and Meta decided that free speech was worth fighting for.

In his exclusive interview with Fox News, Meta’s chief global affairs officer, Joel Kaplan, admitted that the Trump election changed the situation for Meta: “We have a new administration coming in that is far from pressuring companies to censor and [is more] a huge supporter of free expression.”

It is a chilling statement if one thinks of what might have happened if Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, arguably the most anti-free speech ticket in history, had won. The suggestion is that the new spring at Meta would have turned into a frozen tundra for free speech.

Around the world, free speech is in a free fall. Speech crimes and censorship have become the norm in the West. A new industry of “disinformation” experts has commoditized censorship, making millions in the targeting and silencing of others. An anti-free speech culture has taken root in government, higher education, and the media.

We will either hold the line now or we will lose this indispensable right for future generations. Zuckerberg could make this a truly transformative moment but it will take more than a passing meta-culpa.

We need Zuckerberg now more than ever. So, with that off my chest, I can get to what I have longed to say: Mr. Zuckerberg, welcome to the fight.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Sue, Baby, Sue: Trump Plan to “Un-Ban” the Biden Drilling Order Could Prove Difficult


By: Jonathan Turley | January 8, 2025

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2025/01/07/sue-baby-sue-trump-plan-to-un-ban-the-biden-drilling-order-could-prove-difficult/

Oil Drilling Facility

After a presidential campaign where both President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris pushed back on claims that they were trying to shut down much of the fossil fuel industry, Biden waited until the final days of his administration to ban oil and gas drilling over 670 million acres of America’s coastline. President-elect Donald Trump responded that“It’s ridiculous. I’ll un-ban it immediately. I have the right to un-ban it immediately.” It will likely be more difficult than a simple “un-ban” order. Environmental groups will likely push a “sue, baby, sue” campaign to counter Trump’s “drill, baby, drill.”

In his statement, Biden justified the move to counter the “climate crisis.” White House announcement stated that “President Biden has determined that the environmental and economic risks and harms that would result from drilling in these areas outweigh their limited fossil fuel resource potential.”

The question is whether the order can handcuff Trump in pursuing one of the main parts of his campaign platform to unleash America’s fossil fuel resources.

This is all familiar ground.

Biden acted under Section 12(a) of the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), which states that the president “may, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the Outer Continental Shelf.”

As noted in a Congressional Research Service report there is an ongoing debate over whether presidents can reverse the withdrawals of prior presidents. Trump faced that question in 2017 when he sought to overturn a ban by President Barack Obama in order to open up Alaska’s Beaufort and Chukchi seas and some parts of the Atlantic to oil and gas exploration. Two years later, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska struck down Trump’s order. While acknowledging that the law is ambiguous, it did not find express authority for such reversals. Litigation ran out the clock and Biden later overturned Trump’s executive order.

So, there are grounds to assert this authority of reversal, but it will take years in court. The alternative and preferred route would be Congress. This is an issue that should ultimately rest with Congress. This ambiguous law is unfortunately common in poorly crafted provisions giving presidents sweeping authority. Sen. Mike Lee (R., Utah), chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has already pledged to “push back using every tool at our disposal.”

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


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Departing Gifts

A.F. Branco | on January 7, 2025 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-departing-gifts/

Metal Of Freedom and the Devil
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2025

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Joe Biden is handing out Medals of Freedom like candy to the very people trying to take Americans’ freedom away, such as Hillary Clinton, Soros, and Liz Cheney. Biden would give on to the devil if he could.

Steve Bannon and Jack Posobiec on George Soros Receiving Presidential Medal of Freedom: “They are Spitting in Your Face on the Way Out” (VIDEO)

David Greyson – The Gateway Pundit – Jan 4, 2025

War Room founder Steve Bannon talked with Jack Posobiec on Saturday regarding Biden giving George Soros the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
“George Soros in the freakin White House today getting the civilian equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor, your thoughts?” Bannon asked.
“I applaud the fact that Joe Biden is finally admitting who has been in charge this entire time,” Posobiec said.
“They are the people who have been in charge. They are the people who have been calling the shots when Joe Biden was catatonic,” Posobiec continued.
Bannon had said that the Biden regime is using the last few remaining days to try and sabotage President Trump by sending officials around the world to various countries. READ MORE

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

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

Pathetic Schumer Bashes Voters: ‘They Didn’t Realize How Much We Did for Them’”


By: Daphne Moon | January 6, 2025

Read more at https://thepatriotchronicles.com/news-for-you/pathetic-schumer-bashes-voters-they-didnt-realize-how-much-we-did-for-them/

In a stunning admission, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer offered up an explanation for his party’s drubbing in the 2024 elections. According to Schumer, voters simply “didn’t realize how much” the Democratic Party had done for them during their time in power. This shocking revelation came during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” where host Kristen Welker pointed out that Democrats had suffered historic losses, with President-elect Donald Trump winning both the Electoral College and the popular vote.

Schumer blamed his party’s defeat on a failure to focus on the needs of working families in America and to show enough empathy towards their struggles. He cited the passing of legislation like the CHIPS Plus Act and efforts to lower the cost of prescription drugs as examples of the Democrats’ commitment to helping the average American. But according to Schumer, this message didn’t reach voters, and the party also failed to show enough concern for their well-being.

But what Schumer fails to mention is the widespread criticism of the Biden-Harris administration’s handling of the economy, with many Democratic strategists and pundits pointing to this as the root cause of their defeat. Not only did Trump gain 2.5 million more votes than in 2020, but Vice President Kamala Harris also saw a massive drop in her vote count compared to Biden’s numbers in 2020. She even failed to match Trump’s gains in three of the seven key swing states and in 80% of counties nationwide.

Despite this overwhelming evidence of a strong showing for Trump and a lackluster one for the Democrats, Schumer tried to spin the narrative in his party’s favor. He claimed that voters simply didn’t realize how much Democrats had done for them and that the media should focus on showing this to them in the future.

But it’s clear that Democrats are out of touch with the American people. Instead of addressing the concerns of the average working family, they chose to focus on talking about the details of their legislation, neglecting to show empathy and concern for the struggles of everyday Americans.

WATCH

With Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race and the subsequent endorsement of Kamala Harris, questions arose about whether the Democrats would hold a primary. But despite never winning any delegates, Harris was able to secure enough support from Democratic National Convention (DNC) delegates to become the party’s presumptive nominee. This just goes to show the lack of democracy and true representation within the Democratic Party.

Schumer’s attempt to explain away his party’s losses as a result of voters not realizing their accomplishments is a feeble attempt to shift the blame from the Democratic Party’s failures. It’s time for Democrats to wake up to the reality that the American people do not support their extreme policies and instead focus on addressing the needs and concerns of everyday Americans.

Tag Cloud